Slashdot Mirror

He's one of the Men in Black

(that was the first Google hit for "no names and no fingerprints" and is on a .gov site. Coincidence? I think not. :)

Free will is essentially an oxymoron -- we would not consider it 'will' if it were completely random and we would not consider it 'free' if it were entirely determined

Those are all important questions in regards to the flight apparatus that they use in this experiment. The technique has been around for a number of years now and there have actually been tests done to establish the role of "attention" and other factors in the flys' behavior. A Neurosciences Institute (NSI) researcher, Bruno van Swinderen, published an excellent paper in Science recently using this flight simulator to investigate some of these interesting aspects of fly learning:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1736367 5

They can gauge the fly's learning based on a large number of criteria (crosses, colors, shapes, etc) and this learning won't occur with flies that are exposed to the "default" setup of simply a rotating drum with the glue and wire. Also, the limitations of the fly's viewing field are known to a fairly precise degree. The temperature is controlled and a valve releases air directly onto the fly from a single direction. All of these setups have been tested for just about any variation you could possibly imagine...otherwise the data would not be accepted as valid information.

Indeed, I love french press coffee, but the whole cafestol situation is pretty sad. They've done the experiments, given french press coffee to one group, and drip coffee to another, and after 6 months the french press drinkers had about 10% more LDL cholesterol. Here's the study, and a non-technical blurb. There's also a lengthy review I haven't gotten around to reading yet.

I don't know what to do. Going back to drip coffee would make me awfully sad, but better to be sad than prematurely dead.

Indeed, I love french press coffee, but the whole cafestol situation is pretty sad. They've done the experiments, given french press coffee to one group, and drip coffee to another, and after 6 months the french press drinkers had about 10% more LDL cholesterol. Here's the study, and a non-technical blurb. There's also a lengthy review I haven't gotten around to reading yet.

I don't know what to do. Going back to drip coffee would make me awfully sad, but better to be sad than prematurely dead.

The Franklin Expedition was attempting to find and establish a trade route between Europe and East Asia across the Arctic ice cap. All crew members perished within 2 years despite being stocked with enough food and supplies for 5 years. The prevailing theory of their demise is that food canned by the lowest bidder was improperly tinned and cooked, leading to lead and botulism poisoning.

I think I've found the full-text of an article on this research, but I haven't found the full text publicly available where I can link it. I think the actual research may first have appeared in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, but the article I'm finding is here:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7174873&dopt=Abstract

or here:

http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/Home.portal?_nfpb =true&_pageLabel=RecordDetails&ERICExtSearch_Searc hValue_0=EJ270965&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=eric_ accno&objectId=0900000b80083931

or here:

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j .1460-2466.1982.tb02514.x?journalCode=jcom

Like I said, though, no full text. Sorry.

I'd be surprised to see any modern car above the absolute lowest class without some kind of device that would keep track of fuel consumption.

That was GP's point -- you don't get that in modern cars unless you buy some outrageous upgrade. I'm not vouching for the truth of that statement, I'm just pointing out that GP is saying that most modern cars don't have a MPG meter.

Just because older cars don't have the MPG meter doesn't mean it has spread to almost all modern cars. Imagine this scenario: car manufacturers start including MPG meters in their cars. Drivers start to notice that 98% of the time, their car doesn't get the MPG the manufacturer advertised, and in fact sometimes gets a good bit less. Drivers start complaining. Someone has the bright idea that if they don't include these MPG meters as standard features they can eliminate the dissatisfaction. Hence, newer cars don't typically include a MPG meter, and only provide one as part of an expensive upgrade bundle (since that profit from the upgrade will probably help more than the dissatisfaction will hurt). If, in addition, it could be shown that the presence of an easily readable MPG meter on the dashboard would lead to significantly lower gasoline consumption (and thus correspondingly less pollution), would this not be an appropriate situation for regulation? The interests of the car manufacturer are hurt by including a MPG meter, so they won't readily do so in a free market, however the interests of the public are advanced by including it. Thus the government steps in and regulates in the public interest. That's how things are supposed to work, and I don't think it's that much of a stretch to think things might have gone as I described.

