Slashdot Mirror

This is one of those instances where I wonder if the drug repurposing is good or bad. The side effects seem to be typical, but as the article points out:

Experts said that the results were promising, but noted that in the past successful drugs in mice often failed to work in people.

So what I am trying to figure out is this an instance where Pfizer or someone else is backing the study. It looks like Easi isn't backing this but is someone else backing the work trying to keep a drug repurposed.

As I think about this I also wonder what happens to the plaque that is removed...so is it reabsorbed into the body?

Regardless, I think this is definately something useful and helpful if the human studies pan out.

Here's one showing that CBT (which is lauded as the most empirically supported therapy) does not work on depression, but has some effects on anxiety. They correct for the file drawer problem, the FDA does not, BTW.

You're right, your article does show that prozac has effects on the most severe patients. But it also shows that at least half of the patients with major depressive disorder a do not have severe enough symptoms to experience any benefit from Prozac.

On the other hand, the French eat a lot of fat and also suffer fewer heart attacks than the British or the Americans.

Myth, for what it's worth (and I know it was a joke). It turned out to be due to under-reporting of heart attacks by French doctors.

No, that was debunked. There is no real evidence that saturated fat causes heart disease. It's not a paradox.

The effect of the under-reporting is small, but if you look at the correlation between heart attack rates and the relevant fat intakes then a small effect is all that's needed to bring the correlation into line with the rest of the world. I wish it were true that "[t]here is no real evidence that saturated fat causes heart disease", but sadly that's just wishful thinking. The French case actually reinforces this, because it shows that the causal model has predictive power; that's good science.

Here's the PubMed link to the actual journal paper: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22208552

Most science-fiction authors, from my experience, have a poor understanding of actual scientific knowledge and, instead, rely on omission of fact to glaze over scientific points of interest. Frankenstein, for example, never exactly explains in concrete terms exactly how the monster was brought to life, or how it survived, or what it ate, or actual and exact process undertaken to reproduce the experiment.

Actually, Frankenstein was quite scientifically sophisticated and pro-science for its day. As TFA explains, Galvani was all the rage at the time. They knew that electricity would cause a frog's legs to twitch; they just didn't know why. How could they -- they had just discovered it. Camillo Golgi hadn't been born. They had a tentative working theory that the electricity caused animism. They even thought, reasonably, that electricity might re-animate dead bodies back to life as a medical treatment. Electric shocks were a frequently-attempted treatment for drowning. When Mary's child with Percy was stillborn, they attempted to revive it with electric shocks. It wasn't so far-fetched -- in 1928, doctors succeeded http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_cardiac_pacemaker#History

Dr. Victor Frankenstein was actually modeled on Shelley's informal tutor, Dr. James Lind. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1279684/ In the actual novel, in contrast to the popular image, Frankenstein was a serious scientist, and the monster himself was a sympathetic intellectual rejected by society (much as Shelley was in his schooldays).

Mary Shelley understood the science of her day pretty well, and Frankenstein captured it reasonably well -- better than a lot of science fiction writers today.

Very well written argument and well reasoned, but, I was somewhat puffing up the typical yearly hype on what will kill us next, but you knew that. For the record: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0004522/ It will only kill 60+% of the people who get it, that's what it says, but we both know it won't, it's just puffed up Bull. All good vaccine makers have been driven out of business by ignorant lawsuits, all that's left are bureaucratic (Government) company's that can't get anything done. Don't you remember the vaccine that took years to develop a while back, then they made the wrong one; for some deadly Flu that never happened. I'll also admit that if I drive 60 mi. at 60mph in an hour or so I'll be there. The point about the Earth being the center of universe, was that it was settled, and of course it was logical. Galileo had to prove it was wrong. Technically, his proof was incorrect and he had to recant his finding and for other reasons. But he knew what he saw. Fighting the system can be dangerous, Louis Pasteur had the same problem since he wasn't a Doctor. Nothing about ulcers? For 20 Yr. the cause and cure was known, and in US Doctors were only allowed to treat symptoms; sad really for all the people that died of them. The only thing not proved, and excepted on faith alone-GW. It is a Religion lead by Charlatans, but plenty of religions are. There are some who believe the Earth or life is only 6000 yr old, they can not be convinced otherwise, I no longer try. You can not start new research on top of old if the old is wrong or just plain falsified. Seriously, I do like you writing style, wish I could be that coherent with a thought.

In this new study, the researchers used a rat model of ALS to test for possible nerve cell- restoring properties of stem cells. The rats were exposed to Sindbis virus, which infects the central nervous system and destroys the motor neurons in the spinal cord. Rats that survive are left with paralyzed muscles in their hindquarters and weakened back limbs. Scientists assess the degree of impairment by measuring the rats' movement, quantifying electrical activity in the nerves serving the back limbs, and visually judging the extent of nerve damage through a microscope.

