- Should iPods be banned from crosswalks? Bloggers respond, and so does Jake Young.
- A model of how the brain processes time.
- Do cigarette warning labels work? Yep.
- One reason to believe that IQ can be improved.
- Do you like experimental psychology? How about experimental Philosophy?
- Encephalon will be at Mind Hacks next week. Submit now or forever hold your peace.
P.S.: Sorry for the lack of "in other news" posts this week -- we've had a perfect storm of child illnesses and technical glitches. We should be back on a regular publication schedule for the foreseeable future.
- Log in to post comments
Regarding cigarette warning labels, the ones in Ireland state rather boldly that "Smoking Kills". But the ones in Thailand are the best; a photo that is half the size of the pack of one of the following. Someone on a respirator, an autopsied smoker (lungs being pointed out), or a person smoking while holding a baby. The are great, we got some just to distribute to our smoker pals.
Banning iPods will get me a lot of tickets because I'm not taking mine off. it get me to work, through work, and home from work. banning the ipod is a knee jerk reaction from old men with too much time on their hands and too much money to fund their crusades.
People have always been walking in front of busses, that's why it's a cliche. The ipod hasn't changed anything.
It would be a lot easier to stuck a pole in every street corner and keep the fire going. If somebody does something bad like *yuck* listen to music while all the rest is just minding their dull and usual "traffic spotting" it would be a lot faster just to burn (the witch).
Smokers are even worse. I hate when I'm just minding my own business in the sidewalk and some guy comes along smoking like a chimney. It disturbs my daily polution (car escape pipe and the sort) uptake.
I say burn them all !
With regard to the tobacco advertising the pictures (like in Malaysia, cover 1/3 of the front and back of the packs, and contain blue-green and missing bits of a gangrene foot, cancerous lungs and all sorts of stuff. They are the FIRST measure to make a real impact on the uptake, and increased quitting rates. But when the Government makes 60% tax on a packet they are not really going to try to hard. Most of the people in hospital for smoking related illness are also suffering other ailments. Is it the fact that they are easily addicted with addictive personalities, or are they useing smoking as a crutch.
Add to the equation the 20% (I can't remember WHERE I got that figure) of smokers who never suffer ANY smoking related issues, the number that die young and save retirement care costs etc (Hearsay) and I question how much worse of a government is with/without smokers...I am a cynic, as the take on smoking is not THAT far behind the entire health budget. (Exaggeration)
PS. as a disclaimer of my biases, I am a smoker, on a disability pension for a degenerative back problem, suffer from re-curring depression (as a result), and every time I quit (Smoking) I give up or take up another drug regime that de-stabilises me, or end up bed ridden or incapacitated, and bored to death for a few months.. I am also A psych student and well versed on the medical evidence. But by god it is addictive....