Not even an outlet, just an extension cord and surge protector shaped like 2 outlets.

I've got a surge protector under my desk that cost less (and one behind the tv, and . . .) came with more outlets, and USB plugs, a known rating for maximum surge stopped, and it even has fairly standard holes on the back to mount to exposed screw heads. Like telephones, surge protectors have has these holes on them for years; people just don't use them for mounting purposes.

Since you bring up AA, you might want to look at the 12 steps? I don't agree with them, but the premise is that you have to admit that you suffer from a disorder and that this disorder doesn't have to be the center definition of your life.

Survivors did survive something, again, state of being. But those survivors don't walk around saying "I am breast cancer" . . . "I am a breast cancer survivor." sure, they say that.

It's become correct, but it shouldn't be. "I suffer from bipolar disorder" should be the correct phrase. Hungry is a state of being, one can be that; as is being depressed, but no one says "I'm depression" (one is a state of being, the other is a illness that causes that state of being more often). One might be having a bipolar episode, in which case the phrase might be correct, but they are not constantly in one state or the other if treatment is working. There is no reason to allow mental illnesses to be a label that defines a characteristic about a person any more than high sodium or high blood pressure does. They are all medical disorders, they are all things one deals with from time of diagnosis and usually before that, but they do not need to be labels.

Someone with some mod points throw them at this AC. The stats posted, uncited, by the OP are vague and, if true, self selected as the AC points out.

Because there are roughly 3 times more people than there were 60 years ago?

Since they don't cite which study they are talking about, I can't begin to pick apart it's actual problems. In 2010, there was a study (damned if Scholar isn't finding it right now) about SSRI treatment of 'mild to moderate depression'. It showed, and was widely quoted at the time, that placebos were as effective as SSRI and tricyclics. Sure, sounds damning, except that the definition of 'mild depression' is as vague as the rest of your post makes it sound.

Severe depression, on the other hand, is not vague and "I'm feeling run down". It's "I can't get out of bed, and a general practitioner has ruled out other issues, and I just want to die so can someone hand me that gun because I don't feel like getting up to get it." Yes, JAMA published research has shown that placebos need to be given in studies to see that antidepressants are actually working. Other studies show that, in meta-analysis, TCAs and SSRIs do work; though by narrow margins. And if the article in 2010 was the Kirsch one, you can read the abstract here on what the data says when corrected for what the patients reported or doctor measured (i can't read the article from here) their depression symptoms to be.

In total, you remain wrong in thinking that the statement of "the use of the scientific method in psychology is crap" has any merit. Reading a pop-psy article of course skims over the actual details and avoids bringing up what the statistical values were; that would confuse readers who want it condensed into bite sized bits to throw around. But for gods sake, don't cite wiki in an article complaining about the scientific method.

Actually, in both cases if your behavior is causing you harm, you are not nutty or eccentric, you are mentally ill. The qualifier of the DSM has, and remains, that the behavior is causing harm. Hear voices that aren't there, but they just are normal conversations or Jesus/Batman telling you to do good deeds? Not a problem unless you want it to go away. Same voices telling you that people are after you and that you need to hurt other people? That's a mental illness. Same for behavioral problems, like narcissistic personality disorder. Someone poor might be called an asshole, someone rich might be called driven, but a good psychiatrist wouldn't care about that. If it is causing harm in relationships with other people or to the patient, it's a disorder and illness.

As for who gets to determine whether it's causing harm, that's still not an issue. The patient, 99% of the time. The doctor has input, and can overrule with 72-hour holds if they feel someone is a danger to themself or others but that is the only time that a doctor gets to determine whether it's a treatable illness or just a personality trait.

And any person who says that needs some behavior modification anyways. No one walks around saying "I'm heart disease" or "I'm the flu" when they are suffering from those disorders or illnesses. Only mental health and diabetes have that distinction. And it's a bloody stupid one that continues to allow people with mental illnesses to continue to blame their illness for everything, because they treat it as a label. It's stupid for the reason you bring up as well, because it allows others to blame that one thing instead of anything else.

If people with mental illnesses treat it as an illness, not a defining feature of themself . . . well, there is a reason that's part of behavioral therapy already.

My notebooks from highschool were filled with that sort of stuff. Listen to anything from the early goth to late industrial music, from the Cure through NIN to Assemblage 23, and some of the lyrics would disturb anyone. Metal music has entire genres devoted to it.

Point being, writing is therapy for some people. Putting the hate, rage, depression, anger, isolation, abuse, whatever into words makes it real. That's a reason writing therapy, and music therapy, are proven counseling methods. Getting those emotions out, on paper, where they can be looked at and understood is a good thing, I agree. But it can be counseling too.

I see something different in the story being told. The characters spend a bit of time building something amazing, and then worry that it's going to be taken away from them. They set out to figure out the reason for that.

Maybe because I've read his blog, or just because of http://xkcd.com/931/ that I see something darker in the story he's telling. Maybe it's just a metaphor, all good stories are. But that, as of now, the characters are almost visually back to where they started seems . . . poignant.

Can still be used as case law, or persuasive precedent, in other cases. "Look, your honor, here is how another judge ruled and his reasoning. You don't have to agree, but you should consider this ruling."

If, during a reasonable search, something else illegal is found while conducting the search in a lawful manner, that evidence is valid. See cases where the cops show up for a domestic dispute, and arrest everyone on drug charges because the heroin/crack/meth is sitting on the table. If, on the other hand, the warrant was just for the computer and drives on the suspect's desk, and a cop decided to go looking through the sock drawer and found some weed, that should be inadmissible.

Wrong. The government can force you to turn over the 'key to the safe'. They know you have a safe, they know you store stuff in it, they have reason the believe it's relevant to the case at hand, they get search warrant and you either unlock it or face contempt. As long as they know it's your safe, they can compel you to open it. They can compel you to open your filing cabinet, or diary too. Just because you wrote it doesn't make it safe under the 5th.

yeah, that sounds about right.

Keys to the safe. It's been a long history of rulings saying that if the cops know or have reason to believe you put something in a safe, and they have reason the believe that those documents are valid to the case at hand, they can compel you to open it with a warrant. Your diary and handwritten notes are not protected from a search if they are sitting on your desk, and they are not protected if the cops have reason to believe that you put them in a safe either.

Difference in this case appears to be that the cops only know that there is encrypted data, but they can't provide reasonable evidence that the defendant put it there.