Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[methylatedspirit]

Does "creative" used in the context of describing a person or their work mean anything?

[wierd]

Not in the modern parlance, as it is over-used and diluted.

It *USED* to mean prolific with the creation of new inventions, crafts, or ideas, that exhibit innate novelty.

Nothing is really all that novel these days, and I blame art critics that keep insisting that every Jackson Pollock knock-off is "creative" and "inspiring" when they have no fucking clue either, and just want to appear sophisticated.  This has bred an entire upper-crust of sophists that have no fucking clue what creativity even is, who call everything creative.

[scriver]

Pretty creative language you've got there

[wierd]

Cute.

However, I have seen very deep philosophically inspired bits of art get sidelined in favor of party colored vomit on a canvas, because it was "formulaic, and unoriginal", and "slavishly adherent to technique", even though the subject matter of the art was astoundingly deep, because the critics had no clue what they were looking at.

These are the same kind of critics that proclaim the incremental improvements of the iphone line as "Astounding", "innovative" and "Game changing!" even though the only real difference between the prior model and the current one is a bigger processor and more eMMC baked in. (woooo.. They even look the freaking same.)

This is not even just me making this observation either.  While the guy was absolutely bugnuts, Szukalsky had even more scathing things to say about them, and his work really *IS* creative.

[methylatedspirit]

I am currently holding a burning plastic pen in my hand. What am I breathing in? Also, why the hell is it burning for so long?

[Baffler]

I am currently holding a burning plastic pen in my hand. What am I breathing in? Also, why the hell is it burning for so long?

I don't know why it burns so long but as far as what you're breathing in the answer is "nothing good." Here is a partial list.

[Yoink]

How common are demolition derbies in the US?
Are the participating drivers (possibly part-time) professionals on some sort of touring circuit, or just whoever shows up with a bomb-y car and the bottle to get amongst it?

[Hanslanda]

They're semi-common. I predict I could find one here or in Arkansas pretty much whenever. They always had a bit of a Southern/MidWest vibe though. I don't think they're common in most NE or Western states.

And IIRC, you basically just show up with a POS and a driver license and probably an entry free. I suspect helmets and such are mandatory.

[scriver]

What about stunt/crash cages?

[Parsely]

There usually aren't crash cages because the speeds are really low compared to racing competitions and cars are very unlikely to roll over and collapse on the driver, it's also unlikely for large objects like arena barriers to penetrate the car, things that crash cages mitigate.

What's more important is the drivers being safe by not driving into people's driver side door, and wearing a helmet and using padding so that when you bounce against the interior of your own car it doesn't hurt as much.

http://www.harrisoncofair.com/demorules.html

It looks like people are more worried about the car leaking dangerous fluids or catching on fire than anything else. Notice that none of the derby cars have glass either.

[Egan_BW]

Live in the south and have never encountered one, gone to one, or known where one was happening. Also I hate loud things, excitement, and venturing far from home, which happens to be in the middle of hive of hippie liberals who most likely are not the biggest fans of things like demolition derbies and shooting ranges and, you know, redneck things.

[Yoink]

Live in the south and have never encountered one, gone to one, or known where one was happening. Also I hate loud things, excitement, and venturing far from home, which happens to be in the middle of hive of hippie liberals who most likely are not the biggest fans of things like demolition derbies and shooting ranges and, you know, fun.

FTFY.
I've met plenty of hippies and such who liked fun, actually. In fact the one time I got to go shooting in the States was with a lesbian couple. Go figure.


Thanks for the replies, guys! I am not entirely sold on the viability of "demolition derby driver" as a career, but I'd love to give it a shot someday nonetheless. Not sure how I'd support myself through the off-periods, though. Such as whenever my wreck of a car became an actual wreck.

[Hanslanda]

As a mechanic obviously.

[Rolan7]

Can the nervous system somehow circulate certain drugs to the brain?  I'll leave the drug in question to the imagination, though we were really just discussing it in theory.

My DND friends for some reason accepted instantly that applying the drug to one's eyes would affect the vision center of the brain first.  I pointed out that blood circulation doesn't work that way, and the... "expert" insisted that the entire nervous system is made of tubes of liquid which carry chemicals around.

Which is *technically* true, in that nerves are apparently bundled together in housings which contain chemicals.  He kept trying to "explain" the nervous system as tubes containing cerobospinal fluid which carries signals by ciculating chemicals.  Which is... nng, I'm oddly irritable about this, I should probably stop.

I guess I'm just curious now whether these nerve bundles even circulate chemicals whatsoever.  It seems like they transfer to and from the bloodstream, more than around the body...

Also tell me I'm correct that taking a drug in the eye wouldn't make a difference

[wierd]

wouldnt a direct injection into the eye do nothing but cause blindness? (and an unsafe change in intraocular pressure?)

to get something into the visual processing center, you would need to go through the back of the skull.  If we consider that the drug migrates through diffusion, wouldn't it impact the olfactory bulb first, due to proximity?

Kids these days...


If you wanted drugs to freely circulate around the brain, the best way would be to contaminate the cerebral spinal fluid, then have them take a nap. 
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4016637/
https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/how-sleep-clears-brain

Some drugs can cross the blood-brain barrier.  Others can cross as a result of purposeful irritation/injury to arterial walls in the brain.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26486344

SO--

You have a few options that are realistic. 

1) This envenomating actor does it directly through the skull, to contaminate the CSF
2) It envenomates you through the bloodstream, then projects high intensity sound at you so that its venom can get into your brain.


Either one would be adequate.  Both are likely to do you some serious collateral along with it

enjoy.


However, for the sake of argument----

Let's assume that the optic nerve bundle is able to diffuse CSF efficiently and rapidly. (which it doesn't. It's a downstream tributary of that circulation network.) First, it would pass through the hypothalamus, then the thalamus, THEN it would reach the visual cortex.  See these handy anatomical charts.







The thalamus and hypothalamus are associated with sensory integration, and the processing of sensory signals into sensory perception, as well as the encoding and recovery of memories, and the regulation of the limbic system.

https://medicalartlibrary.com/thalamus-hypothalamus/

SO-- if we took the concensus of your group at face value-- that a pathogen can interact with the brain via diffusion through the optic nerve and optic chasm spaces, it would not make you see things.  It would make you very confused, agitated, and likely make it hard for you to breathe, swallow, stand, and a number of other functions associated with sensory integration with the cerebellum and spinal cord-- LONG before it reached your visual center.