Slashdot Mirror

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9524256?dopt=Abstract
http://www.nature.com/onc/journal/v22/n48/full/1207139a.html
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WWY-45K1406-T&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=b88d0fc0f181cae87b8a1bd7686a8caf
http://books.google.com/books?id=7NAvFJ-oDn0C&pg=PA73&lpg=PA73&dq=p52+oncogenesis&source=web&ots=f9fRAXEbkc&sig=Kdl7bxvWMFM18E2deunfget71ds&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA74,M1
http://www.springerlink.com/content/25300q641u238965/

Note that in the above papers, Epstein-Barr explicitly subverts the P52 mechanism to its own ends (which is an interesting result).

"Some vaccines are unneeded. Chicken pox, for example..."

People used to die of chicken pox complications its just that we got better at medicine. Also chickens pox is a disease that can be worse if caught when an adult . http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/druginfo/meds/a607029.html Your ever heard of shingles ? You may one day if you have had chicken pox. http://access.health.qld.gov.au/hid/InfectionsandParasites/ViralInfections/shinglesHerpeszoster_fs.asp

http://jvi.asm.org/cgi/content/abstract/JVI.01649-07v1

Of course, I want to see something more rigorous and objective (i.e.,
not my own anecdotal confirmation bias) to justify my conjectured link
between the two.

The work of Arthur Kellermann is probably the most comprehensive. Here's a few of his statistics. Scroll down and click on the tables for a quick overview.

The second statement is a common fact that is tought at the very basic level of (serious) selfe-defense.
The idea of defending yourself against a mugger is rediculous. Crime is the criminal's job. Would you expect to be able to outsmart him, even when he is prepared and has set everything to his advantage? Would you expect the mugger to have a chance if he say, turned up at you office and were to do your job?
The best strategy is de-escelation, so the last thing you want to do is start waving your gun about.
For more on this topic, I would recommend some of the articles at http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/robbers.htm
Unfortunately I could only find a study about carrying guns specifically for the workplace: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1449263

I cannot find any citations for 3D modeling from 2D video, but I didn't look very hard. You're probably right, it's beyond current models.

I think you're missing what I'm trying to say here, though. A sufficiently advanced neural network may be able to play CS without the need for actual 3D processing.

I'm pretty sure that I'm right, but I really can't prove it without more time and a supercomputer to run it on. I'm currently writing proposal for a grant so I can model the selection pressures leading to the evolution of the human brain, if I get funding, it would be simple to modify my proposed algorithm to play CS. I'll get back to you in about 5 years with the results, assuming funding doesn't fall through.

Also, we are a little less that clueless on the design of a roach. Insects are simple, stupid creatures that are still around because they can survive in many environments and reproduce quickly. They are a poor model for any AI, as they don't show nearly as much Hebbian reinforcement as other, more "advanced", species. If we could create a mouse-level intelligence, OTOH, we could "easily" select it up to a strong AI given a few decades.

I think you're under-optimistic regarding GAs.

They can, with training (just against themselves!) beat human opponents at simple turn based games (citation). That's the same level playing field you describe.

It's been 10 years of GA optimization and theory, and 10 years of Moore's law since then. Computers have much better reflexes than humans, and you're telling me that a GA couldn't beat a master at CS?

Tell you what: give me $50,000 in funding, six months to train the AI to general FPS rules (headshot, movement, general weapon effectiveness, etc.), and another six months for the GA to advance it for CS, and it will beat anything.

If I had to pick an approach to take right now, I'd partition up the tasks (defuse bomb/identify player/is friend or foe/aim for head/etc.) to various independent, co-evolving, ANNs. There might be a better way, but that approach seems have worked pretty well for these guys (albeit that's not real time).

The point is, games have rules. Once you've learned the rules, you're unstoppable.

I think you're under-optimistic regarding GAs.

They can, with training (just against themselves!) beat human opponents at simple turn based games (citation). That's the same level playing field you describe.

It's been 10 years of GA optimization and theory, and 10 years of Moore's law since then. Computers have much better reflexes than humans, and you're telling me that a GA couldn't beat a master at CS?

Tell you what: give me $50,000 in funding, six months to train the AI to general FPS rules (headshot, movement, general weapon effectiveness, etc.), and another six months for the GA to advance it for CS, and it will beat anything.

If I had to pick an approach to take right now, I'd partition up the tasks (defuse bomb/identify player/is friend or foe/aim for head/etc.) to various independent, co-evolving, ANNs. There might be a better way, but that approach seems have worked pretty well for these guys (albeit that's not real time).

The point is, games have rules. Once you've learned the rules, you're unstoppable.

On the other hand, there is a certain demographic that comes to mind that stereotypically has the construction experience and the work ethic to form a much better cognitive fit. For me, at least.

You mean mexicans? I suppose that would be reasonably easy to verify with arrest records, I'd be surprised if some criminologist hasn't checked the demographics on that. But I'm not sure how to look that up, is there an equivalent to pubmed for criminology?