I'm not saying that's the best use of our lawmakers' working time, but I am saying it's not as ridiculous an idea as you make out. Have you ever lived in a metropolitan area that has ozone alerts in warmer weather resulting partly from the large amounts of car exhaust? It's not fun.

For the record, it's (near) sterile when it's still in the bladder but there are bacteria, protozoans, or whatever the host animal has living around the urethra and quite likely somewhat within it, that'll contaminate the urine as it leaves the body, and some of them will survive the high urea concentration and begin multiplying in the urine after a while. Likewise, there are scads of bacteria on the body, particularly in That Area, and physical contact with That Area is going to transfer stuff to your hands.

But it's all a distraction anyway: the stuff living under your fingernails is vibrant and very nearly impossible to wipe out, even with serious medical-quality washing. A three-minute multiple-pass wash, that doctors do between seeing patients, kills about 80% of the viable bacteria living in the under-fingernail environment (source: personal research done while getting my microbiology degree, also discussed in Atul Gawande's book "Better" with similar numbers) so if they weren't using gloves, there's plenty of stuff getting through.

Interestingly, apparently despite significant bacterial presence in the bladder the urine remains sterile until the bacterial population rises to acute levels. The bacteria apparently cling to the walls of the bladder and invade the epithelial cells, and probably create favorable microclimates via metabolism, much like H. pylori in the stomach.

urine is sterile, unless you have some kind of abnormal infection up there in which case it's not (obviously)
"What are the causes of UTI?

Normally, urine is sterile. It is usually free of bacteria, viruses, and fungi but does contain fluids, salts, and waste products. An infection occurs when tiny organisms, usually bacteria from the digestive tract, cling to the opening of the urethra and begin to multiply. The urethra is the tube that carries urine from the bladder to outside the body. Most infections arise from one type of bacteria, Escherichia coli (E. coli), which normally lives in the colon."

Recent origin of a hominoid-specific splice form of neuropsin, a gene involved in learning and memory. Mol Biol Evol. 2004 Nov;21(11):2111-5. Epub 2004 Jul 28. At an impact factor of about 5... not bad.

Neuropsins have been implicated in being important in memory (approximated by long-term potentiation - some very artificial forms of LTP require neuropsin).

Recent origin of a hominoid-specific splice form of neuropsin, a gene involved in learning and memory. Mol Biol Evol. 2004 Nov;21(11):2111-5. Epub 2004 Jul 28. At an impact factor of about 5... not bad.

Neuropsins have been implicated in being important in memory (approximated by long-term potentiation - some very artificial forms of LTP require neuropsin).

You must admit that evolution is guided by selection, and why should we not cure ourselves using positive eugenics?
Liberal Eugenics/BioLibertarianism.
The problem is NEGATIVE EUGENICS, not POSITIVE EUGENICS. Positive Eugenics is simply selecting/mating intelleently, we can call it intelligent selection. It also includes screening fetuses in labs for diseases, and designer babies.

Then you have NEGATIVE EUGENICS, which is the abortion, and the sterilization and it gets more violent up to the point of genocides.

Positive Eugenics simply encourages intelligent people to have more kids than less intelligent people, resulting in more intelligent people. I don't see how this is wrong or even unnatural.

But let's debate it, lets debate positive eugenics and transhumanism. And if the only reason people are against it is because of the results of negative eugenics, well lets debate that too.

Better Babies

The problem with the bioconservative view is simple, it's not working.
It's not guarentee that biolibertarianism will work better, but it's more liberty/options than we have now.

Try this on for size:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=15181085&dopt=Citatio n>?