The researchers wanted to see whether stem cells could restore nerves and improve mobility in rats. Because scientists have had difficulty sustaining stem cell lines derived from rat embryos, the investigators conducted their experiments with embryonic germ cells that John Gearhart and colleagues isolated from human fetal tissue in 1998. These cells can produce unchanged copies of themselves when maintained in culture, and they form into clumps called embryoid bodies. Under certain conditions, research has shown that the cells in the embryoid bodies begin to look and function like neurons when subjected to specific laboratory conditions. The researchers had an idea that these embryoid body cells in their nonspecialized state might become specialized as replacement neurons if placed into the area of the damaged spinal cord. So they carefully prepared cells from the embryoid bodies and injected them into the fluid surrounding the spinal cord of the paralyzed rats that had their motor neurons destroyed by the Sindbis virus.

To test this idea, the researchers selected from laboratory culture dishes barely differentiated embryonic germs cells that displayed the molecular markers of neural stem cells, including the proteins nestin and neuron specific enolase. They grew these cells in large quantities and injected them into the fluid surrounding the spinal cords of partially paralyzed, Sindbis-virus-treated rats.

The response was impressive. Three months after the injections, many of the treated rats were able to move their hind limbs and walk, albeit clumsilywhile the rats that did not receive cell injections remained paralyzed. Moreover, at autopsy the researchers found that cells derived from human embryonic germ cells had migrated throughout the spinal fluid and continued to develop, displaying both the shape and molecular markers characteristic of mature motor neurons. The researchers are quick to caution that their results are preliminary, and that they do not know for certain whether the treatment helped the paralyzed rats because new neurons took the place of the old, or because trophic factors from the injected cells facilitated the recovery of the rats' remaining nerve cells and helped the rats improve in their ability to use their hind limbs.

Nor do they know how well this strategy will translate into a therapy for human neurodegenerative diseases like ALS. And they emphasize that there are many hurdles to cross before the use of stem cells to repair damaged motor neurons in patients can be considered. Nevertheless, researchers are excited about these results, which, if confirmed, would represent a major step toward using specialized stem cells from embryonic and fetal tissue sources to restore nervous system function. http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/scireport/chapter8.asp

----

I am not in Rome, I am in a rush.

Would it have been so hard to not be a bigot and just provide at least one source?
Perhaps 'Stem Cell Basics': http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics5.asp
-----
While decrying zealots make sure you don't see one in the mirror.

Well, there's this. Which, I think, shuts down the entire conversation on its own empirical basis even if we don't understand why, but it doesn't let me make my favourite point ever about anthropogenic threats to the ecosystem: the Mediterranean is a lot dirtier than it was during the last D–O event. It seems to me not that the hilariously tragic loss in biological diversity of the next century will not be on our shoulders merely because we turned up the thermostat, but because we pumped in noxious fumes at the same time. (Have you ever seen one of those fantastically unnerving stories about the Mafia dumping nuclear waste into the sea? Yeah, gee, I wonder where all that goes...)

One: citation 55 is a study demonstrating that actual sea grasses have been disappearing at an accelerating rate. Please don't make claims without doing basic research.

Two: scientific hypotheses and speculation are generally built from plausible extrapolations from available data. Please don't pretend that we know so little about the universe that we can't predict basic elements of the near future of a closed system. You're insulting thousands of years of work in mathematics and science with your shamanism.

For men, the biological basis of sexual orientation has been well established; for women, however, it remains unclear. See for example http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10825779 and similar research which indicate that female sexual orientation is not fixed, and thus likely has a significant cultural components. So for women, it may be partly a choice after all in many cases, albeit usually not a conscious one.

The relationship of Tau to prions (cause of mad cow disease) is discussed here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3015202/?tool=pubmed "Tau, prions and A: the triad of neurodegeneration."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0002355/

For some fun and tasty reading.

"Except not. ..."

Except yes. Where is your evidence? You can "point it out" all you like, but unless you have something to back it up, then it's just so much hot air.

And it is nothing but hot air. I repeat: ferrets are used for influenza studies precisely because their susceptibility and symptoms so closely mirror humans.

Would you like evidence for MY claims? How about these:

"Ferrets are exquisitely susceptible to infection with human influenza viruses and are widely believed to be the ideal small animal model for influenza research."

"The results show the value of the ferret model. A/LA resembled the transmission of influenza in humans when under antibody pressure."

"... only the ferret model is equally well suited for studying both the pathogenicity and transmissibility of human and avian influenza viruses." [emphasis added]

Those are just a few out of a great many. Would you like more? A brief moment on Google brings up pages and pages of just such references.

You are simply wrong. And an arrogant ass as well.

"Except not. ..."

Except yes. Where is your evidence? You can "point it out" all you like, but unless you have something to back it up, then it's just so much hot air.