That is actually not true. What is death? When your heart stops? Are you dead when you stop breathing? Rigor Mortis? Properly diagnosed brain death seems like the only way so far, but the laws are far behind the science on that one.

a simulation of anything can be done serially given enough time, never mind in parallel. But it will never be an exact representation of the real physical process and in the case of brains

But it may be close enough. You've only got so many inputs and outputs, so just roll through every single neuron in your ANN and simulate what it does at that given step. At time t+1, do the same thing again.

I've seen a number of neural networks that do this, and yes, there's always a little less stochasticity when comparing them to actual neurons in a brain, but that's only to be expected.

given little insight into how they actually work anyway beyond the most basic I/O of neurons.

Also, my understanding is that most ANNs are based on biological models to begin with (largely the Hodgkin-Huxley model), so how would they give new insight into neuron activity? But, if you talk about anything other than individual neurons, ANNs have taught us a bit about to meta structure of the brain (synaptic plasticity) for one example, not to mention that they have given plenty of new insight into biological fields as diverse and unexpected as ecology or bioinformatics. And that's just from a 30 second search on Pubmed.

An evolutionary algorithm applied to neural networks will eventually achieve Turing-complete AI, but right now it's just in its infancy. The question is whether or not we can "intelligently design" an AI quicker than we can brute-force evolve one from a simple beginning. Psuedo-parallel will be good enough to for AI, IMHO, but then again I'm just a wacko biologist with no real experience working with ANNs.

Oh, yeah, on topic: I recommend using Pubmed, Google Scholar and Wikipedia to learn about this stuff, but taking a class in neurobiology is also extremely helpful. (I will definitely be checking out a couple of the books recommended here too, though).

a simulation of anything can be done serially given enough time, never mind in parallel. But it will never be an exact representation of the real physical process and in the case of brains

But it may be close enough. You've only got so many inputs and outputs, so just roll through every single neuron in your ANN and simulate what it does at that given step. At time t+1, do the same thing again.

I've seen a number of neural networks that do this, and yes, there's always a little less stochasticity when comparing them to actual neurons in a brain, but that's only to be expected.

given little insight into how they actually work anyway beyond the most basic I/O of neurons.

Also, my understanding is that most ANNs are based on biological models to begin with (largely the Hodgkin-Huxley model), so how would they give new insight into neuron activity? But, if you talk about anything other than individual neurons, ANNs have taught us a bit about to meta structure of the brain (synaptic plasticity) for one example, not to mention that they have given plenty of new insight into biological fields as diverse and unexpected as ecology or bioinformatics. And that's just from a 30 second search on Pubmed.

An evolutionary algorithm applied to neural networks will eventually achieve Turing-complete AI, but right now it's just in its infancy. The question is whether or not we can "intelligently design" an AI quicker than we can brute-force evolve one from a simple beginning. Psuedo-parallel will be good enough to for AI, IMHO, but then again I'm just a wacko biologist with no real experience working with ANNs.

Oh, yeah, on topic: I recommend using Pubmed, Google Scholar and Wikipedia to learn about this stuff, but taking a class in neurobiology is also extremely helpful. (I will definitely be checking out a couple of the books recommended here too, though).

a simulation of anything can be done serially given enough time, never mind in parallel. But it will never be an exact representation of the real physical process and in the case of brains

But it may be close enough. You've only got so many inputs and outputs, so just roll through every single neuron in your ANN and simulate what it does at that given step. At time t+1, do the same thing again.

I've seen a number of neural networks that do this, and yes, there's always a little less stochasticity when comparing them to actual neurons in a brain, but that's only to be expected.

given little insight into how they actually work anyway beyond the most basic I/O of neurons.

Also, my understanding is that most ANNs are based on biological models to begin with (largely the Hodgkin-Huxley model), so how would they give new insight into neuron activity? But, if you talk about anything other than individual neurons, ANNs have taught us a bit about to meta structure of the brain (synaptic plasticity) for one example, not to mention that they have given plenty of new insight into biological fields as diverse and unexpected as ecology or bioinformatics. And that's just from a 30 second search on Pubmed.

An evolutionary algorithm applied to neural networks will eventually achieve Turing-complete AI, but right now it's just in its infancy. The question is whether or not we can "intelligently design" an AI quicker than we can brute-force evolve one from a simple beginning. Psuedo-parallel will be good enough to for AI, IMHO, but then again I'm just a wacko biologist with no real experience working with ANNs.

Oh, yeah, on topic: I recommend using Pubmed, Google Scholar and Wikipedia to learn about this stuff, but taking a class in neurobiology is also extremely helpful. (I will definitely be checking out a couple of the books recommended here too, though).

a simulation of anything can be done serially given enough time, never mind in parallel. But it will never be an exact representation of the real physical process and in the case of brains

But it may be close enough. You've only got so many inputs and outputs, so just roll through every single neuron in your ANN and simulate what it does at that given step. At time t+1, do the same thing again.

I've seen a number of neural networks that do this, and yes, there's always a little less stochasticity when comparing them to actual neurons in a brain, but that's only to be expected.

given little insight into how they actually work anyway beyond the most basic I/O of neurons.