Dietary fructose reduces circulating insulin and leptin, attenuates postprandial suppression of ghrelin, and increases triglycerides in women.
  Teff KL, Elliott SS, Tschop M, Kieffer TJ, Rader D, Heiman M, Townsend RR, Keim NL, D'Alessio D, Havel PJ.

Monell Chemical Senses Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia 19104, USA.

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 < 0.001) during HFr consumption. The area under the curve for leptin during the first 12 h (-33 +/- 7%; P < 0.005), the entire 24 h (-21 +/- 8%; P < 0.02), and the diurnal amplitude (peak - nadir) (24 +/- 6%; P < 0.0025) were reduced on the HFr day compared with the HGl day. In addition, circulating levels of the orexigenic gastroenteric hormone, ghrelin, were suppressed by approximately 30% 1-2 h after ingestion of each HGl meal (P < 0.01), but postprandial suppression of ghrelin was significantly less pronounced after HFr meals (P 0.05 vs. HGl). Consumption of HFr meals produced a rapid and prolonged elevation of plasma triglycerides compared with the HGl day (P < 0.005). 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.

There is indeed a key difference. Here's another perspective :

Rape in real life is motivated by a desire to seek power or vent anger. The user's ability to log-off enpowers "the victim," and not the rapist. Further, chat filters (I'm assuming they exist in SL) can prevent it from being a good medium for venting anger. The fact that the "victim" is empowered makes this a very different situation. (other than the fact that it's in a virtual world)

Reduced food intake as a result of dietary restriction increases the lifespan of a wide variety of metazoans and delays the onset of multiple age-related pathologies. Dietary restriction elicits a genetically programmed response to nutrient availability that cannot be explained by a simple reduction in metabolism or slower growth of the organism. In the nematode worm Caenorhabditis elegans, the transcription factor PHA-4 has an essential role in the embryonic development of the foregut and is orthologous to genes encoding the mammalian family of Foxa transcription factors, Foxa1, Foxa2 and Foxa3. Foxa family members have important roles during development, but also act later in life to regulate glucagon production and glucose homeostasis, particularly in response to fasting. Here we describe a newly discovered, adult-specific function for PHA-4 in the regulation of diet-restriction-mediated longevity in C. elegans. The role of PHA-4 in lifespan determination is specific for dietary restriction, because it is not required for the increased longevity caused by other genetic pathways that regulate ageing.

AFAIK there are _long_ term negative effects of general anesthetics on brains, at least those of rats[1].

Does the hypothermia method involve the use of GA?

Anyway it would be good to do a comparison (starting with rats I suppose ;) ) of GA+ hypothermia method, GA + conventional methods, and just the hypothermia alone without GA.

[1] "Long-term impairment of acquisition of a spatial memory task following isoflurane-nitrous oxide anesthesia in rats."

  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=14739805&dopt=Abstrac t

According to a recent study, the long held belief that antioxidant supplementation during chemotherapy will make the cancer worse is not the case. Not only were antioxidants and other nutrients found not to interfere with the treatments, but in 47 of the studies supplements were associated with protection of normal tissue and a reduction of side effects. Increased survival rates were found in 15 of the studies.

See: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=1728373 8
Altern Ther Health Med. 2007 Jan-Feb;13(1):22-8.
Altern Ther Health Med. 2007 Mar-Apr;13(2):40-7.

>This is the classic debate between engineers and audiophiles; the engineer determines how a piece of equipment will sound by looking at a schematic, an audiophile determines how a piece of equipment will sound by listening to it.

Sounds like the classic Western vs. New-age Medicine debate: A "Western" doctor figures out a cure through double-blind tests and publishes the results in a medical journal. Then a phamaceutical company makes medicine from the findings. A New-age doctor just tests it on himself (or others), observes the effects, and publishes the results on a website, and usually sells the item as well.

To any audio engineer, Audiophiles are the engineering equivalent of Alex Chiu.

PSST: I hear putting the immortality rings around the power cord on your amplifier makes the sound warmer and deeper. And it extends the life of the tubes!

