Slashdot Mirror

You are correct, people with ASD have many more comorbid psychiatric conditions than most people realize. In fact adolescents with ASD tend to see the symptoms differently than their parents. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21683603.2013.845737 The article is paywalled right now, but psychiatric conditions are a very real problem for many people with ASD.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17441692.2012.736257?journalCode=rgph20#.Unv_7406LCQ

There is a reason other countries outright ban or have quotas for that vile dangerous sweetener

So yeah, there a couple bad cops, but what about the other 934,976 cops that never get in trouble or do bad stuff?

That's the problem. The 99% cover for the 1%.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1810012
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10439460500071721

I guarantee you if you ask your mother or your uncle, "Did you ever do anything cooked?" They'll tell you "No." But ask them, "Did you ever know a crooked cop?" they'll say "Oh, yeah, there was that one...."

And if you ask them, "Did you report it?" They'll say "No."

That's why this is needed.

Apologies for the wrong link there. Here's the proper link: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09524622.2013.817317#.Ue_S7WTwKPE

Unique Howls Are What Wolves Use As Names

First of all, strange wording - I'd have gone with "Wolves Use Unique Howls As Names."

More importantly, no-one - except for a commenter on one of the articles - is suggesting that wolves use these as names. You could get 50 people to stand on a hill and shout "I love monkeys!" and still get a computer to tell them apart, but that wouldn't be a name.

Even more bizarre is the headline on the linked article:

Wolves howl like humans, new voice recognition study shows

Er, what? No they don't. They howl like wolves.

The scientists developed sound analysis code

Might want to fix that link.

Oil-sulfur plant spray IS just oil and sulfur. [...] "There is slight oxidation of sulfur to the volatile oxide."

Hmmm, but dry sulphur is pretty much stable against oxidation. It's stable against atmospheric oxidation on the shorter end of the geological timescale. At least as stable as bone, compared to flesh.

So, conjecturally, the sulphur is (slightly) soluble in oil. In water ... "The solubility of elemental rhombic sulfur in water is 1.9(±0.6) Ã-- 10^â'8 mole S8Âkg^â'1."(Phosphorous and Sulfur and the Related Elements, Volume 5, Issue 1, 1978)

I can find references for solubility of sulphur in (various) organic compounds, but I'm not going to spring $39 for the actual paper. Ah, I finally found some numbers for relevant solubilities. And after spending so long trying to find them, I think that I'll file it locally. EDIT : Lameness filter bullshit kicked in ; so I'm going to have to destroy the table. Stupid Slash.

Solubility of Elemental Sulphur, Linke, 1965[NL]solvent; Solubility (g sulphur / 100g solvent)[NL], at 20degC, at 100 degC, Other temperature[NL]CS2, 41.8, 92, .[NL]CCl4, ., . , 0.86g/ 100g solvent saturated solution at 25degC[NL]Benzene, 1.7, 17.5, .[NL]Linseed oil, 0.6 (at 30deg), ., .[NL]olive oil, 4.3 (at 30deg), ., .[NL]lanoline (anhydrous), 0.38(at 45deg), ., .

They are some interesting figures : sufficient solubility that I can well see the contact between solid sulphur and the "oil" allowing significant dissolution and the presentation of single S8 moieties (or individual atoms) to atmospheric oxygen at a noticeable rate.

I'd forgotten about that -modest solubility of sulphur in some organics- until now, to be honest. Though seeing that 10:1 solubility contrast across a domestic temperature range reminds me that I did know of it a long time ago - and consider it as a way of growing crystals of some of the lower-temperature allotropes of sulphur (which can't be grown from the melt).

Fucking Lameness filter!

But on radio, Nixon was thought to have had more substance and intellect in the debate.

That's proven to be a myth.
And there's an easy way to test it. Put the debate on and listen to it.
Nixon sounds unprepared, uncertain, makes awkward pauses as if awaiting some confirmation from someone - which never comes as there is no studio audience, he fumbles with words, makes comments which are shot down by Kennedy...

Kennedy DOES look better, there is no denying that, and Nixon's attempts at charm are closer to creepy than charming.
But Nixon lost that debate both on the radio and on TV.

