Is there a cure for Britain's most dangerous criminals?

Hmmm. Nice idea: shame about the execution:

Is there a cure for Britain's most dangerous criminals?

"They may be mentally ill or they may not be, but have very disorganised ways of thinking. They may not have lost touch with reality but they may have talked themselves into an alternative reality. Like the Royal Marsden [the hospital in London which provides specialist cancer care], we deliver highly specialised long-term care to very disabled people at Broadmoor."

Ms Adshead, you have no right to tell another person that there is an objective reality, which you subscribe to, and to which they should subscribe; and that their reality is aberrant and wrong - and the fact that most people would not murder their family does not make them right. I would point out that in your reality your patients are defective, and wrong. You will never learn anything, if you take that approach, because you must remember that in their reality, you are also defective, and wrong.

Annual global cost of dementia 'more than 1% of GDP'

Should have talked to the poor fuckers while they were still sentient, shouldn't you? It's a lot more difficult to put this sort of thing right than it is to stop it happening, in the first place.

Annual global cost of dementia 'more than 1% of GDP'

Mind you, if my experience is anything to go by, most people can barely hold a conversation of more than 3 exchanges without shitting themselves, anyway.

Revenge of the nerds: Should we listen to futurists or are they leading us towards ‘nerdocalypse’?

I've a confession to make: I nearly found this amusing ("I amuse you? I make you laugh?.." etc). And then I realized that the world is being conducted by, and for the benefit of, people such as the founder of PayPal. There may be other, altogether more interesting things than "the singularity" happening (and if the singularity happens, it will only happen for a small number of people - the ones who sponsored it), but they will never be looked at, for whatever reason.

Revenge of the nerds: Should we listen to futurists or are they leading us towards ‘nerdocalypse’?

Anyway, if you really want a philosophical discussion about what human evolution and AI is likely to look like, then it will have happened long before you realize it. Also, the idea of controlling AI strikes me as bizarre, but I can't quite put my finger on why, yet. Are we able to create something that can teach itself, or learn at an accelerated rate (and is that what we mean by AI, anyway?)? Would we even allow ourselves to create something that was more intelligent than us; and if we did create something more intelligent, would we acknowledge its existence, or would we just stifle it, for fear of what it would achieve, and would we not be terrified of being left behind? And if we create something that's ten times more intelligent (definition, please), than us, should we really assume that it's going to adopt the same model that we have (those who are in charge at the moment had better hope not).

I don't know: put 100 geeks in a room, and all one gets is self-aggrandizing bullshit - the world does not revolve around a couple of hundred moneyed individuals, you pricks. Evolution is about adapting to the shit one is faced with. The idea that one avoids the shit, by design, is the very antithesis of evolution, but it is the model that the founder of PayPal (for example), is following. And what happens when a piece of shit finds its way into one's perfect world? Ummm: the aroma!

Addendum:
I think I know why these monkeys want a super-human intelligence: it's so that they can feed it shit information, and have it construct solutions to the shitty problems that their own behaviour has created. In short, you want something superior to you that you can treat as a slave. Well, I hope it bites you on the arse, you lazy, duplicitous fuckers.

Daily vitamin pill could reduce dementia's effects by up to 50 per cent

I thought this was vaguely interesting...

Daily vitamin pill could reduce dementia's effects by up to 50 per cent

So, we have these (let's face it, mostly elderly), patients, who've probably been ignored for years, owing to their perceived condition. Then, they start receiving regular daily visitations, when the vitamins are administered. Perhaps the person administering the vitamins shares a few words, who knows? And then, every so often, a "scientist" comes along to ask some questions, to see if the vitamins have made any difference. And, fuck me, they have. At least, that's one interpretation of the results.

Another interpretation might be that the regular mental stimulation afforded by the daily visits and occasional interviews had a therapeutic effect. Nothing causes a person's mind to work like actually using that mind, I've noticed. Still, I'm not a scientist, and consequently I know absolutely nothing about anything. Thank God. On the other hand, I know everything there is to know about nothing, which is a great deal - you'd be surprised. And you can be sure that I'll be passing that knowledge on.