So you would expect the rate of skin cancer among Ghaneans in Trondheim (for example) to be soaring. Then again, Norway has one of the best medical systems in the world, but you'd at least expect to see a correlation.

According to this article, there is. The article is well written, and quotes the reference on this particular point to be:

Angwafo FF. Migration and prostate cancer: an international perspective. J Natl Med Assoc 1998 Nov; 90 (11 suppl):S720-3.

http://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/vitamind.asp

I've seen studies claiming that cellphone users are as bad as drunk drivers. How could that be? There should have been a massive increase (or any increase) in traffic fatalities, yet there was not. Sure, there are counter trends such as airbags, but the claim that a huge percentage of people are effectively drunk driving, gives the strong impression there should be mayhem out there. Drivers do love to complain about each other, but again, look at the data I linked. I just don't see it.

I witnessed the wanton debarking and destruction of the pacific yew during the early 90s working as wildlife biologist in Southern Oregon. This was driven by Bristol Myers Squibb's insatiable appetite for naturally found taxol, which is cheaper and easier to extract than total synthesis, coupled with a district ranger's personal crusade to avenge his mother's death. While everyone here supports the eradication of breast cancer, we need to temper our worldly destruction of a species with continuing research on cheaper (monetarily and environmentally) ways to acquire taxol. This new dirt theory is an exciting step to saving lives and saving trees.

And there are some experiments on creating a similar contagious behavior.

And there are some experiments on creating a similar contagious behavior.

And there are some experiments on creating a similar contagious behavior.

At least, it can be. A quick search at Pubmed brings up eight studies that examine the phenomenon of 'contagious yawning,' including in macaques and chimps. So even if the mythbusters experimental setup was pretty crappy, and their sample was too small to have enough power to find an effect, at least their conclusion agreed with the literature.

-Ted

At least, it can be. A quick search at Pubmed brings up eight studies that examine the phenomenon of 'contagious yawning,' including in macaques and chimps. So even if the mythbusters experimental setup was pretty crappy, and their sample was too small to have enough power to find an effect, at least their conclusion agreed with the literature.

-Ted

As Sorak pointed out, he isn't a scientist. I am not either but I have taken senior college level virology courses and worked in the HIV lab at the U. of Washington for a summer (~15 years ago).

The problem starts with the simplification of sugar chains attached to protein molecules (aka "glycoproteins" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycoproteins) to "sugar". As the Cell abstract pointed out the peptide interferes with the HIV protein gp41. It isn't clear whether it interferes in the entry or exit portion of the HIV lifecycle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV but it is well understood that there are limits to the extent to which genes and the proteins they produce can evolve without "breaking". So even though the HIV reverse transcriptase (which copies the viral "code") is very error prone and thus likely to produce mutations there only some small fraction of those mutations can evade the drug. That is why multidrug cocktails have been successful at defeating HIV. If one in 10,000 viral copies contain a mutation that evades a specific drug and you use the drugs serially one has an evasion probability of 1 / (3 * 10^4) (for 3 drugs). If one uses them simultaneously one has an evasion probability of 1 / (10^4)^3 which is a much smaller probability. I'm fairly sure there are at least two drugs working their way through the pipelines that target two other critical aspects of the HIV lifecycle. The peptide under discussion might be a sixth tool (reducing the probability of escape to 1 / (10^4)^6 if 6 drugs were used).

Now, due to the variability of HIV it is hard to produce vaccines against it (one has to produce multi-strain vaccines -- which is complex but has been done in the recent case of Papilloma virus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papilloma_virus). Another approach is to develop RNA interference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNAi based "gene therapy" methods which would make cells immune to HIV infection (rather than programming the immmune system to eliminate cells already infected -- the more classical vaccine approach). Now of course the drug companies would much prefer to develop drugs that you have to take for months or years rather than vaccines or gene therapies that work forever (or at least a very long time). So it will be up to the foundations and governments to do the R&D necessary to nail HIV to the wall. It is worth keeping in mind there have also been 200,000+ papers published involving HIV so it is getting a lot of attention. But bear in mind that the virus jumped to humans relatively recently in the history of our species and that we have only had our hands on the genome for 14 years [1]. It is just a hard problem to solve.