Also, my understanding is that most ANNs are based on biological models to begin with (largely the Hodgkin-Huxley model), so how would they give new insight into neuron activity? But, if you talk about anything other than individual neurons, ANNs have taught us a bit about to meta structure of the brain (synaptic plasticity) for one example, not to mention that they have given plenty of new insight into biological fields as diverse and unexpected as ecology or bioinformatics. And that's just from a 30 second search on Pubmed.

An evolutionary algorithm applied to neural networks will eventually achieve Turing-complete AI, but right now it's just in its infancy. The question is whether or not we can "intelligently design" an AI quicker than we can brute-force evolve one from a simple beginning. Psuedo-parallel will be good enough to for AI, IMHO, but then again I'm just a wacko biologist with no real experience working with ANNs.

Oh, yeah, on topic: I recommend using Pubmed, Google Scholar and Wikipedia to learn about this stuff, but taking a class in neurobiology is also extremely helpful. (I will definitely be checking out a couple of the books recommended here too, though).

they had to determine the optimal temperature at which flesh melts but can still heal (about 65 degrees Celsius)

Firstly, 65C, isn't that the just above the heat of a warm bath, and doesn't a sauna reach up to 110C ? Second, since when does a skin melt?

Who can give some more indepth information about this?

PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez

Nothing I can find that answers directly to the details in TFA, it is after all original research, but I find a few that are probably among the present research's predecessors, which relate the fact that various collogens are unstable and unfold or 'melt' at temperatures less than 65C, including human lung tissue that's unstable at body temperature. I used "skin melting temperature" -- other search terms may prove more fruitful.

Either your diet is *terrible*, or you're taking pills you DO NOT need. Don't believe me? Do some minimal research.

I suggest you do some minimal research on vitamin absorption and aging. (hint - it doesn't get better). You are correct that most under 30's don't need vitamins, but by the time you hit 40, B12, C, and D aren't absorbed as well. For mental functioning, B12 is the big one. You can Google "vitamin absorption aging" and your favorite vitamin, or read a few of these:
B12
B12
C
D

I don't recall you asking me to prove it. I tried to read back through your posts and didn't see it. Sorry if I missed it.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez
This one sums it up pretty well.

I can go out and find more if you like.

Homosexual behavior opens one up to higher risk of various deseases. ( physically unhealthy)
It tends to cause depression and feelings of isolation ( because you don't feel normal)(mentally unhealty)
Certainly from the 'judeo-christian-islamic'and I suspect the same is true from a hindi-buddist prespective it distorts ones ability to precieve lagitimate sexuality as intended by god. (sprititually unhealty).

So what else do you want for evidence.

http://rsbweb.nih.gov/ij/ I suggest that you threshold the image. Then you can detect where the pointers are within the image. From that information you could then find the values of each dial.

latest updated definition What is a gene? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17567988

I'd venture a guess that it's not correct (simply not enough evidence supporting it, but that has not yet been ruled out either.

The bottom line is that we do not yet fully understand memory, in much the same way that we do not fully understand synapse formation in the brain. We should just wait and see before jumping to any conclusions (and maybe write a grant proposal or two along the way).

Making money off of a disease which is very much kept in the vague, unclear, opaque situation is evil.
Where is the reproducible proof that HIV exists?
Where is the reproducible proof that HIV causes AIDS?

Go to the (American-run but internationally funded and popular) National Centre for Biotechnology Information here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez ...and type "HIV" into the search box. You'll get just under 192,000 peer-reviewd articles from groups all over the world, funded by various governments, public and private companies, charities and rich donors. Anything from HIV genome sequences and molecular sctructures through molecular biology, disease progression, transmission studies, all the way to local- regional- and global epidemiological studies. The evidence is pretty damn strong and well understood from the atomic level up to the global level.

Altenatively, click on the "Reviews" tab and it'll give you a mere 24,000 articles assessing, collating and criticising the others. Have fun!

True for HIV, True for HPV.
True for whatever.

When you've finsihsed the HIV evidence, feel free to look up the 15,000 HPV articles (or just 12,600 if you restrict your seach to "HPV AND cancer"). The HPV thing is actually very easy: most viruses carry genes evolved to push cells into their growth phase, because that forces the cells to release and synthesise resources that the virus must hijack to replicate. HPV-associated cancer happens when the viral gene gets incorporated into the cell's DNA (rare, but through well-established mechanisms) and get permanently switched on, making the cell grow and divide constantly. Any biology undergrad could tell you that if you asked. It's more common in the cervix simply because it's out of sight, and doesn't get noticed until it's really big and nasty. (Which is why all sexually actve women should be screened: catch it within the first 5 years and the cure rate is better than 98%. It's an easy cure if you *find* it)

THINK first. Do your research.

My undergraduate degree is in virology and I've just finished a PhD looking at how viruses interact with cancer and parts of the immune system. I've done plenty of thinking, and a hell of a lot o research. Now it's time for *you* to think, and for *you* to do some fucking research.

You're no better than the creatioists who say that evolution's impossible but have never botheres to get a fcuking clue how it actually works.