And it is nothing but hot air. I repeat: ferrets are used for influenza studies precisely because their susceptibility and symptoms so closely mirror humans.

Would you like evidence for MY claims? How about these:

"Ferrets are exquisitely susceptible to infection with human influenza viruses and are widely believed to be the ideal small animal model for influenza research."

"The results show the value of the ferret model. A/LA resembled the transmission of influenza in humans when under antibody pressure."

"... only the ferret model is equally well suited for studying both the pathogenicity and transmissibility of human and avian influenza viruses." [emphasis added]

Those are just a few out of a great many. Would you like more? A brief moment on Google brings up pages and pages of just such references.

You are simply wrong. And an arrogant ass as well.

"The article explains NOTHING about how dangerous 2,3,4-T is, and simply replies upon "it's a part of Agent Orange" to assert the harmfulness of the chemical."

Well according to almighty wikipedia the oral LD50 of 2,4,5-T is 389 mg/kg in mice and 500 mg/kg in rats. That struck me as not being especially hideous, and on a whim I looked up the LD50 of aspirin: 250 mg/kg in mice and 200 mg/kg in rats. By this measure 2,4,5-T is less toxic than aspirin!. It's more complex than that however. It doesn't include low dose/persistent exposure effects of the compound and doesn't include degradation products or side products of synthesis, which could have different levels of toxicity. It's the synthesis byproducts that are a major issue with 2,4,5-T. As others have commented on, 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin (TCDD) is a side product of synthesis, and according to wikipedia modern synthesis can knock its levels down to about 0.005 ppm (I've seen 0.1 ppm elsewhere in my quick search), but in earlier batches could be up to 60 ppm. The LD50 of TCDD is 1,000 times lower than 2,4,5-T; a few hundred micrograms ingested per kilogram of body weight was enough to kill rats (sorry about age of study). Nasty effects other than death naturally occur at lower amounts. Also keep in mind that we're just making rodents eat the stuff. I'm not a chemical engineer, but you do have to wonder what sort of waste products (TCDD included) were flushed out by that chemical plant and where it went, and how long TCDD and other nasties might persist in the environment. TCDD is unfortunately pretty resistant to biodegradation, one study in Italy I found gave a half-life in soil of 9.1 years. I've just spent a little bit of time working on insecticide development so these are some of the things I think about, although being a biochemist this is not a core area of expertise.

I'll pile on the bandwagon, but with some numbers to back up my comments. *grin*

Here's a study on the NIH website comparing tap to bottled water.

Dietary Reference Intakes: (similar concept to RDA)
Calcium: 1000 mg
Magnesium: 420 mg
Sodium: 500 to 2400 mg

Sampled tap waters on average (and std dev):
Calcium: 37mg/L (22.4) - 3.7% of DRI
Magnesium: 11.47 mg/L (10.64) - 2.7% of DRI
Sodium: 44 mg/L (49) - 8.8% to 1.8% of DRI

So anybody who's relying on tap water for their mineral intake needs to be drinking 11 to 55 liters per day on average. (It's hard to find numbers regarding deaths from drinking too much water, but my impression is that the above amounts could easily lead to death. Drinking tap vs mineral-free water would not a factor.) Anybody who's not getting any minerals from drinking water isn't missing out on much at all.

Depends on where they get scalded and how.

There have been studies that indicate that drinking liquids that are too hot increase the chances of getting esophageal cancer, and that the temperature makes a difference.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2773211/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11058886

BUT serious-burn victims have had lower rates of skin cancer: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17028504

Anyway, the AC I was replying to was implying that only ionizing radiation can increase cancer rates. That's just wrong. The difference you'd normally notice it quickly if nonionizing radiation is damaging you[1].

Lastly, there are plenty of other things that increase cancer rates that do not involve ionizing radiation or breaking of molecular bonds breaking. Otherwise stuff like BPA wouldn't be increasing cancer rates. So thinking it's all so simple is ridiculous.

[1] FWIW exposing yourself to high dose nonionizing radiation (e.g. standing in front of very high powered radars or lasers[2]) reduces your odds of dying of cancer. Because you are likely to die from being cooked/burnt/"holed" first ;)

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_High_Energy_Laser

Depends on where they get scalded and how.

There have been studies that indicate that drinking liquids that are too hot increase the chances of getting esophageal cancer, and that the temperature makes a difference.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2773211/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11058886

BUT serious-burn victims have had lower rates of skin cancer: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17028504

Anyway, the AC I was replying to was implying that only ionizing radiation can increase cancer rates. That's just wrong. The difference you'd normally notice it quickly if nonionizing radiation is damaging you[1].

Lastly, there are plenty of other things that increase cancer rates that do not involve ionizing radiation or breaking of molecular bonds breaking. Otherwise stuff like BPA wouldn't be increasing cancer rates. So thinking it's all so simple is ridiculous.