There is little evidence that using Adderall, etc, actually improves academic performance. The few studies whcih have been done actually correlate worse academic performance with unprescribed stimulant use. Perhaps you could argue that it is the weaker students using them to begin with. PDF Warning (see page 8 for correlative overview): http://mss3.libraries.rutgers.edu/dlr/outputds.php?pid=rutgers-lib:38417&mime=application/pdf&ds=PDF-1 There is a growing body of evidence that those who do benefit may actually be self-medicating undiagnosed attention defficit symptoms: http://jad.sagepub.com/content/15/4/263.short http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15433714.2010.525402

Everything will cause damage, if there's enough of it - it may take longer, but to suggest that the impact is zero is crazy to say the least.

Road damage is proportional to the weight of the vehicle...raised to the fifth or sixth power (not a typo, damage is proportional to weight^5 or weight^6). Bicycles and cars don't damage roads, it's almost all caused by trucks...and freeze-thaw cycles in colder areas. Here's one paper summary (sorry, the full paper is behind a paywall).

whoops, here's the link:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00423118908968916#preview

Bees, ants, wasps, and nearly all other social insects are also adapted to living with a gender-bending endo-parasite.

Namely, the wolbachia parasite. It is a protozoan that inhabits cellular cytoplasm of the cells of those species of insects, and procreates through forcing males to develop as females, because it can only perptuate itself through the larger ova of those species, and not through the smaller sperm of those species.

As such, the centralized reproductive practice of those organisms is directly tied to the limitations imposed upon them by the highly aggressive wolbachia parasite.

Removal of the parasite through aggressive use of antibiotics has shown radical changes in cytoplasmic composition and embryonic development, which results in sexual infertility and even outright death in many infected species.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0958315031000110355

Literally, these lifeforms have become very efficient host vehicles for their parasites, and their reproductive strategies more closely favor proliferation of the parasite than their own.

Essentially, the parasites have forces their hosts to evolve in such a way that the host's behavior has been altered significantly.

The effects of wolbachia infection on the behavior of insect model species has been well researched. Take for instance, a study of wolbachia on mosquitos.

http://m.sciencemag.org/content/323/5910/141.short

What I a getting at here is that the existence of communal reproduction centric organisms like bees and wasps does not negate the validity of the prior poster's statement, because the bees and wasps did not develop this strategy so much as have it impose upon them by a more aggressive species that does conserve the poster's conjecture.

Believe it or not, this has been studied.

I can't seem to find the paper I wanted to reference, but here are a few others that might interest you:

The Effects of a LOGO Computer Programming Experience on Readiness for First Grade, Creativity, and Self Concept.
http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ320159&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ320159

http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/edu/76/6/1051/
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J025v04n02_07#preview
http://surface.syr.edu/eecs_etd/256/

Because Monsanto has been so successful in India and South America, right?

They have been actually. Well, their seed has been anyway.

Not to mention that you would then need to mentally rotate the image to determine which way you are going and which way you would need to turn. It would be worse than the maps installed on building walls that you need to mentally flip to visualize how the map corresponds to the building, because you would have to do the flip while driving, which would be even more distracting than the current GPS maps. Do others know what I'm talking about? If not, I found a paper about it.

Try 65,536 digits.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13554790902776896

Rubbish. Warfare is ultimately the art of taking and controlling territory. Cyber attacks may play some part in this but when you win a "cyberwar" you've got no more territory and no more control. Further reading.

Are you serious? This is painfully trivial to find with Google Scholar.

Education or punishment? Reformatory schools in Norway, 18401950 Education or punishment? Reformatory schools in Norway, 18401950
Daddy in Prison: An Evaluation (Norwegian)
The prison reform movement: Forlorn hope
People's Justice - A Major Poll of Public Attitudes on Crime and Punishment
Wilful Obstruction - The Frustration of Prison Reform
Reaffirming Rehabilitation


On top of that you have the highly conservative Daily Mail, as the grandparent poster linked, stating unabashedly that the system on Bastoy has proven itself as being more effective than Norwegian closed (traditional) prisons, which is a position that is quite controversial for the newspaper and not at all towing the party line. That may not have the integrity of a longitudinal study conducted by unbiased researchers, but the tour escort is quoted as saying that there has only been one attempted escape in all of Bastoy's years of operation, and that the region has the lowest re-offending rate in all of Europe despite Norway's absence of a death penalty or life sentence. These are not light claims.