1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=g enome&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Overview&list_uids=10902

I'm guessing they're talking about SERPINA1 (or SERPINA2 or SERPINA3 ) aka alpha-1-antitrypsin

Entrez Gene has previous mentions of HIV for this gene in the RIFs ...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=g ene&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=full_report&list_uids=5265

I'm sure he is but the least you could so is provide a clickable link: blast.

That link again:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD= search&DB=pubmed&term=heritability%20intelligence

[I only now realised that pubmed doesn't seem to save search terms in the location bar]

Here's a few:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD= search&DB=pubmed

The abstract for the first link (Acta Neurol Belg. 2006 Dec;106(4):191-207) suggests a heritability for IQ of between 30% and 80% -- heritability being the contribution that genetic factors have in the variation of a trait. If something has a high heritability (as in this case for the older twins), it supports a hypothesis that advantageous variations will be passed down to the next generation.

This vaccination to treat brain tumors sounds similar to earlier research for treating skin cancer with vaccination.

I am a colon cancer patient myself, having been through surgery, radiation, immunotherapy, and three kinds of chemotherapy over the past three years. Last fall I was contacted by NIH about participating in a new trial to test customized vaccinations for metastatic colon cancer. The protocol is pretty scary. First they extract white cells from your blood stream. Second, they knock out your immune system with some nasty chemotherapy. Meanwhile in the lab they genetically modify the white cells to recognize your tumors. Finally, they reinject you with the modified cells to establish an immune system that will attack the cancer.

Ultimately I was rejected as a participant due to characteristics of my tumors. I was disappointed not to be able to receive a possibly miraculous treatment, but it was also a relief to avoid a nasty ordeal.

I am also watching with interest a different type of vaccination treatment. Researchers are vaccinating subjects against CEA, a common protein involved in colon cancer and other cancers. It's potentially much simpler, since the vaccination is against CEA in general rather than having to be customized for each patient.

AlpineR

Apples and oranges can be compared, and to try and claim that they are significantly different is flawed. Here are two studies that back me up.
http://www.improbable.com/airchives/paperair/volum e1/v1i3/air-1-3-apples.html
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/botrender.fcgi?bl obtype=html&artid=27565

Also, the fellow has a point, no matter that there are two or three levels of government taxing you, they are still taxing the same income. This is a flaw in federal systems. (In Australia, while both federal and state governments can raise taxes anyway they want (almost), the federal government is the only government that taxes income or has a sales tax on general items and services. The states have stamp taxes and the like, and the local councils rates. The federal government then provides most of the states their income (in fact the GST was intended to replace stamp duties, hasn't happened of course).

"Yes. I thanked the ACLU for protecting the rights of one of our minorities. Homophobia is a disease, specifically a mental disorder, one you apparently have in spades. You should seek help."

Actually the only study ever done on "homophobia" showed people express "disgust" and not "fear" as a phobia would imply. Fact is homophobia is just a tool to pressure and salnder people who see men sodomising each other is unhealthy and gross. The Soviets tried to use "mental illness" as a weapom against people who wanted freedom. The homosexual mafia is the same. Homosexuality comes from traumas and poor family bonding (weak fathers and fierce mothers is one pattern seen over and over). Here are some studies showing traumas in effect on homosexuals:
It seems that link brings up an emoticon and may not work . Just Google the authors and links come up (PubMed)

Doll LS, Joy D, Bartholow BN, Harrison JS, Bolan G, Douglas JM, Saltzman LE, Moss PM, Delgado W.