Secret services 'must be made more transparent'

I thought this was funny:

Secret services 'must be made more transparent'

I found the bit about "...The more open the Government is, the harder it is for extremist groups to make stories out of silence" particularly amusing, given the rabid stonewalling that the Department of Health and its agencies have subjected people to over the Seroxat farce, and others.

I was also amused by the idea of Government personnel "infiltrating" web forums for the purpose of clarifying how wrong the conspiracy theorists are! Stupid cunts! If only they were able to acknowledge that, given the limited information available, almost any bizarre story may be concocted.

It is impossible to lie effectively. It is impossible to control information. And it is effectively impossible to hide the evidence of one's lies - not having a smoking gun is irrelevant if one is able to compare the story to the outcome, and identify a discrepancy. The problem for government is that when a person believes that they have spotted a flaw in its reasoning it tends not to respond (or if it does respond, it dismisses the perceived flaw as a conspiracy theory!), and no amount of thinktanks can resolve that.

WikiLeaks builds a legal shield in Sweden

Now, I find this even more fascinating than Mr Tampy's magnificent business offer!..

WikiLeaks builds a legal shield in Sweden

So, Wikileaks has identified that it is perceived as a threat to something or other. "Intelligence" services have declared that Wikileaks is a threat to somebody-or-other's "national interests," whatever they might be. So Wikileaks seeks to build a legal wall around itself, just in case the powers that be attempt to attack it through "legitimate" means - this involves establishing itself in a country with strong legal protections.

Now, the Pentagon (for example), has unlimited resources - both in terms of legal expertise and cash. Wikileaks hasn't. Ergo, the Pentagon could embroil Wikileaks in a protracted legal battle, involving any number of allegations, not for the purpose of securing a legal decision, or precedent (although that would be a subsidiary benefit, if achieved, because it would discourage others from following Wikileaks' example), but for the purpose of breaking Wikileaks financially, long before the decision was ever reached. This is called "bargaining in the shadow of the Law".

Alternatively, the Pentagon could approach Wikileaks' service providers, on the quiet, and "arrange" for the services to be withdrawn. This assumes that the Pentagon believes that the Law is an inconvenient myth, of course.

Mind you, what the Pentagon perhaps hasn't considered is that Wikileaks is the least of its problems. After all, the Pentagon doesn't actually exist (from where I'm positioned, anyway), and if it doesn't exist, then it will be able to do nothing, and nobody will be able to take its interests into account, when making their decisions.

Assange says 'enemies' to blame for rape claim

Who does one believe, when one has so little information?

Assange says 'enemies' to blame for rape claim

I suppose that all depends upon where one's interests lie... Would the Pentagon (for example), go to these lengths? Well, if the CIA can undertake MK-ULTRA, then certainly. And then, what do we know about Assange - is our experience of him such that we believe him incapable of this type of thing?

Do you know what? I'll bet you do.

In their element: The science of science

I imagine that it gets harder to discover new stuff if one is restricted to only looking in areas that are likely to make money. And if one needs billions of dollars to make a discovery, then one is looking in the wrong place, I think.

In their element: The science of science

Speaking of "positing questions," here's one for you: why are "the little people" not able to challenge the status quo, if the status quo doesn't work for them? I think we all know the answer to that, don't we?

Man in US sprouts pea plant in his lung

I've heard several different versions of the urban legend, whereby a seed takes root in somebody's stomach. Such a thing is impossible, given the speed at which food is digested, not to mention the small matter of stomach acid. However...

Man in US sprouts pea plant in his lung

Is that fucking weird, or what?

Rogue preachers use 'witch' scares to abuse children

Now, here's a story that intrigues and appalls me, in equal measure. What does a witch do? I mean, one has these preachers denouncing people as witches... how do they (the preachers), know that they are witches? How would anyone know that they were a witch?