[1] FWIW exposing yourself to high dose nonionizing radiation (e.g. standing in front of very high powered radars or lasers[2]) reduces your odds of dying of cancer. Because you are likely to die from being cooked/burnt/"holed" first ;)

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_High_Energy_Laser

Depends on where they get scalded and how.

There have been studies that indicate that drinking liquids that are too hot increase the chances of getting esophageal cancer, and that the temperature makes a difference.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2773211/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11058886

BUT serious-burn victims have had lower rates of skin cancer: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17028504

Anyway, the AC I was replying to was implying that only ionizing radiation can increase cancer rates. That's just wrong. The difference you'd normally notice it quickly if nonionizing radiation is damaging you[1].

Lastly, there are plenty of other things that increase cancer rates that do not involve ionizing radiation or breaking of molecular bonds breaking. Otherwise stuff like BPA wouldn't be increasing cancer rates. So thinking it's all so simple is ridiculous.

[1] FWIW exposing yourself to high dose nonionizing radiation (e.g. standing in front of very high powered radars or lasers[2]) reduces your odds of dying of cancer. Because you are likely to die from being cooked/burnt/"holed" first ;)

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_High_Energy_Laser

No. But the numbers don't lie either. The odds of a gay man being busted is far higher (on a per capita basis) than for a hetero.

The ratio of pedophiles that are gay to straight is the same ratio of people who are gay to straight. And pedophilia isn't homosexuality anyways... a real homosexual wants a big fat hairy cock to suck, and little boys don't have those.

And since this is Slashdot, I'll cite. Pedophiles who are attracted to young boys tend NOT to be attracted to adult men. Here's a link to a reference for a 1978 paper on the topic: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/666571?dopt=Abstract

And the abstract:

"A random sample of 175 males convicted of sexual assault against children was screened with reference to their adult sexual orientation and the sex of their victims. The sample divided fairly evenly into two groups based on whether they were sexually fixated exclusively on children or had regressed from peer relationships. Female children were victimized nearly twice as often as male children. All regressed offenders, whether their victims were male or female children, were heterosexual in their adult orientation. There were no examples of regression to child victims among peer-oriented, homosexual males. The possibility emerges that homosexuality and homosexual pedophilia may be mutually exclusive and that the adult heterosexual male constitutes a greater risk to the underage child than does the adult homosexual male."

In other words, take your own advice - either be rational or STFU.

Dietary fructose reduces circulating insulin and leptin, attenuates postprandial suppression of ghrelin, and increases triglycerides in women.

Previous studies indicate that leptin secretion is regulated by insulin-mediated glucose metabolism. Because fructose, unlike glucose, does not stimulate insulin secretion, we hypothesized that meals high in fructose would result in lower leptin concentrations than meals containing the same amount of glucose. Blood samples were collected every 30-60 min for 24 h from 12 normal-weight women on 2 randomized days during which the subjects consumed three meals containing 55, 30, and 15% of total kilocalories as carbohydrate, fat, and protein, respectively, with 30% of kilocalories as either a fructose-sweetened [high fructose (HFr)] or glucose-sweetened [high glucose (HGl)] beverage. Meals were isocaloric in the two treatments. Postprandial glycemic excursions were reduced by 66 +/- 12%, and insulin responses were 65 +/- 5% lower (both P Because insulin and leptin, and possibly ghrelin, function as key signals to the central nervous system in the long-term regulation of energy balance, decreases of circulating insulin and leptin and increased ghrelin concentrations, as demonstrated in this study, could lead to increased caloric intake and ultimately contribute to weight gain and obesity during chronic consumption of diets high in fructose.

HFCS makes you feel hungry, even when you have enough calories, because of the way it acts ont eh bodys hormones. Cane sugar does not. Simple as that.

Total bullshit

Here is NiH on the issue with real data rather then crap from a WHO study based on a few bits of census data like the two links you gave, it shows US as leading the pack.

Perhaps in future check the sources on the crap you link to.

OK this video is what it is made by who it's made for the purpose it was made for the audience it was intended for. Not my video; I can't answer these questions.

The basic fact is, Watts made an unfounded and erroneous accusation from his position as a completely unqualified and untrained outsider to the field . In most people's books, that's shameful. Literally, if I did that, if I wasted everyone's time and then refused to acknowledge my folly, I'd certainly be ashamed of myself.

Yet he shows no remorse and feels no shame.

Instead, he's still parading around presenting himself as an expert to gullible people, via Glenn Beck et. al., while being funded by the Heartland Institute- a Koch Brothers creation -and yes, that is extremely extremely relevant as is the connection to the tobacco-cancer denier machine which is laid out brilliantly and distressingly here:

http://www.amazon.com/Merchants-Doubt-Handful-Scientists-Obscured/dp/1596916109

. So what we have is a guy who's massively wrong, who makes false statements about science and against climate scientists and their work, and feels no shame.

