Interestingly, extremely hard core internet users activate neurological pathways highly similar to those seen in substance abuse. Unlike the baroness, I will actually cite source: http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0020708Lim3 said:She got served by Dr. Ben Goldacre.
In any event i think saying addiction is a bit much; i get addicted to new games for short periods of time, but appart from that I'm fine.
so..it literally is fox new put to paper then.AnarchistFish said:Fuck The Sun. They would come out with something like this. What else do you expect from a Rupert Murdoch tabloid? Biased, scaremongering crock of shit
Two can play at that game Baroness. Its time for another round of baseless "SCIEEEEEEENCE"!Earnest Cavalli said:..."Screen technologies cause high arousal which in turn activates the brain system's underlying addiction. This results in the attraction of yet more screen-based activity," Greenfield claims...
lololl nicegbemery said:Two can play at that game Baroness. Its time for another round of baseless "SCIEEEEEEENCE"!Earnest Cavalli said:..."Screen technologies cause high arousal which in turn activates the brain system's underlying addiction. This results in the attraction of yet more screen-based activity," Greenfield claims...
Claim 1. "Sun Exposure causes high arousal which in turn activates the brain system's underlying addiction. This results in the attraction of yet more sun exposure activity," gbemery claims.
Claim 2. "Writing causes high arousal which in turn activates the brain system's underlying addiction. This results in the attraction of yet more pen and paper-based activities," gbemery claims.
Claim 3. "Sex causes high arousal which in turn activates the brain system's underlying addiction. This results in the attraction of yet more bedroom, kitchen, shower, automobile, sometimes public-based activities of varying degrees of restraint, positions, and fantasies," gbemery claims.
Claim 4. "Thinking of things to randomly put here causes high arousal which in turn activates the brain system's underlying addiction. This results in the attraction of yet more ranting-based activities," gbemery claims.
Now someone publish my "scientific" claims of which I have no evidence of any kind....that I'm willing to publish because it should all be so obviously obvious, and lets take lunch...man "science" is hard sometimes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Greenfield,_Baroness_GreenfieldMaxwellEdison said:The Sun, someone who calls themselves a Baroness, and no data cited.
Damn, I'm convinced.
It means that she is the hereditary heir to a Barony - a section of land. I'd guess that she is the Baroness of Greenfield, wherever that is.Earnest Cavalli said:That's a pretty damning claim, but then again, Greenfield is a baroness (seriously, what does that mean?).
this.Goldacre
I'm a physics major, so do the monkeys playing the harpoon have any impact on the penguin in the washing machine? If so, have the monkeys observed the penguins before playing the harpoon? Is the uncertainty between whether the penguin and its position in the washing machine times the uncertainty of the position of the monkeys playing the harpoon greater than ħ/2? This is very important.War Penguin said:I don't believe a word she says. I've been playing videogames since I was a kid and I never had any impaired reasoning because of this. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to throw this penguin into the washing machine while the monkeys play the harpoon. Shpoople!
There's not a direct impact when the penguin enters the machine. The monkeys don't observe the machine but the sound of the machine with the penguin in it affects the way they play the harpoon.mrdude2010 said:I'm a physics major, so do the monkeys playing the harpoon have any impact on the penguin in the washing machine? If so, have the monkeys observed the penguins before playing the harpoon?War Penguin said:I don't believe a word she says. I've been playing videogames since I was a kid and I never had any impaired reasoning because of this. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to throw this penguin into the washing machine while the monkeys play the harpoon. Shpoople!
It's a common misconception that the whole equation is greater than ħ/2, but the truth is that it's actually less than ħ/2. Lot's of people forget to carry the 4.Is the uncertainty between whether the penguin and its position in the washing machine times the uncertainty of the position of the monkeys playing the harpoon greater than ħ/2?
I totally agree and I'm glad you came to me for answers.This is very important.