There is absolutely no evidence that stretching before exercise weakens muscles (note I used the exact same phrase as the title) so long as you don't over do it.

if you haven't actually read any peer-reviewed articles about it?! You do know about scholar.google.com, right? It's not that hard to check on the people interviewed in the NYTimes article. There are many papers on the subject. Yes, there is still work to be done to answer all the questions, but your ridiculous statement that there is absolutely no evidence that stretching (static) before exercise weakens muscles just shows that you haven't bothered to read about it.

Here's your spoon-fed google search with links to a few abstracts for your edification.

http://www.acsm-msse.org/pt/re/msse/abstract.00005768-200403000-00004.htm;jsessionid=JJgJGzgYVCy4qyLKzfW21kXYSGvYP3tWmM2WDyC6Nr1nvvvH7ykd!-1853705402!181195629!8091!-1

http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED448119 [PDF]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9368275

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abridged/325/7362/468

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119251161/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

http://www.cjsportsmed.com/pt/re/cjsm/abstract.00042752-200409000-00004.htm;jsessionid=JJgpcrQvSRyyCn1CG2XnW4WS6vzdsmrXnhG43kmLDT1CyhhCknr9!1600976923!181195628!8091!-1

http://apt.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1519%2F1533-4287(2001)015%5B0098%3AAEOSAN%5D2.0.CO%3B2

Ah, I found one. The Risks Digest, Volume 16: Issue 55, Weds 9 November 1994. The relevant section is reprinted below for preservation's sake, edited only for spelling ("entirity"), converting asterisk-marked text to strong text, formatting, block quoting, and adding links.

Hardware-borne Trojan Horse programs
Chris Tate <FIXER@FAXCSL.DCRT.NIH.GOV>
Tue, 8 Nov 1994 12:34:36 -0500 (EST)

I had an unpleasant experience this past weekend, and I imagine some other readers of RISKS will find it interesting.

I recently purchased an Apple Macintosh computer at a "computer superstore," as separate components - the Apple CPU, and Apple monitor, and a third-party keyboard billed as coming from a company called Sicon.

This past weekend, while trying to get some text-editing work done, I had to leave the computer alone for a while. Upon returning, I found to my horror that the text "welcome datacomp" had been inserted into the text I was editing. I was certain that I hadn't typed it, and my wife verified that she hadn't, either. A quick survey showed that the "clipboard" (the repository for information being manipulated via cut/paste operations) wasn't the source of the offending text.

As usual, the initial reaction was to suspect a virus. Disinfectant, a leading anti-viral application for Macintoshes, gave the system a clean bill of health; furthermore, its descriptions of the known viruses (as of Disinfectant version 3.5, the latest release) did not mention any symptoms similar to my experiences.

I restarted the system in a fully minimal configuration, launched an editor, and waited. Sure enough, after a (rather long) wait, the text "welcome datacomp" once again appeared, all at once, on its own.

As a next step, I contacted John Norstad, the author of Disinfectant, and one of the international response team for dealing with new Macintosh virus sightings. Very promptly I received a response, which I shall quote here in its entirety (it's brief):

Yes, we have heard of this. It's a practical joke in the ROM code in some third-party keyboards. The only solution is to get your bad keyboard replaced.

I was furious. Apparently there are hardware products on the market which have embedded "Trojan Horses," programs which affect the operation of the system without the user's consent (or knowledge!).

I have returned the keyboard to the store where I purchased it, and I plan to contact Sicon about the problem. The potential for abuses in computer systems here is apparent, especially when the system involves "intelligent" peripherals - such as many popular types of disk drive, Apple Desktop Bus devices (such as the offending keyboard), and so forth.

John Norstad informs me that he has little knowledge of the extent of this particular problem, other than the fact that he has received quite a bit of mail from people who have been bitten. What is almost

You can view mutations for various cancers here : Cancer Genome Workbench or Catologue of Somatic Mutations in Cancer.

Look up "aencephaly."

Did you mean: anencephaly

And tell me if it's fair/moral to knowingly bring this child into the world. Let me help, so you don't have to RTFA! Most of the baby's brain is missing with a gaping hole in the back of its head and it's spinal cord is mostly exposed. It will die shortly after birth, and spend its brief moment of life on meds or in agonizing pain and mother knows this for most of the pregnancy.

"A baby born with anencephaly is usually blind, deaf, unconscious, and unable to feel pain"
Source: NIH's National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke

There is NO medical treatment for this, it is 100% lethal! Then she gets to watch her child die. Does this make God happy?

That's pretty far above my pay grade.

Who is this fair to, the mother, father, grandparents, or the child? Don't give me any of this it's God's plan crap. Who does it benefit to not allow this mother an elective abortion? This is only one example of many. For a human to choose death is not always wrong. Thank God for freedom of religion or freedom from it!

You are arguing for mercy killing, which most people consider to be abhorrent when applied to adults against their will. It is no better when done to children, babies, or fetuses.

Further, what you don't explain why it would be any better for the fetus to be killed in utero rather than allowing it to be born and to die a natural death -- especially considering that it cannot suffer any pain. If you intend to argue that the abortion would benefit the mother's health, then you ought to argue that point instead.