Who nevertheless reacts with rage and accusations against anyone who points out his utter lack of qualifications and piss poor track record with the truth, and feels no shame.

Who permits himself to be presented as an duly qualified expert and given the favorable treatment, attention and presumption of authority deserved only by those who actually put in the work needed to earn that, when he knows full well he is not, and is in fact, just a college drop out. And feels no shame.

Who's self promotion and constant attention seeking from the media, talk radio, FoxNews and various speaking engagements from denier think tanks stands in stark contrast to the abashed and reluctant "fame" that has thrust scientists who , with few exceptions, have lived quiet lives dedicated not to fame seeking but to science and who are genuinely horrified at the amount of media spotlight they're forced to endure. And feels no shame.

Who makes pronouncements regarding the greatest threat we have faced as a species, one which has the power, if it's not addressed, to literally make earth uninhabitable for everyone. And feels no shame.

Given that C.V., the diagnoses is pretty clear: narcissistic personality disorder

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001930/

with sociopathic tendencies

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0015230/#ch2.s2

The diagnostic system DSM-IV, the preferred diagnostic system for this guideline (see Section 2.2.2), characterises antisocial personality disorder as a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others that has been occurring in the person since the age of 15 years, as indicated by three (or more) of seven criteria, namely:

a failure to conform to social norms;

irresponsibility;

deceitfulness;

indifference to the welfare of others;

recklessness;

a failure to plan ahead

irritability and aggressiveness

OK this video is what it is made by who it's made for the purpose it was made for the audience it was intended for. Not my video; I can't answer these questions.

The basic fact is, Watts made an unfounded and erroneous accusation from his position as a completely unqualified and untrained outsider to the field . In most people's books, that's shameful. Literally, if I did that, if I wasted everyone's time and then refused to acknowledge my folly, I'd certainly be ashamed of myself.

Yet he shows no remorse and feels no shame.

Instead, he's still parading around presenting himself as an expert to gullible people, via Glenn Beck et. al., while being funded by the Heartland Institute- a Koch Brothers creation -and yes, that is extremely extremely relevant as is the connection to the tobacco-cancer denier machine which is laid out brilliantly and distressingly here:

http://www.amazon.com/Merchants-Doubt-Handful-Scientists-Obscured/dp/1596916109

. So what we have is a guy who's massively wrong, who makes false statements about science and against climate scientists and their work, and feels no shame.

Who nevertheless reacts with rage and accusations against anyone who points out his utter lack of qualifications and piss poor track record with the truth, and feels no shame.

Who permits himself to be presented as an duly qualified expert and given the favorable treatment, attention and presumption of authority deserved only by those who actually put in the work needed to earn that, when he knows full well he is not, and is in fact, just a college drop out. And feels no shame.

Who's self promotion and constant attention seeking from the media, talk radio, FoxNews and various speaking engagements from denier think tanks stands in stark contrast to the abashed and reluctant "fame" that has thrust scientists who , with few exceptions, have lived quiet lives dedicated not to fame seeking but to science and who are genuinely horrified at the amount of media spotlight they're forced to endure. And feels no shame.

Who makes pronouncements regarding the greatest threat we have faced as a species, one which has the power, if it's not addressed, to literally make earth uninhabitable for everyone. And feels no shame.

Given that C.V., the diagnoses is pretty clear: narcissistic personality disorder

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001930/

with sociopathic tendencies

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0015230/#ch2.s2

The diagnostic system DSM-IV, the preferred diagnostic system for this guideline (see Section 2.2.2), characterises antisocial personality disorder as a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others that has been occurring in the person since the age of 15 years, as indicated by three (or more) of seven criteria, namely:

a failure to conform to social norms;

irresponsibility;

deceitfulness;

indifference to the welfare of others;

recklessness;

a failure to plan ahead

irritability and aggressiveness

Octane is not a chemical, or any existing material thing, not a atom, not a molecule.

Uhh yeah, how about no?

Octane is a hydrocarbon and an alkane with the chemical formula C8H18.

Please, before you spout off, make sure you're not completely fucking wrong.

A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health

Differential Effects of Glyphosate and Roundup on Human Placental Cells and Aromatase

Glyphosate-Based Herbicides Produce Teratogenic Effects on Vertebrates by Impairing Retinoic Acid Signaling

You are correct about the mental disorders, but bipolar people are famous for unusually high IQs as are people with HFA and LFA, and all of these have mental disorders that cause considerable problems with social interactions of any kind (including keeping a roof over their heads).

Mental disorder rates by State

90% of homeless in UK excluded from education

IQ study in US shows "WAIS-R scores were comparable to population means".