Rogue preachers use 'witch' scares to abuse children

OK, so these guys are seemingly making shit up, in order to get sex and serve whatever other impulses that they might have, but presumably the belief that witches exist is founded on something? I'll tell you a story. I was walking with my daughter, not far from where I used to live, in Romford. A couple of kids were playing outside their gate, and my daughter stopped to join in. I forget what it was that they were talking about, maybe something to do with spiders, but I said something completely off-the-cuff that I don't even remember precisely, whereupon the kids' mother, who had just walked outside to see what they were up to, clasped her hands to her head and ran back inside, shrieking to her husband something along the lines of "he's doing it, as well".

Now, this woman was not a first generation black woman, just arrived from some West African country, where juju is the mainstay of people's belief system. She was white, and British. Something I said triggered her. Something her kids talk about triggers her. I wonder if the possibility ever occurred to her that I just stumbled on her trigger, rather than reading her mind or otherwise coming by information that she'd rather keep secret. Do people believe that children are witches because they say whatever comes into their heads, and occasionally trigger stuff that people would rather forget? Do people have fear triggered, and become angry at their children, because they can? Do they punish their children for inadvertently stumbling across their triggers? Do they censor and silence their children, without ever explaining why?

Anyway, that's enough speculation. There are no witches, but there are a lot of very frightened people. How did that happen? And why isn't there an equivalent number of brave people?

Dream academy: Secrets of the subconscious unlocked

LOL... Scroll to the bottom of this piece:

Dream academy: Secrets of the subconscious unlocked

...complete bollox! There are no objective meanings - a dream means precisely what the dreamer believes it to mean (until such time as they place a different interpretation on it).

For example: nudity - this means that one doesn't have any clothes on. The very idea that it's a metaphor for something else just doesn't wash, with me. And even if it was a metaphor, then the whole point of a metaphor is that it means what the individual decides it means - it certainly doesn't have a single, discernible meaning; even if that meaning is generic, in nature.

I mean, don't get me wrong: I love the idea that the unconscious mind (assuming that such a thing exists), untroubled by constant external input, puts together elaborate messages on the offchance that one might remember them consciously when one wakes up, before spending the rest of one's life deconstructing/decoding them! But if one's own unconscious mind had something valuable to say, then wouldn't it just say it - rather than engage in some tedious game of Chinese Whispers? Because it's mimicing society, at large? No, that's too fanciful, isn't it?

Wanted by the CIA: The man who keeps no secrets

Now, I found this quite interesting (which is to say that it distracted me for three minutes, and I regard that as noteworthy):

Wanted by the CIA: The man who keeps no secrets

Personally, I don't think Assange's answers are evasive - they're extraordinarily precise, in fact, given the lack of precision in the questions put. Also, Assange is defending a position (his right to publish classified material), and he's unlikely to invalidate that position.

But speak like a robot? No, hardly. Nobody speaks like a robot (not least because unless AI has been developed, the words that any robot speaks will be the words of its human programmers). And in any case, I don't think any robot would care enough about mankind's antics to bother commenting. It wouldn't even have a concept of caring.

However: secrecy (nobody talks about it much, do they? Arf, arf)... I don't like secrecy - it permits the creation of false realities (I suspect that secrecy is widely used for precisely this reason), when people have enough difficulty identifying what's going on when others are being transparent with the facts as they understand them.

Living with psychosis: 'I'm mad, but not bad'

Personally, I think the "sane" (ie, those who will only repeat what they've been told by officially-sanctioned authorities is "real," irrespective of whether they believe it, much less understand it), are fucking boring. I'd much rather talk to a "nutter," but then I have a rather more flexible view of what is "normal," largely due, I think, to so many people with widely differing views all claiming that what they believed was real. They can't all be right, can they? Or can they?

Living with psychosis: 'I'm mad, but not bad'

Interesting, in this case, that the subject of this piece is determined that her medication is the thing that permits her a "normal" existence - she mentions it several times. I wonder why she doesn't try to take some of the credit, herself...