Finally, if there is one tenth of a percent chance of misdiagnosis, surely it is better to birth the baby, rather than to kill a perfectly healthy fetus in error.

As I see it, these are the basic issues, and it has nothing to do with religion, except to the extent that religion helps some people to value life. Ultimately, this sort of dispute is philosophical rather than religious, with the main question being whether life is to be valued in itself, or only in the feeling of pleasure-in-life.

Actually, the below is from NIMH 1 in 4 people have a diagnosable mental illness and 1 in 17 have a severe mental illness. So yes, I can honestly say more than 1 percent of the population is mentally ill.

"Mental Disorders in America

Mental disorders are common in the United States and internationally. An estimated 26.2 percent of Americans ages 18 and older â" about one in four adults â" suffer from a diagnosable mental disorder in a given year. When applied to the 2004 U.S. Census residential population estimate for ages 18 and older, this figure translates to 57.7 million people. Even though mental disorders are widespread in the population, the main burden of illness is concentrated in a much smaller proportion â" about 6 percent, or 1 in 17 â" who suffer from a serious mental illness. In addition, mental disorders are the leading cause of disability in the U.S. and Canada for ages 15-44. Many people suffer from more than one mental disorder at a given time. Nearly half (45 percent) of those with any mental disorder meet criteria for 2 or more disorders, with severity strongly related to comorbidity." http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/the-numbers-count-mental-disorders-in-america.shtml

We can't blame the victims of problems and we can't let people remain, or think of themselves, as victims. How much time and money do you give to charities? Are you honestly telling me that if your taxes would drop, you would donate enough to charity to help make up for the gap in support that would occur if the government stopped all of its social programs? Do you honestly think enough other people would?

1. Make unsolicited bulk email (spam) a crime, and require that people OPT-IN to receive messages sent in bulk. The current 'opt-out' system in the U.S. is silly, and always was. Europeans have the more sensible opt-in system, so far more spam is U.S. in origin. It's not that hard to define; if more than 1000 people (say) receive it, and they didn't sign up for it (e.g., by signing up for a mailing list), it's spam. A law will not solve everything, but it would help. The current "CAN-SPAM" law is a joke - and aptly named.
2. Put all federally-funded unclassified research papers on the web, with no fees or sign-ins, so that a Google search can find it. NIH is already doing this, see its public access policy: http://publicaccess.nih.gov/ Why should the public pay for research, then pay again to read it?
3. By default, if the government funds unclassified software development (e.g., via research), that part should be released as open source software. Again, why should the public pay for software, then pay again to use it? Exceptions will be needed... but they should be exceptions, not the rule.
4. Increase funding on efforts to protect the network and network-connected components. Some is done now, but it pales compared to the problem.

Not fraud, because they truly believed what they saw and their publications supported it. And then it went far beyond the source.

Binaural Beat, or EEG "beat frequency" brain stimulation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beat_frequency (see Binaural Beat section), as originated at The Monroe Institute http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_institute (TMI).

In acoustics, two beats of nearly the same frequency interfere to produce a change in summed volume of a period equal to the difference between the two frequencies. At TMI, they found that if they played sine waves into each ear of a slightly different frequency, they could detect an increase in EEG power at the beat frequency. I was so taken with an article in OMNI on TMI that I saved it for over a decade until I started studying EEG research under Karl Pribram.

Once I started studying it, a glaring error came to mind. We had to put subjects in a Gaussian cage to shield them from stray signals from the heaters and pumps for the swimming pool elsewhere in the building our lab was at. These caused induced currents in the EEG. If that was necessary, how could they justify putting electromagenticially driven headphones on top an EEG cap?

To first pull things apart, I tested a single subject -- a styrofoam head (a wig stand) with EEG cap and headphones on it. I was able to show power increases at precisely the same frequencies as the beat signal. (I'd first suggested using a bowl of Jell-O. Karl suggested not to, since he'd found increases in alpha waves in a bowl of Jell-O when shaken. No, I don't know why. Neither did Karl. We just thought it was extremely cool.)

To make it more official, I helped teach some students at University of Virginia at Wise to run EEG research. Their EEG system could produce sound remotely in a closed box and transmit it via air conduction up long plastic tubes into the ears -- no electromagnets anywhere near the head. They ran it this was as well as the traditional Monroe way (headphones on top of EEG cap). In the each of the same subjects, the traditional method produced power increases at the beat frequency. With air conduction stimuli, no changes were observed.

My two greatest joys in science are having undergrads produce results presented at international conferences, and in bursting the bubbles of old farts in the field. This particular project resulted in both. Not only did TMI present several pieces of research as valid, but many other people used the same set up and got stuff published elsewhere. Go to PubMed http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez and put in "binaural beat" to get the relevant results (and some not relevant, but they're easy to tell apart).

Now, you'd think that once results are presented that show it's bogus, people would quit. Not so. We did the work on 2002. Check the dates on the PubMed results. Now, that's kind of fraudulent, but more a sign that there's way too many people publishing way too many things in way too many places to be able to keep track of everything. OTOH, our work isn't in PubMed because it was a conference presentation.