In reality, the auto companies and their partners in university labs have been doing work research on HUDs for a while. The augmented reality approach has been tried in research studies as a result of successes in the aviation community. However, there are huge differences between augmented reality for cars when comparing to planes and pedestrians. The point of this post is not that HUDs are bad or unlikely to succeed, but rather that the designers of trade show concepts are ignoring much of the existing research. The concepts in TFA are unlikely to be used for actual products due to safety issues. Expect simpler HUDs focused on safety oriented problems. Here are some of the safety problems:

First, cars tend to hit things quicker. This is a crude point about recovery time, but a major one.

Second, there is considerably more variation in scene brightness due to driving speeds and local factors like buildings and trees. This leads to challenges perceiving the HUD imagery. Demos on trade show floors and labs usually gloss over this factor.

Perhaps the biggest concern is that there humans have perception errors due to the way our brains integrate augmented reality with the real world. First is the issue of cognitive capture. This is when you ignore the real world and just use the HUD for your information. For example, the collision warning system may highlight all the moving vehicles, so you learn to just look for the highlighting. Unlike a video game where every object is known, automotive sensing doesn't work 100% and objects will be missed. Cognitive capture is when you fail to perceive the kid running into the middle of the street because he wasn't highlighted. This can be demonstrated easily in the lab and many studies have concrete evidence of this.

The second perception problem is that HUDs can lead to misperception of distance. A HUD can only have one focal length while the real world has an infinite amount. Mismatches can lead to the driver misinterpreting the distance of an object. This isn't a problem when flying (everything is at optical infinity) or walking (you're moving to slow), but can cause problems when driving.

The third perception problem is masking. This is when the information about the new cafe covers the pedestrian crossing the street.

If your organization has access to this paper, it is an excellent primer on the issues. And yes, it was written in 1997.

Here, let me Google that for you.

Interestingly enough, the bubonic plague may have selected for HIV resistance.

Like almost all of the "natural" remedies, it didn't work at all. I've heard the same story from 3 other people. I wouldn't be surprised if the only people that reported it to work weren't just experiencing the placebo effect. Double blind studies seem to confirm that it doesn't help at all for cholesterol: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15841092

My prescription medicine for IBS started out as a "natural" medicine made from a plant, except that it works and is now western medicine instead of alternative medicine.

If you have diabetes, you should consult your doctor before you go experimenting with natural remedies. Some of them, like St. John's Wort, can interfere with the action of the medication that's actually doing something. "Natural" substances aren't inherently safe.

Geeze I hope so. That and nicotine!

So is this going to kick into the new phase of products that help create resistances like tricloscan does now? And I'm being lazy, there's already a few hundred studies on the links of this. I'm still waiting for people to get it through their head that either we're filthy dirty creatures, living in a filthy dirty environment. And if you're going to sanitize an area, you need to be 100% sure you're getting everything. Otherwise you're simply kicking into darwin mode, and promoting survival instincts for various 'bugs'.

No one? who the fuck do you ask, they guy in the mirror?

There is mountains of evidence that eating a healthy life style and reasonable exercise leads to longer life.

Does it mean you won't be hit buy a bus? no. Does it mean you WON"T have a heart attack? no. IT doesn't mean you are less likely to. And if you aren't running get a check up before you start, and start slow and short.

Smoking just doesn't substantially increase the odds you will get certain cancers, it also weaken the tissue in your spring, injures your heart, and a variety of other effect.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?Db=pubmed&term=physical%20exercise

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=eating%20healthy

And that's just a start.

However, you are just making mental excuses so you don't change.

No one? who the fuck do you ask, they guy in the mirror?

There is mountains of evidence that eating a healthy life style and reasonable exercise leads to longer life.

Does it mean you won't be hit buy a bus? no. Does it mean you WON"T have a heart attack? no. IT doesn't mean you are less likely to. And if you aren't running get a check up before you start, and start slow and short.

Smoking just doesn't substantially increase the odds you will get certain cancers, it also weaken the tissue in your spring, injures your heart, and a variety of other effect.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?Db=pubmed&term=physical%20exercise

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=eating%20healthy

And that's just a start.

However, you are just making mental excuses so you don't change.

A private university that receives about a half billion in annual NIH grants. http://report.nih.gov/award/trends/FindOrg_Detail.cfm?OrgID=4134401

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_118513.html

That's not actually quite correct. The current debate isn't about whether hands-only CPR is more effective than full CPR (It's not), the question is whether hands-only is more easily performed correctly than compressions/vents, and is, on average, going to be more effective as it gets performed in the field, add into that the fact that hands-only is easier and faster to teach, and maybe we'll have more of the population able to perform CPR, which means a decrease in time from arrest to start of CPR, which will always improve outcomes.