Here is another study with 35.5% rate published in 1997:

"Childhood Sexual Abuse Among Homosexual MenPrevalence and Association with Unsafe Sex"

* William R. Lenderking, PhD,
* Cheryl Wold, MPH,
* Kenneth H. Mayer, MD,
* Robert Goldstein, MPH,
* Elena Losina, MS &
* George R. Seage, III, MPH, DSc

"Of 327 homosexual and bisexual men participating in an ongoing cohort study pertaining to risk factors for HIV infection who completed a survey regarding history of sexual abuse, 116 (35.5%) reported being sexually abused as children. Those abused were more likely to have more lifetime male partners, to report more childhood stress, to have lied in the past in order to have sex, and to have had unprotected receptive anal intercourse in the past 6 months (odds ratio 2.13; 95% confidence interval 1.15-3.95). Sexual abuse remained a significant predictor of unprotected receptive anal intercourse in a logistic model adjusting for potential confounding variables."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1486514&dopt=Citation

And here is another:

Association between history of childhood sexual abuse and adult HIV-risk sexual behavior in Puerto Rican men who have sex with men.Carballo-Dieguez A, Dolezal C.
New York State Psychiatric Institute, NY 10032, USA.

This study explored whether homosexually active men who were sexually abused in childhood were more likely to engage in HIV-risk sexual behavior than men who were not sexually abused. Participants were 182 adult men of Puerto Rican ancestry living in New York City who had had sex with other men or with men and women. Quantitative and qualitative methods of exploration were used. Three groups were determined: (a) Abuse group (AB), formed by men who before age 13, had sex with a partner at least 4 years their senior and who felt hurt by the experience and/or were unwilling to participate in it; (b) Willing/not hurt group (W), consisting of men who had an older sexual partner before age 13 but did not feel hurt by the experience and were willing to participate; and (c) No-older-partner group (NOP). The results showed that men in the AB group were significantly more likely than men in the NOP group to engage in receptive anal sex and to do so without protection. Men in the W group were ranked between the other two groups in terms of their unsafe behavior. Age and education were cofactors both for receptive anal sex and for unprotected receptive anal sex. It is concluded that given the need to improve HIV prevention among Puerto Rican men who have sex with men, sexual abuse in childhood may constitute a marker to identify men at increased risk.

PMID: 7664139 [PubM

"not entirely true. we can hypothesize from the fossil record and we can prove micro-evolution (ie intraspecies evolution) Science has never observed and thus has never PROVEN the existence of a species jump as would be required to prove the theory of Macro-evolution..."

Entirely true. Speciation has been observed in the lab and in the wild many times. A quick glance at pubmed will quickly turn up many articles showing speciation events.

Second, we don't prove theories in science, we disprove them. It's been over 150 years and nobody's done so much as put a dent in evolution, but the evidence in support keeps piling up.

Third, there is no known barrier between microevolution and macroevolution. In nature what constitutes a species is not always clear, so neither is where microevolution ends and macroevolution begins.

Even scientists brought up in the evolutionary tradition have been surprised to learn in recent years just how closely the genes of different species are related. During evolution, genes have been conserved to such an extent that some human genes will function in a yeast cell and quite a few will function in a fly cell. Clearly, one feature of evolution is the maintenance unchanged of many aspects of cellular life even while great changes in external form and capability are occurring. Recent progress in determining the sequences of all the genes in a variety of organisms is revealing the subtle changes that have fueled evolution.

1. No mention of any peer-reviewed publication in TA
2. Last publication of "Zanjani E" in PubMed dated by Oct of the last year.It is true that most recent ones are on the subject, but the claims supporting "15%" figure are nowhere to be found.
3. Google New search on Zanjani reveals iranian national source, John Birch Society, Christian Broadcasting Network, no major news media.

Let us wait, guys.

eh? Your steps are a bit off :P Don't use ice to cool a burn, you're likely to cause further damage. Just use running cold water to cool things down. I'd also suggest tossing a bit of sterile gauze over it too, if things are more than mildly bad.

