The state of the art in the field is medication. The drugs have changed over time, but drugs have been the first line of treatment for at least 40 years now. I have both experienced myself, and witnessed in others the indescribable suffering and agony that can occur due to drug side-effects, and those that appear due to withdrawal of the drugs after long-term use. Psychiatry would have you believe, I suppose, that the central nervous system is endlessly plastic, and can rapidly adapt and respond to medications being added and removed as one pleases. For the majority, perhaps this is true - but there is a sizable minority who find their mental health deteriorate the longer they are on the medications, and then discover (to their horror) that they cannot discontinue the drug without terrifying mental and physical symptoms, far worse than the original illness. If it should happen to you, psychiatry absolutely _will not_ have your back, or really anything to offer you, as even the drug manufacturers themselves do not know how the medications affect the brain long term.
One might argue that any treatment has risks, but after experiencing what I've experienced, I think people should understand what kind of risk they're really taking. For my part, I do not consider this kind of medication Russian roulette to be a "basic health care service."
There is no "chemical imbalance" other than what the psychiatric drugs create, and the issue of drug dependence and withdrawal is systematically ignored by psychiatry. It has been shown that long-term use of the medications prescribed by psychiatrists can cause significant changes in brain structure and function that may be difficult or impossible to reverse, and that in susceptible populations attempts to discontinue certain medications can lead to withdrawal reactions that far exceed the severity of the original illness, even with slow tapering. For these people, there is virtually no assistance from the psychiatric community available (aside from a few "renegade" practitioners), and certainly none available from the pharmaceutical industry. Nobody really knows exactly how the drugs work, or what's happening when one tries to withdraw and things begin to go wrong. Keep in mind that in all likelihood you will be blamed for the withdrawal symptoms, not the drug, because acknowledging a withdrawal reaction would force the profession to admit that they have no idea what to do in such a situation.
Huh? A simple bandpass filter does the trick. Higher sampling rate, higher frequency filter. You realize that there are radio frequency filters, which are far higher frequencies than sound?
The maximum achievable dynamic range of an ADC is determined by the bit depth of the converter. In practice, this dynamic range is limited by the steepness of the roll-off of the anti-aliasing filter - you can have a 16 bit converter, which implies 16*6 = 96 dB of dynamic range, but if your low pass filter only rolls off 12 dB before you hit the Nyquist frequency, your dynamic range will be limited to 12 dB. The OP is working under the assumption that the "final" sample rate, as indicated by the information on the
The higher your sampling rate, the less aliasing you get. At 44.1 sample rate has only three data points to describe a 15 kHz wave's shape. That's not nearly enough. I'd guess that if you quadrupled the sampling rate (and raised the number of stored bits) you could sample an analog high quality studio-produced audio tape and nobody would be able to tell the difference between the two.
Oh, BTW, the GP was joking.
I don't know why you say that three data points isn't nearly enough, as the whole point of Nyquist's theorem is that it is, if the signal is perfectly bandlimited. If you mean that it's probably not enough to reproduce a 15 kHz wave accurately given the imperfections of most consumer 44.1 kHz ADC or DAC systems, I think I'd agree with that.
There is an issue I haven't seen mentioned in the article or in the discussion, but that I hope will become more common knowledge: many of these anti-depressant and anti-psychotic medications can cause devastating withdrawal symptoms upon attempting to reduce or discontinue them. I've never spoken with any mental health professional who has acknowledged openly that such effects exist, but all the studies are available on the Web, along with patient support websites like www.paxilprogress.com. It seems some drug companies have started to put small blurbs about "discontinuation syndromes" in the list of drug side-effects in an attempt to mitigate their liability.
I believe all psychoactive medications are, to a greater or lesser degree depending upon individual physiology, going to have the same issues of drug tolerance, dependence, and withdrawal that many "street drugs" have. When one is modifying the sensitivity of serotonin, dopamine, or norepenephrine receptors with chronic consumption of a medication, causing them to up or down-regulate depending on the drug, when the drug is removed there is going to be a massive over or under sensitivity situation - the same kind of situation that arises in benzodiazepine or opiate withdrawal. How could one expect different?
Decades after the introduction of the typical antipsychotics the mental health industry grudgingly recognized that iatrogenic effects like akathisia, tardive dyskinesia, and neuroleptic malignant syndrome could result from the use of the medications - but perhaps because anti-psychotics were generally only prescribed to the seriously mentally ill who could be expected to be on them for life the withdrawal syndromes did not get a great deal of exposure. Now with atypical antipsychotics prescribed more and more for off-label uses, and SSRIs, many "less severe" cases may find that their medication becomes less effective over time, and then find out to their horror that there is no easy way to cease taking the pill. As I mentioned, the mental health professionals I've encountered have in general flatly denied that any of these dependence issues exist, which brings to mind the quote from The Life of Galileo: "He who does not know the truth is only a fool. He who knows he truth and calls it a lie is a criminal."
Before the trailers there are multiple announcements (some quite amusing) that spell out very clearly that texting, talking, or using your bright-as-twenty-suns cellphone in any capacity are NOT tolerated.
In her message she says she was using her phone as a flashlight to find her seat (one of the most annoying things you can do in a theater), so chances are she came in mid-movie and didn't see the trailers or the warnings.
But then at 0:52 she essentially admits she was texting.
"...the US Air Force announced the successful test of their advanced X37B space plane, which is widely regarded as a next-generation super weapon that is even more dangerous than atomic bomb."
Strictly speaking, the X-37B doesn't do much of anything in and of itself other than go round and round the Earth, so I'm not sure the above is exactly an apples to apples comparison.
...uses genetically engineered viruses as templates for nanoscale electronic components...
What could possibly go wrong?!