Botox approved for the prevention of chronic migraine

This'll make you laugh. It did me, anyway:

Botox approved for the prevention of chronic migraine

I was listening to BBC Radio 4, and an item came on the news. I checked the date several times, and having satisfied myself that it wasn't 1 April, I thought I'd poke some fun!

Regrettably, it's not mentioned in the piece cited, above, but in the radio "news" piece, it was said that a trial was carried out based upon "anecdotal" reports by those using Botox for the purpose of losing all expression in their facial muscles also experiencing a reduction in migraines. Now, it was my understanding that the MHRA didn't give a shit about anecdotal evidence, but apparently on the back of these reports, a trial was arranged. And the drug was approved for this secondary purpose.

I look forward to the MHRA deciding that anecdotal evidence of withdrawal problems, suicidality, akathasia, etc, etc, is worth a trial. But, then, it's not the MHRA that carries out the trials, is it? It's (mostly), the companies. The distinction between this case and SSRI adverse events is that there is no money to be made from proving that SSRI are placebos with lots of side effects. Is there?

Addendum:
Is there a direct correlation between the desire to have an expressionless face, and suffering from migraines? Put another way, do people who wish to look like Commander Data suffer migraines at a greater rate of incidence than the wider population?

The science of lying: Why the truth really can hurt

LOL. I don't find it at all difficult to uncover lies - they're self-evident, most of the time.

The science of lying: Why the truth really can hurt

But the creation of false realities, alluded to in the last couple of paras... Networks of lies that assume the status of truth through repetition... One has to have a good memory, photographic in fact, to be a liar, and I've yet to meet anybody who has been bothered to develop their faculties to that extent.

Journey into the unknown: Simulating a trip to Mars

I'm sure there's something profoundly inspiring about this (going to Mars, I mean, not being locked up in single-storey council house with decor circa the 1970s), but I can't think what it is...

Journey into the unknown: Simulating a trip to Mars

The question that keeps pressing itself upon my consciousness is "why?". "Because we can"? No, there must be more to it than that, and the ability to do something is generally a poor justification for actually doing it. "Because we think there's a possibility of finding some valuable commodity, or other, there"? That's more like it. "Because we want to add to mankind's fund of knowledge of the universe"? I don't think so, and in any case, mankind's obsession with facts and knowledge has caused it enough problems, already.

Nope, sorry, you've got me there: I neither know nor care why those men are putting on bright blue boiler suits.

Slovenia 0 - England 1

Yeah, baby, yeah! We are England - we invented Association Football (and Rugby and Cricket and every other game worth playing). We have a population of nearly sixty million and we managed to find eleven who could beat Slovenia, the location of which is a complete mystery to me, which has a population of three million. And we beat them (increasingly nervously, from my perspective), by one goal to nil.

We're fucking ace, we're fucking ace. We're going to win the Cup. Fuck everybody else - we're ace.

Oh, and the US somehow managed to fumble their way to the top of the Group, in order to qualify for the knock-out stages. England deliberately allowed this, because we wanted to meet Argentina in the Quarter Finals, rather than the Final, for some reason that I'll think up, later.

England 0 - Algeria 0

Yep... It was as tedious as the title suggests.

Phobias...

I know that "irrational fears" (they're anything but irrational, but let's not get into that), are no laughing matter for those who experience them, but this one made me chuckle:

Angrophobia - Fear of becoming angry

Can you imagine? I mean to say, getting angry is one of the most obvious and, dare I say, natural (clearly I do dare say), reactions to stimuli. I would argue that it's one of the first reactions that most people make resort to. But, somewhere along the way, someone (society in general, I think, which seems to view anger as indicative of something aberrant), has installed a trigger that leads one to be fearful of venting one's feelings in an overtly angry way...

Jesus! How fucked up!

Oil spill disaster: The guilty parties

I was just reading this:

Oil spill disaster: The guilty parties

What a cluster fuck!

I don't have a pension, and I'm pleased to say that it would be a matter of supreme indifference to me if BP were to go tits uppermost. Thank God Dodgy Dave's got his priorities right, though... I don't imagine there's a civil service pension fund that has BP stock...