Slashdot Mirror

There's even some evidence to suggest that there are other substances in eggs that reduce the body's uptake of cholesterol from eggs. Study: http://nutrition.highwire.org/content/131/9/2358.full.

It would have been more interesting to have more of the responses from the scientists that work there rather than some droid in the marketing department. You can almost picture the person trying to pull out scarfs from a sleeve while trying to change the question.

Cooked and not all meat, for several reasons.
1) Dogs are not wolves. Dogs are domestic animals and have significantly smaller teeth than their forebears. Throughout their time in domesticity they have predominantly eaten what we have - cooked food, and a mix of meat and vegetable matter. We have bred them to be easy to keep on food that is similar to ours. You are encouraged to explore some of the peer-reviewed publications on the matter.

2) Many canids - such as coyotes, jackals, and foxes - are omnivores, and various populations of Canis lupus have current or historical evidence of dietary diversity. See previous link. The dentition of modern dogs is closer to that of omnivorous coyotes than modern wolves.

3) Yes, they have molars. And premolars. They are shown quite nicely in the link you gave. They don't have grinding molars (like most herbivores do), but most non-primate omnivores don't have those. Feel free to examine the dentition of raccoons and brown or black bears for molars of omnivores who don't grind.

4) Wild animals are rarely as healthy as you'd like your domestic dog to be. They die of starvation, illness, exposure, and parasites. So even though wolves ate raw meat, they also didn't live as long as the average dog. In other news, please deworm your dog and have it vaccinated, even though it's "natural" to let it be infested with parasites or die of distemper.

5) Raw meat from a grocery store has a high likelihood of having surface contamination with Salmonella, E. coli, Campylobacter, and other fun pathogens responsible for food-borne illnesses. Dogs are not immune to these, and they can range from merely unpleasant to fatal. Freshly killed raw meat doesn't have the same level of surface contamination that grocery store meat does (industrial farming and meat packaging are different from fresh-killed whatever), but wild game is at higher risk for parasites. Feel free to disregard the cooked-meat warning if you hunt your own meat, feed it fresh, and have your dog on a monthly dewormer. They may still get Toxoplasmosis, flukes, tapeworms, or Salmon poisoning (if you are feeding raw salmon)... monthly dewormers rarely address flatworms, and they don't prevent protozoal infections.

6) Hyenas are not closely related to dogs, they are in Feliformia (the group is pretty much all carnivores or insectivores). Bears are closer to dogs (in Caniformia), however, and most are omnivores. Some of the Caniformes (like red pandas and giant pandas) are herbivorous.

Did they limit their study to only "normal" circulating variants you'd find in a population of typical, healthy subjects? Or was any consideration given to very rare variants?
http://jmg.highwire.org/content/18/6/410.full.pdf
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(70)91848-9/abstract

I next googled Google Research and got 3,120,000 results.

Yes, you should put the search terms in quote.

If you had bothered to click on the links you would have seen I did not use quotes for either search.

Even on the very first page of your search results, none of the hits are for "Research"

Let's see... The first result is Diagnostic criteria for research studies: Report of the NINDSAIREN International Workshop*. Notice how "research is in the title. However there is a problem with that page, the only place with Google is a link for Google Scholar searches. There's nothing about Google research.

Now let's try the second result... Research Commentary: Technology-Mediated Learning—A Call for Greater Depth and Breadth of Research, again has research in the title. But like the first there's nothing about Google research.

Do you still stand by your assertion there was not a result on the first page of result for Google Research without research being there? Oh, I just thought of some thing. Perhaps what you meant was "research" was not capitalized. Nope that doesn't explain it because it is capitalized in the title of the second page linked to. Now I wonder if you tried to apply the same (lack of) reasoning to the search for Microsoft Research. I bet I can go through and find the same things in those results.

It should be noted though that, so far as I know, Google doesn't have a dedicated pure R&D department like MSR;

Google labs isn't about research or development? If you don't think it is then I don't know what your definitions of research or development are. The Google FAQs even say it, Who builds these things, anyway?
"Google engineers and researchers do."
I added the bold to highlight the word being highlighted. Of the 8 other questions there was another one where research was used.

Falcon

The study finds a U-curve - abstainers have results comparable to heavy drinkers, with moderate drinkers having the greatest reduction in mortality risk.

The general consensus of the literature is a J-curve: abstainers have worse outcomes than moderate drinkers (1-3 standard drinks per day) with folks having more than 4 standard drinks per day faring worse than non-drinkers on all-source mortality.

My short review of the literature is here.

Briefly: ignore the results of individual studies, and wait instead for credible metastudies to come out. The best one here is Castelnuovo and Donati, 2006. And, ignore most of what the WHO puts out on alcohol - it's been captured by anti-alcohol zealots. Seriously.

Hypertension, Heart Problems.

No

and

No

Hard to prove a negative, but for a drug, caffeine has been remarkably safe.

(Appropriate Heinlein quote "Man is not a rational animal, he is a rationalizing animal".

Links that are not reputable or factual but seem to support my case... (but I'm not a doctor so I can't tell)

http://archinte.highwire.org/cgi/content/summary/90/4/513
http://www.fao.org/docrep/009/a0442e/a0442e0m.htm
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/28630.php
http://www.alternet.org/story/274/
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/280264/obese_britons_also_at_risk_for_malnutrition.html?cat=51
http://www.springerlink.com/content/r718533228ph9g55/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8581766
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S155072890800600X ...but in all truth I am not nearly as qualified as you are to talk about these things. I'm parroting things I've seen in biased documentaries. I bow before your might.