Actually the current debate is not about the effectiveness per se but about the outcome. Compression only CPR is showing better patient results for lay-people and professionals alike.

http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-10-chest-compression-only-cpr-survival-cardiac.html
http://www.theheart.org/article/1106815.do

And the quality of compressions in compression only CPR goes down over time.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17069958

Awesome - FINALLY a vet.

Talk to us about zoological transfer in the context of using human sewage sludge (class B or worse) on farm pasture land and allowing your cows graze immediately after application.

Talk about rebloom/growth of ecoli and other bacteria on farm fields.

Talk about molybdenum poisoning (as witnessed in Augusta GA).

Talk about the lack of source tracking when contamination does become a problem (livestock auction breaks chain of custody of poisoned/contaminated cattle).

Talk about ecoli in cookie dough and if that could be linked to sewage sludge.

Talk about bio-aersols and if the wind can carry sludge particulates off site for miles.

Talk about vector transmission of MRSA and ECOLI by birds that feast on our waste and poop on our beach.

Talk about the issue of RCRA regulations of accepting toxic waste and the potential for clean up liability to the farmer who accepts this material.

Talk about the mrsa and ecoli showing up in meat.

This is just a warm up - i've got tons more.

And let's face it, red meat isn't really good for you either. Too much fat. At least according to studies.

Citation needed.

I'm not just being snarky. Try this: Meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies evaluating the association of saturated fat with cardiovascular disease.

TLDR: Eating lots of saturated fat DOESN'T INCREASE RISK of coronary heart disease, stroke or cardiovascular disease.

Read Good Calories, Bad Calories or the newer one, Why We Get Fat for a good treatment of the science behind nutrition and health. For something more directly discussing what to eat, Protein Power is pretty good. It includes sections discussing the science of the diet and why it works.

You do know, Google senpai, that there are several methods, none of which have been validated in proper epidemiological studies?

The Techa river cohort is just about all we had, pre-Fukushima.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16238437

Now, there will be the Fukushima schoolchildren to study. Their deaths from cancer and leukemia will further enlighten us, 50 years from now....
http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/life_and_death/AJ2011110916955

You're right, many foods are difficult to digest raw, but it's a matter of severity. Eat enough legumes (the seeds/bean part) raw and there's a good chance of death. Even when soaked and cooked they're still toxic, but then again, so are mushrooms.

Meat is relatively easy to digest raw. I've already mentioned sashimi, but red meat is too. Cooking accomplishes three things: it increases the caloric content, it alters/improves the flavour, and, important to industrial agriculture, it kills pathogens. Cooking, however, is not necessary from a digestive standpoint. Most people have no difficulty digesting a rare steak.

Many grains lack some of the essential amino acids. Carefully combining grains can provide all the essential amino acids. It's more nutritive to let a ruminant eat the grasses/grains and then eat the ruminant (not to mention the energy and input costs involved with industrial crop growing).

When it comes to the toxicity of grains, I'll skip the fungi that may be present. Phytic acid can interfere with the absorption of minerals, including calcium, magnesium, iron, copper and zinc, which are the main non-caloric nutrition in grains. Gliadin, a gluten protein and the cause of celiac disease, is an indigestible protein that gets trapped in the villi of the intestines causing inflammation, even in non-celiac individuals.

The high carbohydrate concentrations of grains wreak havoc on the metabolic system. Here's a good sumary of the trouble with eating high amounts of carbohydrates.

I'd say an ideal diet consists primarily of vegetables. Fruits, while nutrient dense, shouldn't make up a large part of the diet due to the high carbohydrate content. Calories should come largely from fat and animal protein. I avoid industrial agriculture products when possible. The pesticides, fungicides, antibiotics, colouring, preservatives, etc., present are obviously not good for you. Furthermore, much like a poor diet affects human health, so does a poor diet affect an animal's health. Corn-fed animal meat is far higher in omega 6 fats, and far lower in omega 3 fats than optimal. A high omega 6/3 fats ratio in the diet promotes many diseases and should be avoided.

I see no reason not to cook. I simply suggest eating only foods that are okay to eat raw. I would, however, avoid charring food as doing so creates carcinogens.

And of course, to each his or her own. :-)

You're right, many foods are difficult to digest raw, but it's a matter of severity. Eat enough legumes (the seeds/bean part) raw and there's a good chance of death. Even when soaked and cooked they're still toxic, but then again, so are mushrooms.

Meat is relatively easy to digest raw. I've already mentioned sashimi, but red meat is too. Cooking accomplishes three things: it increases the caloric content, it alters/improves the flavour, and, important to industrial agriculture, it kills pathogens. Cooking, however, is not necessary from a digestive standpoint. Most people have no difficulty digesting a rare steak.

Many grains lack some of the essential amino acids. Carefully combining grains can provide all the essential amino acids. It's more nutritive to let a ruminant eat the grasses/grains and then eat the ruminant (not to mention the energy and input costs involved with industrial crop growing).