What is fraudulent is the many places that produce all sorts of new agey junk based on binaural beat, claiming there's scientific evidence, but not ever quoting any, whether the original well done but slightly fatally flawed TMI work, or any subsequent. Also fairly fraudulent by TMI and all the others is claims that specific frequency differences can be used to produce specific changes such as, oh hell, here's just a sampling from TMI: http://monroeinstitute.com/store/home.php

I try to go easy on the scientific community when it comes to possible fraud claims in this area. To their credit, there used to be many more people producing work in this field, including some at U. Va. itself. In fact some from U/

But there's an enormous difference between taking some homeopathic remedy and "feeling better" (meanwhile thousands take them and feel nothing)

If most people took them and felt nothing, they wouldn't be so wildly popular.

Cataracts do not get better by themselves, not even with a placebo.

You have to be careful about sweeping statements regarding the human body.

Spontaneous resolution of a traumatic cataract caused by an intralenticular foreign body.

Spontaneous reduction and absorption of cataracts in childhood.

Spontaneous cataract absorption in patients with leptospiral uveitis.

Reversible cataracts in diabetes mellitus.

Now, would I expect a controlled study of cataract surgery to show that it is more effective than a placebo technique? Yes, I'd put my money on that. But as a matter of sound scientific knowledge, we can't say it's a proven technique; we have to admit the possibility that there's some other factor at work.

But most surgeries correct blatantly obvious mechanical defects.

I'm sure that those doing the arthroscopic debridement and lavage procedures on the knee that were found to be no better than a placebo thought they were correcting blatantly obvious mechanical defects.

Has anyone ever performed a scientific study on the effectiveness of replacing a worn-out car transmission?

A car transmission does not have self-repair capability. A human body does.

But there's an enormous difference between taking some homeopathic remedy and "feeling better" (meanwhile thousands take them and feel nothing)

If most people took them and felt nothing, they wouldn't be so wildly popular.

Cataracts do not get better by themselves, not even with a placebo.

You have to be careful about sweeping statements regarding the human body.

Spontaneous resolution of a traumatic cataract caused by an intralenticular foreign body.

Spontaneous reduction and absorption of cataracts in childhood.

Spontaneous cataract absorption in patients with leptospiral uveitis.

Reversible cataracts in diabetes mellitus.

Now, would I expect a controlled study of cataract surgery to show that it is more effective than a placebo technique? Yes, I'd put my money on that. But as a matter of sound scientific knowledge, we can't say it's a proven technique; we have to admit the possibility that there's some other factor at work.

But most surgeries correct blatantly obvious mechanical defects.

I'm sure that those doing the arthroscopic debridement and lavage procedures on the knee that were found to be no better than a placebo thought they were correcting blatantly obvious mechanical defects.

Has anyone ever performed a scientific study on the effectiveness of replacing a worn-out car transmission?

A car transmission does not have self-repair capability. A human body does.

But there's an enormous difference between taking some homeopathic remedy and "feeling better" (meanwhile thousands take them and feel nothing)

If most people took them and felt nothing, they wouldn't be so wildly popular.

Cataracts do not get better by themselves, not even with a placebo.

You have to be careful about sweeping statements regarding the human body.

Spontaneous resolution of a traumatic cataract caused by an intralenticular foreign body.

Spontaneous reduction and absorption of cataracts in childhood.

Spontaneous cataract absorption in patients with leptospiral uveitis.

Reversible cataracts in diabetes mellitus.

Now, would I expect a controlled study of cataract surgery to show that it is more effective than a placebo technique? Yes, I'd put my money on that. But as a matter of sound scientific knowledge, we can't say it's a proven technique; we have to admit the possibility that there's some other factor at work.

But most surgeries correct blatantly obvious mechanical defects.

I'm sure that those doing the arthroscopic debridement and lavage procedures on the knee that were found to be no better than a placebo thought they were correcting blatantly obvious mechanical defects.

Has anyone ever performed a scientific study on the effectiveness of replacing a worn-out car transmission?

A car transmission does not have self-repair capability. A human body does.

But there's an enormous difference between taking some homeopathic remedy and "feeling better" (meanwhile thousands take them and feel nothing)

If most people took them and felt nothing, they wouldn't be so wildly popular.

Cataracts do not get better by themselves, not even with a placebo.

You have to be careful about sweeping statements regarding the human body.

Spontaneous resolution of a traumatic cataract caused by an intralenticular foreign body.

Spontaneous reduction and absorption of cataracts in childhood.

Spontaneous cataract absorption in patients with leptospiral uveitis.

Reversible cataracts in diabetes mellitus.

Now, would I expect a controlled study of cataract surgery to show that it is more effective than a placebo technique? Yes, I'd put my money on that. But as a matter of sound scientific knowledge, we can't say it's a proven technique; we have to admit the possibility that there's some other factor at work.

But most surgeries correct blatantly obvious mechanical defects.

I'm sure that those doing the arthroscopic debridement and lavage procedures on the knee that were found to be no better than a placebo thought they were correcting blatantly obvious mechanical defects.