It seems Wikipedia is not updated correctly.

Ref:
http://aac.highwire.org/cgi/content/abstract/45/2/428
http://journals.pasteur.ac.ir/FML2001/2021/2021001.pdf
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol7no3_supp/levy.htm

Even if their neural interfaces are a bit out there. We've been growing humanized mice for years. I wonder if all they really needed to do, however, was to generate a chimera by seeding an embryo with a human nervous system before the immune system starts to develop. We've learned quite a bit about developmental biology from avian chimeras, mammalian chimeras are a bit more challenging but can be achieved.

Exactly. Over 10,000 scholarly journals are published every month. When the number exceeded a few hundred, decades ago, overload had already set in. Now there are at least great indexes and searchable databases. This list compiled by Berkeley shows what is available in most university libraries. I especially like Stanford's HighWire Press, a free database of over a million scholarly articles. Things are getting better, not worse.

is to a new site demo. regular site is http://highwire.org/

---Roughly speaking, there are no expenses.---

Your statements show a very naive, if not completely incorrect understanding of what goes into publishing a scientific journal. There are lots of costs involved, and nearly every journal that exists has a score of paid employees.

---The editor is usually a volunteer---

Not true in most cases. Most journals have a paid full time editor (at least this is certainly the case for biology journals). There is usually an editorial board made up of scientists. These people are sometimes volunteers, but are often paid a stipend for their contributions.

---The editor sends your manuscript to two or three referees, who mark it up and write him a report. He then takes their names off the reports, and forwards them to you, with his decision (usually either ``forget it'' or ``revise and resubmit''). All this is done electronically, so costs are nil.---

First, a decision has to be made as to whether the article is worth reviewing. This is done by the editor who reads the paper and assesses its initial value. If favorable, the paper is then forwarded to reviewers. Due to the large volume of submissions seen by most journals, an administrative assistant usually oversees and tracks this process. Some journals have indeed switched to electronic submission and review systems, while many haven't. Such systems are very expensive to set up, and expensive to maintain. One such system is run by Stanford University's Highwire Press (who also help journals publish online). Care to see how many people they employ?

---Aside from a secretary for the editor (not all publications have this), the only paid employees are the guys who run the printing press and the fat cats who take your checks to the bank.---

Um, no. Most journals have a publication staff. These people are responsible for layout and formatting of accepted articles, reviewing and correcting artwork, copyediting, cover designs, dealing with legal permissions, sending out reprints, and inumerable other tasks. As far as the fatcats go, many journals are run by scientific societies who rely on journal profits to fund community activities like scholarships and meetings (Protein Science is an example). Other journals are published by universities and research institutes, and all profits go into funding further research and support for the scientists working there (MIT Press for example). Yes, there are plenty of Elseviers and other greedy publishing empires out there, but don't tarnish all journals with the same broad brush.

---and in return, the publisher takes the copyright---

Many journals, such as those published by the Nature Publishing Group, give the authors full copyright in return for an exclusive license for the article.

---Roughly speaking, there are no expenses.---

Your statements show a very naive, if not completely incorrect understanding of what goes into publishing a scientific journal. There are lots of costs involved, and nearly every journal that exists has a score of paid employees.

---The editor is usually a volunteer---

Not true in most cases. Most journals have a paid full time editor (at least this is certainly the case for biology journals). There is usually an editorial board made up of scientists. These people are sometimes volunteers, but are often paid a stipend for their contributions.

---The editor sends your manuscript to two or three referees, who mark it up and write him a report. He then takes their names off the reports, and forwards them to you, with his decision (usually either ``forget it'' or ``revise and resubmit''). All this is done electronically, so costs are nil.---

First, a decision has to be made as to whether the article is worth reviewing. This is done by the editor who reads the paper and assesses its initial value. If favorable, the paper is then forwarded to reviewers. Due to the large volume of submissions seen by most journals, an administrative assistant usually oversees and tracks this process. Some journals have indeed switched to electronic submission and review systems, while many haven't. Such systems are very expensive to set up, and expensive to maintain. One such system is run by Stanford University's Highwire Press (who also help journals publish online). Care to see how many people they employ?

---Aside from a secretary for the editor (not all publications have this), the only paid employees are the guys who run the printing press and the fat cats who take your checks to the bank.---

Um, no. Most journals have a publication staff. These people are responsible for layout and formatting of accepted articles, reviewing and correcting artwork, copyediting, cover designs, dealing with legal permissions, sending out reprints, and inumerable other tasks. As far as the fatcats go, many journals are run by scientific societies who rely on journal profits to fund community activities like scholarships and meetings (Protein Science is an example). Other journals are published by universities and research institutes, and all profits go into funding further research and support for the scientists working there (MIT Press for example). Yes, there are plenty of Elseviers and other greedy publishing empires out there, but don't tarnish all journals with the same broad brush.

---and in return, the publisher takes the copyright---

Many journals, such as those published by the Nature Publishing Group, give the authors full copyright in return for an exclusive license for the article.

One option is to work for a university - they need people to both sysadmin and write software which enhances the learning environment, but they can't pay huge salaries or offer stock options so have a hard time with recruiting. On the other hand, they tend to have great benefit and retirement packages and are not as insanely-paced as many startups.

And yes, we have jobs open if you are interested :)
</plug>