When it comes to the toxicity of grains, I'll skip the fungi that may be present. Phytic acid can interfere with the absorption of minerals, including calcium, magnesium, iron, copper and zinc, which are the main non-caloric nutrition in grains. Gliadin, a gluten protein and the cause of celiac disease, is an indigestible protein that gets trapped in the villi of the intestines causing inflammation, even in non-celiac individuals.

The high carbohydrate concentrations of grains wreak havoc on the metabolic system. Here's a good sumary of the trouble with eating high amounts of carbohydrates.

I'd say an ideal diet consists primarily of vegetables. Fruits, while nutrient dense, shouldn't make up a large part of the diet due to the high carbohydrate content. Calories should come largely from fat and animal protein. I avoid industrial agriculture products when possible. The pesticides, fungicides, antibiotics, colouring, preservatives, etc., present are obviously not good for you. Furthermore, much like a poor diet affects human health, so does a poor diet affect an animal's health. Corn-fed animal meat is far higher in omega 6 fats, and far lower in omega 3 fats than optimal. A high omega 6/3 fats ratio in the diet promotes many diseases and should be avoided.

I see no reason not to cook. I simply suggest eating only foods that are okay to eat raw. I would, however, avoid charring food as doing so creates carcinogens.

And of course, to each his or her own. :-)

Maybe people shouldn't give immune response suppressing medication like Advil = ibuprofen, especially if the fever is not critical. I know wifes who freak out if the fever is even 1 degree higher than the normal temperature.

See this paper here, it is from 1990.
"Adverse effects of aspirin, acetaminophen, and ibuprofen on immune function, viral shedding, and clinical status in rhinovirus-infected volunteers."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2172402

There is a reason that homeopathy sometimes works, and the reason is that sometimes no medication is the best medication.

Assuming said "joe ordinary" janitor does not weigh 250lbs, and does not have high bloodpressure, he would not "die on takeoff".

As for the deterioration, I think you could benefit from re-reading my post, and doing some research. I specifically said long term habitation. A long term habitat would actively take measures to prevent such deterioration. Recent studies in anamal models shows that microtrauma to skeletal and muscle tissues are what stave off atrophy. See for instance, this study from 07.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2929696/

A properly constructed habitat that simulates 1G effective resistance would stave off all musle and bone deterioration that was not caused by increased ambient radiation. Any long term habitat would have to take this radiation exosure into consideration as well, and would have to actively shield against it to maintain acceptable dosage levels.

Most of the issues with deterioration could be addressed with current space habitats with an inflatable pressure suit with a built in vibrator.

Space is not some magical lifeforce depleting environment. The current problems with deteriorating astronaut health comes from designing habitats for short term occupation, due to budget issues. Not because space is just so wicked on humans.

You mean high delta-v travel. Not high velocity travel. When not accellerating or decellerating, there would be no noteworthy g-stresses on the body.

This is actually part of the problem with bone and muscle deterioration. Freefall induced microgravity actually *reduces* riggors on the body which promote healthy muscle and bone tissue. It is actually the pressure against bones and muscles caused by exerting them in a gravity well which keeps bones dense. A few studies with genetically bone atrophied mice showed that increasing ambient stresses against their bones rebuilt bone mass. (They used a vibrating plate to introduce additional skeletal shock forces.)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2929696/

Most of these degeneration effects could be effectively eliminated with proper habitat construction. This means that they are much less of an issue if properly addressed.

A diet based on brown rice is quite superior to potato based and wheat based diets - that much should be clear even to you. And you have already looked at deficiencies in rice based societies, and I guess you've stumbled across stuff like this pubmed citation that gives indirect support: There are a few prevalent micronutrient deficiencies in poor rice based societies, and China and others are looking into fortified variants of rice to mitigate that. Another trivial possibility (at least in urban settings), is adding a few cheap complementary foods (and/or a multivitamin) that close the gaps.

I've made clear that I can present the numbers I've collected, but you reject that and demand proof by appeal to authority on the exact base diet example I provided, and I won't even bother to look for that. So we're stuck with your obsessive lies and abusive tantrums, aren't we?

I'm personally not even sure that we can say an amoeba or white blood cell isn't sentient, or is that stupid.

They might just lack the ability/opportunity to show how smart they are. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3001269/

Unlike neutrophils, macrophages live quite long, so perhaps someone could test and compare their learning abilities :).

...or listening to the radio, needing to use the bathroom, or being an asshole in the near vicinity of a car. Of course, this -really- punishes those who have always used hands-free technologies, used their phones responsibly, and drive safely every day. They HAVE to be a problem - because the NTSB says so...

Do you have any evidence that using hands-free phones is safer than handheld? Studies say it is not.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18065072