Has anyone ever performed a scientific study on the effectiveness of replacing a worn-out car transmission?

A car transmission does not have self-repair capability. A human body does.

But there's an enormous difference between taking some homeopathic remedy and "feeling better" (meanwhile thousands take them and feel nothing)

If most people took them and felt nothing, they wouldn't be so wildly popular.

Cataracts do not get better by themselves, not even with a placebo.

You have to be careful about sweeping statements regarding the human body.

Spontaneous resolution of a traumatic cataract caused by an intralenticular foreign body.

Spontaneous reduction and absorption of cataracts in childhood.

Spontaneous cataract absorption in patients with leptospiral uveitis.

Reversible cataracts in diabetes mellitus.

Now, would I expect a controlled study of cataract surgery to show that it is more effective than a placebo technique? Yes, I'd put my money on that. But as a matter of sound scientific knowledge, we can't say it's a proven technique; we have to admit the possibility that there's some other factor at work.

But most surgeries correct blatantly obvious mechanical defects.

I'm sure that those doing the arthroscopic debridement and lavage procedures on the knee that were found to be no better than a placebo thought they were correcting blatantly obvious mechanical defects.

Has anyone ever performed a scientific study on the effectiveness of replacing a worn-out car transmission?

A car transmission does not have self-repair capability. A human body does.

In those experiments did the opiate blocker truly block only the opiates, or does it work on the dopamine level? A study has shown that a dopamine receptor antagonist can interfere with the function of the opiates, so unless the opiate blocker was known to only match the opiates being given, it's possible the blockage agent also blocked the dopamines generated by the placebo effect.

and as a follow up -- most air fighters do not get PTSD because the dont see the people they are killing-- just as you said

here is an study [from National Institute of Health] on the factors that cause PTSD http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18226287

Which has more information:

DNA strand 1: AAAAAAAAAA
DNA strand 2: AAAAAATAAA

DNA strand 2 has more information. Typing "HIV evolution" into pubmed produces 4563 papers. A little light reading to do before you get to declare that there's no evolution going on in HIV. Actually, your post is a perfect example of one of the biggest things I detest about creationism: you are personally responsible, albeit in a small and indirect manner, for the deaths of 1,000s of people by refusing to support sound science. HIV is evolving. HIV develops resistance to current treatment regimens. HIV gets even harder to treat, or cure, and people die in the process because people like you, who are willfully ignorant and proud of it put pressure on politicians to neuter science education and remove funding from studies because it doesn't fit your narrow sectarian viewpoint. Shame on you.

Dangerous implies that it is full of danger or risk, not just less safe.

I have no idea what that's even supposed to mean. Are you saying safe is a continuum, but dangerous is either yes or no? That safe and dangerous aren't different parts of one scale, like light and dark?

Requiring everyone to never use a cell phone in a car because a few make poor judgments is not fair to those that can.

And who decides who's fit to make those judgements? Most people overrate their driving ability. In fact most people overestimate their ability in general.

Is it fair to an innocent person who gets hit by another driver who thought it was OK to be using a laptop at the wheel because he's better than average, or so he thinks.

If you did that, would you stand up and take the consequences, or cry like a baby that you didn't intend to do it - as if that makes it OK and magically erases your victim's injuries? My guess is the latter.

Studies ignore the thousands or millions of people that every day use their phone in the car and do it without anyone even noticing it. Next time you are stopped at a traffic light, watch how many people are using them and doing just fine.

They also igore all the near misses, when a responsible driver manages to get out of the way of someone who's chattering away paying no attention to the road at all.

Oh, and when the cars stopped, it's pretty unlikely to hit anything.

Any other of my freedoms of choice you want to take away??

You can continue acting like a spoiled teenage drama queen as long as you like.

Thankfully, the NIH has seen the light and now requires that all papers funded by NIH grants are deposited in the open access PubMed Central. So now biologists can get in on the open access fun.

If you prefer some slightly more credible sources:

http://www.mdanderson.org/departments/newsroom/display.cfm?id=40C16848-750C-4143-A7382A752ED6E734&method=displayFull&pn=9cd50d60-76be-11d4-aec300508bdcce3a

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18462866

http://www.cancer.gov/Templates/drugdictionary.aspx?CdrID=43115

It's a compound that MD Anderson has been doing a bunch with - and a whole stack of clinical trials.

It does have some issues - it seems to affect mitosis on healthy cells http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=13711465

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16172440?ordinalpos=2&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15110490?ordinalpos=3&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16172440?ordinalpos=2&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15110490?ordinalpos=3&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

How much decent Net software is there out there anyway? Is it all in-house so we never see it? I've only seen VB shareware quality stuff no matter what I've had to pay for it.

Well, here's one. Take a look at: http://wiser.nlm.nih.gov/ It uses .Net 2.0. It was written using that because they needed something to run on Windows, Pocket PC, and provide Web Services. The apps are able to share a common middle layer and (mostly) database layer. The UI is largely shared between Windows and PPC, the web version uses a linux server that passes requests to a windows box running the web services. Works like a charm, lots of shared code, and they couldn't have done it on the PPC with Java.