"To treat a minor burn, run cool water over the area of the burn or soak it in a cool water bath (not ice water). Keep the area submerged for at least 5 minutes."
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/presentati ons/100213_1.htm

"Flush the burn with cool running water or apply cold- water compresses (a wet towel or handkerchief) until the pain lessens. Do not use ice or ice water, which can cause more damage to the tissues."
http://www.personalmd.com/healthtopics/crs/burn1.h tm

*emphasis mine*

Cell is very optimized toward one data type for calculation: 64bit floats. If you want to efficiently use the PS3 in a cluster, just be aware that your code must:

a) use primarily 64bit floating point

b) either:
            - fit code and data segments within 256K for each SPU
            - crunch long enough between streamed data blocks such that DMA latency doesn't kill performance

c) have the entire calculation broken down into no more than six parts for streaming (one per SPU)

There are SPU userspace threading models that run cooperatively (similar to the old userspace pthreads, I guess), but the thread manager consumes valuable SPU RAM. Also, SPUs don't support a supervisor bit for memory protection... so... bad things happen when threaded code running on SPU goes tits up.

If you want to calculate 128bit floats, ints, or have lots of branch logic... buy a quad core2duo; cell don't do you any good.

BTW: Anyone here hacking GEANT or BLAST for Cell?

What I find most odd is this: Corn is often toxic to rats to begin with. Consider a study showing increased uterus size and liver damage caused by fungal contaminants, which correspond nicely to some of the information in your linked article. Given that corn is not recommended as food for rats here due to common fungal contaminants, it seems plausible that fungal contamination was a factor. The article does not say how the affects compare between the 3 different groups (11%, 30%, and non-gmo) which leaves open the possibility that all were affected. Given that the liver damage article I linked above explicitly found that pigs were unaffected by the same corn which killed rats, it's also plausible that the corn is not a danger to humans or livestock.

I would be somewhat interested in seeing the original study, as well as information on why specifically it was discounted by the NIH.

What I find most odd is this: Corn is often toxic to rats to begin with. Consider a study showing increased uterus size and liver damage caused by fungal contaminants, which correspond nicely to some of the information in your linked article. Given that corn is not recommended as food for rats here due to common fungal contaminants, it seems plausible that fungal contamination was a factor. The article does not say how the affects compare between the 3 different groups (11%, 30%, and non-gmo) which leaves open the possibility that all were affected. Given that the liver damage article I linked above explicitly found that pigs were unaffected by the same corn which killed rats, it's also plausible that the corn is not a danger to humans or livestock.

I would be somewhat interested in seeing the original study, as well as information on why specifically it was discounted by the NIH.

First of all, just because you ( or I ) can't figure out why an organism might evolve some characteristic has no bering on the fact that there may be advantage in doing so; I can't account for rennet, but pea plants (legumes) produce hemoglobin http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcg i?artid=64866... people likely far smarter than I (...and, I 'm guessing, smarter than you!) HAVE figured that one out, but, I think, AFTER it was discovered in nature.

I have no doubt that a corp would be willing so sell "slightly" toxic substances to prop up the bottom line. On the other hand, rat and human metabolisms are very similar, but they are NOT identical.

Many strident voices seem to be saying $( Gene mod technology )== $FAVORITE_MODE_PAINFUL-DEATH. Which is too simplistic a stance to realisticaly describe the system they are talking about.

Frankly the Greenpeace paper linked in to OP seemed a useful contribution to reasoned discussion... right up to the end where the political valve was opened wide ( You, know the part that starts "Greenpeace demands....) I was suddenly reminded that the organization in question is itself hardly a dispassionate seeker after the truth. No less than the agribiz corporations, Greenpeace has an agenda.

Also, your use of the word "fucking" reflects more on you than on any other party to or subject of this discussion. Do you find the reflection a pleasant one?

Bah. Karma Whore?

