As I answered before, that study only shows ansiolytic and anti-depressive effects related to the hippocampal neurogenesis induced by marihuana consumption. No evidence of effects on memory or the neocortex is shown. Sorry, but that study, while interesting, has almost nothing to do with "mind expansion".

Actually, I didn't expect to be modded up. As you say, I'm talking about my experience. That said, the people I talk about are all over the spectrum, so few if any fit the "moron burnout" term: several have university careers, for example. If you are going to accuse me of jumping to conclusions (which you did), at least take care of not doing the same.

While we are at it, the NIH study talks about neurogenesis in the hippocampus, which can be a good thing, but I don't remember the hippocampus being related to the neocortex besides its memory function. But the study doesn't research memory effects, but anxiolitic and anti-depressive ones. Since there is no mention of marihuana's effects on memory and the neo-cortex I can only conclude that this study doesn't show anything about mind expansion.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I didn't establish any causality about marihuana being nocive, I just said I hadn't seen any evidence of the mind expansion asserted by the AC I answered to. I didn't say anything about other psychedelic drugs either.

I would talk about your being paranoid, but you might consider it another attack on your beloved plants (anxiety attacks and paranoia having occurred some times after consuming marihuana -perhaps not directly related-), so I will let you have your fun with them and keep waiting for evidence of mind expansion.

I don't know what kind of expansion you are talking about. After years of watching pot smokers I can't actually say their minds have expanded at all. Some of them seem to have lost a bit of functionality, actually.

I can only hope that good shit happens to you on the other days of the week too, and that the attitude conducive to freedom and liberty has something to do with it as well. Otherwise, you live quite a pitiful life.

And _that_ is why "Guide to the Bible" is a referenced compilation of specialists' works instead of original work ;)

About the I Kings reference... do you have any evidence about the different measures or are you just applying "common sense"?

I suggest you read Asimov's "Guide to the Bible" which, as it itself states, is not original research but a collection of the data Bible researchers have put together through the years.

Because they can't. If they could, do you really have such a high opinion of them to think that they wouldn't?

It doesn't really matter. Think what you will, taxes are needed. We may discuss the amount, but not the fact.

So it is ok if I put some Tippex on your ink and write something else? It's the same issue.

No, "my own" is the hard disk, as it is. Changing it isn't different than overwriting my printed papers with anything else (even if using Tippex).

Data is not property, that's true. But the magnetic fields on my physical magnetic media are. If you want me to change them you'd better have a good reason... or a judge ordering me to.

My point is, did the drone actually enter the property? They state it was still over public land. If that's true, there is no basis for the "sneaking into" argument. Could they still be prosecuted por other reasons? Perhaps, but that's not what I'm asking about.

Did that drone sneak onto that private property?

Excuse me if I don't hold my breath. I'm not an octopus, mind you ;)

What would you need to not consider it "just the opinion of arrogant men"? Actually, I think that considering the human/mammal eye to be suboptimal shows more humbleness than arrogance, at least if you consider the millennia during which humans have asserted their being at the cusp of everything. And then it was discovered that the Earth wasn't the center of the solar system, that the solar system wasn't the center of the universe... I really think that finding out that the human is inherently suboptimal is quite humble. But that's just my opinion.

What would you call a retina that has the photoreceptors hidden behind the axons and the blood vessels so the blood vessels and the axons are inside the sphere area corresponding to the photoreceptors? Compare it to the octopus eye which has no extra layers between the light and the photoreceptors.

They are flawed since they could be much more efficient "just" by having the layers in the right order, as in cephalopods. It just happens that evolution didn't have a plan at all (that's what evolution does, anyway) and, when animals needed better night sight, patches like reflective areas in the front of the eye had to be evolved, because turning back and redoing it all again wasn't an option any more.

It is the least worst that survived, not the best. If it was the best we would copy it down to the details, and I know of no artificial camera that puts anything between the lens and the photosensible material that isn't really needed there. At least, I don't know of any camera with a blind spot designed into it.

I'm sure qualifying people so easily that helps your arguments a lot. Anyway, I find it impressive because it certainly isn't easy: otherwise someone would have probably done it decades ago. And, if the article tries to make it less vain, please tell me, why on Earth did the previous AC (I can't tell whether it was you) write this?:

Either the article is celebrating an achievement and the quote is right, or it isn't as you write now and the quote was wrong, your choice :)