Here is one:

http://physicist.org/tip/INPHFA/vol-8/iss-6/p12.html

Here is another:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1994041

I did not mean to imply that Nature was a particular problem. Rather, I meant more along the lines of "even Nature has been a victim". Nature has in fact been in the forefront of the whole peer review discussion.

And maybe my statement was a bit strong, but I also object to another problem with peer review that often goes unacknowledged: that of rejecting research papers that contradict current popular trends. This has been an issue recently in such areas as global warming and cosmology.

So, as a "filter" (which is what it is intended to be), peer-review has more than one serious flaw; it exhibits failures at both ends. Sometimes it lets fraud through, other times it does not pass legitimate research. The former is inevitable to some degree, the latter is more a matter of closed-mindedness and I believe is more a matter of attitude problem than situational (i.e., protecting one's own professional pride, or protecting that of one's peers). As such, while both areas can stand improvement, I think the latter is the area that should be focused on as most amenable to improvement. It is also the area where peer review most impedes Science.

In any event: I agree with whoever said "peer review may have problems, but it's the best system we have." It certainly is. But that does not mean that there is not room for a lot of improvement.

It was somatostatin neurons. Here is the study. Bear in mind it was only a sample of 42 people.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10843193?ordinalpos=9&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

However the androgen receptor shows no difference.:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11158052?ordinalpos=8&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

That aside:
Your chromosomes and genetics determine your gender. To state in otherwise is lying, deceitful, and confusing.
I don't care about your name, I don't care if you want to wear a dress and get fake boobs, but don't lie to me, and stop buying into the 'women trapped inside a mans body' nonsense. It just deflects from the true biological nature of what's going on.

It was somatostatin neurons. Here is the study. Bear in mind it was only a sample of 42 people.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10843193?ordinalpos=9&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

However the androgen receptor shows no difference.:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11158052?ordinalpos=8&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

That aside:
Your chromosomes and genetics determine your gender. To state in otherwise is lying, deceitful, and confusing.
I don't care about your name, I don't care if you want to wear a dress and get fake boobs, but don't lie to me, and stop buying into the 'women trapped inside a mans body' nonsense. It just deflects from the true biological nature of what's going on.

From your source: Virtual driving and risk taking

Whisky ages by evaporating bad alcohols while retaining tasty ones.

This statement is nonsensical. Whisky, and any other alcoholic drink for that matter, has one and only one alcohol, ethanol, C2H5OH. At least, it better, since any other form of alcohol is quite poisonous.

Most alcoholic drinks contain some methanol - and the drinks that contain more give you worse hangovers.

It is actually quite likely that methanol evaporates out of ageing significantly faster than ethanol, so he may well be right, but the main changes come from interactions with the barrel, oxidation, etc.

Funny you should ask that...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16901978

I have no idea as to the intensity or frequency compared between the two, and I have to point out that they blasted these mice with 30 mins of highest setting ultrasound, not realistic doses. The effects of a few misplaced neurons are also unknown, but likely not much. And, as the paper points out, no one should be using this as an excuse not to get an ultrasound for prenatal testing, the diagnostic value of it is very clear and important. But yeah, it does appear it may have an effect.

not scientifically groundless.
While more studies need to be done, there ahve been results indicating that games do help the elderly.

http://www.mwsearch.com/Games4elderly.html

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/163960

http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ506062&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ506062

http://www.nur.utexas.edu/fachome/gmcdougall/Documents/DallasMorningNews.htm

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18275322?ordinalpos=30&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

True. But I see lots of folks at my university who are addicted to EndNote's buggy "Cite While You Write" functions that provide MS-Word integration. RefWorks has an analogous "Write while you cite" function, but still lots of people have accumulated libraries in EndNote and still have a love/hate addiction to CWYW.A lot of products provide "cite while you write"-like functionality. Zotero has CWYW-like functionality that can round-trip between MS Word and OO.o Writer. Bibus, another free/open source reference manager, also supports both word processors. Word processor support in other reference managers is detailed on Wikipedia.

Our library provides ISI Web of Science on-line....more open alternative will require freeing up all elements of the stack to include citation repositories.

Zotero plans to have a citation database that runs on a web server & plans to collaborate with the internet archive to provide storage of "open" publications (unfortunately, this excludes quite a bit of traditional content). Preprint/reprint servers, such as arXiv are a step in the right direction. Google scholar, PubMed Central, and other large repositories may help break the monopoly. If you'd like to help make your papers and citation information available to others, I encourage you to try out refbase or some other institutional repository software.

There are a wealth of APIs and standards to support this. I'm happy to say that refbase+zotero have adopted many of them. In addition to the citation style language, linked to above & which can create formatted citations form rich metadata, there is MODS XML, developed by the LoC, is a rich bibliographic format for exchange, unAPI makes it easy for websites to point to machine-readable metadata. SRW, also by the LoC, provides a uniform query language.

There are many places to follow this development, including OSS4lib, One Big Library, GCS-PCS, and many others.

Rubber Duckie lyrics.