Here are two links that compare apples and oranges.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcg i?artid=27565%22
http://www.improbable.com/airchives/paperair/volum e1/v1i3/air-1-3-apples.html

Basically, they are incredibly easy to compare. Simply get out a ruler, scales and other scientific instruments and measure each, then compare. Fucking easy.

And if you say that they are so obviously different, well not if you grind them down to a paste, heat them for fifty minutes at 48 degrees and then compare.

Come on, it is a stupid saying, get over it already.

But otherwise I think I agree with what you are saying.

Posting anonymously so that I can use my mod points

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcg i?artid=27565%22
http://www.improbable.com/airchives/paperair/volum e1/v1i3/air-1-3-apples.html

Two links that compare apples and oranges.

Mod me up!

You might want to read up on this topic a bit. You obviously have a lot to learn. There are dozens of studies, just a sample of which are below, that indicate your goal of low serum levels of cholesterol will induce severe depression. One stupid study doesn't mean a thing. You have to ask yourself: For what does your body use cholesterol? Why is it called a lipoprotein? When you realize this, you'll understand why common ideas regarding cholesterol are flat wrong. Hint: There is a reason plants don't have cholesterol!

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itoo l=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=abstrac tplus&list_uids=16263178

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=p ubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=100 71176&itool=pubmed_AbstractPlus

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itoo l=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=abstrac tplus&list_uids=9018390

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itoo l=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=abstrac tplus&list_uids=11954543

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itoo l=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=abstrac tplus&list_uids=11099742

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itoo l=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=abstrac tplus&list_uids=11022402

You might want to read up on this topic a bit. You obviously have a lot to learn. There are dozens of studies, just a sample of which are below, that indicate your goal of low serum levels of cholesterol will induce severe depression. One stupid study doesn't mean a thing. You have to ask yourself: For what does your body use cholesterol? Why is it called a lipoprotein? When you realize this, you'll understand why common ideas regarding cholesterol are flat wrong. Hint: There is a reason plants don't have cholesterol!

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itoo l=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=abstrac tplus&list_uids=16263178

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=p ubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=100 71176&itool=pubmed_AbstractPlus

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itoo l=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=abstrac tplus&list_uids=9018390

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itoo l=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=abstrac tplus&list_uids=11954543

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itoo l=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=abstrac tplus&list_uids=11099742

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itoo l=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=abstrac tplus&list_uids=11022402

You might want to read up on this topic a bit. You obviously have a lot to learn. There are dozens of studies, just a sample of which are below, that indicate your goal of low serum levels of cholesterol will induce severe depression. One stupid study doesn't mean a thing. You have to ask yourself: For what does your body use cholesterol? Why is it called a lipoprotein? When you realize this, you'll understand why common ideas regarding cholesterol are flat wrong. Hint: There is a reason plants don't have cholesterol!

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itoo l=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=abstrac tplus&list_uids=16263178

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=p ubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=100 71176&itool=pubmed_AbstractPlus

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itoo l=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=abstrac tplus&list_uids=9018390

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itoo l=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=abstrac tplus&list_uids=11954543

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itoo l=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=abstrac tplus&list_uids=11099742

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itoo l=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=abstrac tplus&list_uids=11022402

You might want to read up on this topic a bit. You obviously have a lot to learn. There are dozens of studies, just a sample of which are below, that indicate your goal of low serum levels of cholesterol will induce severe depression. One stupid study doesn't mean a thing. You have to ask yourself: For what does your body use cholesterol? Why is it called a lipoprotein? When you realize this, you'll understand why common ideas regarding cholesterol are flat wrong. Hint: There is a reason plants don't have cholesterol!

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itoo l=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=abstrac tplus&list_uids=16263178

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=p ubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=100 71176&itool=pubmed_AbstractPlus

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itoo l=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=abstrac tplus&list_uids=9018390

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itoo l=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=abstrac tplus&list_uids=11954543

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itoo l=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=abstrac tplus&list_uids=11099742

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itoo l=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=abstrac tplus&list_uids=11022402