Next time please RTFA and JFGI.

Don't shoot at ghosts, rookie. It gets you laughed at.

There are multiple alternatives to the public education system we have today. You propose a false dichotomy when you say that the choice is either what we have now or "everyone home-schooling". The best answer is for parents to have options and not be forced into sending their kids to a specific public school as is now the case.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/p465n3166123272m/
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0161956X.2000.9681936
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0161956X.2000.9681933
http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED378635&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED378635

http://learninfreedom.org/colleges_4_hmsc.html
http://mitadmissions.org/blogs/entry/homeschooled_applicants
http://www.naturemoms.com/homeschool-and-college-acceptance.html
http://www.homeschool.com/articles/College05/default.asp#

There are multiple alternatives to the public education system we have today. You propose a false dichotomy when you say that the choice is either what we have now or "everyone home-schooling". The best answer is for parents to have options and not be forced into sending their kids to a specific public school as is now the case.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/p465n3166123272m/
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0161956X.2000.9681936
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0161956X.2000.9681933
http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED378635&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED378635

http://learninfreedom.org/colleges_4_hmsc.html
http://mitadmissions.org/blogs/entry/homeschooled_applicants
http://www.naturemoms.com/homeschool-and-college-acceptance.html
http://www.homeschool.com/articles/College05/default.asp#

I was just trying to make the point that we are being force-fed GM foods

Who, exactly, is forcing you to eat genetically engineered food? Because there's a huge difference between you being too lazy to learn what is GE and what isn't, and someone forcing you to eat it. You're free not to eat it. You're free to buy organic food, or foods containing only crops that aren't genetically engineered. That's like a Muslim saying he's being force fed non-Halal beef. Saying you're being 'force-fed' GE crops is just being dramatic and deceitful.

And before you give me the ever popular 'oh but its not labeled so how do I know?' schtick, then listen up: corn, soy, canola, cotton, papaya (from Hawaii), summer squash, and soon, suger beet and alfalfa. If it has those in it, assume its GE. No other crop currently on the market is GE (well, there were potatoes and tomatoes but they were discontinued, and in Iran they've got GE rice). 15 seconds on Google, now you don't have to play the lazy victim anymore. You're welcome. And for reference, guess what else isn't labeled: fruit from grafted trees or vegetables/grains from hybrid seed. Not the same thing? Funny because throughout history people have made the same accusations at them that people make at GE crops today. I get that agricultural history is pretty boring but it sure is insightful. In fact, no plant improvement method is labeled. If you didn't want food produced with mutagens, induced polyploidy, tissue culture/somaclonal variation, marker assisted breeding, sport selection, your argument holds the same weight. What if I don't want wheat bred from strains altered with mutagenic radiation, or apples selected from sports, or bananas produced from tissue cultured clones plants, or citrus with extra chromosomes? Because guess what, they're all there, on the market, right now, no labeling, no safety testing. The only difference is that no one's ever made stink about them. You're irrationally singling out one thing while irrationally ignoring all the other genetic changes that are made to crops, which are almost always much larger and much more random and less understood than inserting a gene or two with GE

there have been no long term studies as to safety.

So, these studies, this study, this one, this one, this one, didn't happen, and neither did any of these. You might want to do a bit more research before making statements like that. You know, they don't need to do safety testing for any other type of plant improvement, which is genetic modification (although not genetic engineering). I'm not saying they shouldn't be tested, but these things are plants, not drugs. If there isn't anything new in the that is biologically active, there is no reason to think that they're suddenly going to be dangerous (at least, no more than there is for any other type of genetic alteration). The cry proteins & EPSPS proteins (the two main ones inserted in GE crops right now) are NOT dangerous. That's not my opinion, that is the conclusion of pretty much all the literature on the subject, and just you haven't read it doesn't make it any less true.

Call me crazy, but I still want to make my own life choices, and not have the government and corporations make them for me.

Crazy, maybe not, but uninformed, absolutely. And government and corporations are not making the decision for you, they're making it for everyone else. If farmers want to g