Slashdot Mirror

Not all plants react the same way .

Not all plants react the same way .

Novel infrared-to-visible light upconversion devices are demonstrated by fabricating an organic light-emitting diode with an infrared-sensitizing layer. With a SnPc:C60 mixed layer as an infrared absorber and fac-tris(2-phenylpyridinato) iridium (III) (Irppy3) as an emitter, an infrared-to-green up-conversion device is demonstrated under 830-nm irradiation (see figure, ITO=indium tin oxide). The maximum photon-to-photon conversion efficiency is 2.7% at 15V.

This is good development, to be sure... but I think TFA exaggerates by saying that the device can be so thin that it can be placed on a windshield. In order to be used for something like night-vision, you'll need some kind of lens/optics as well. This material will not maintain the directionality of light as it is converted (from IR to visible), so you can't just "look through" it and see a night-vision version of the world. But you could use a lens to focus an infrared image onto the film, and look at the visible-light emission from the film. Still, this technology should be able to help make night-vision systems smaller and cheaper.

It's also disappointing how media reports of new sci/tech developments insist on focusing on one possible application. It obscures the real potential. For instance, lighter/cheaper IR-to-vis conversion would not just be cool for night driving, but also for emergency workers, home security systems, scientific instruments (the journal article also lists "semiconductor wafer inspection"), optical computing, and so on...

Which harmful effects are those? Have there been credible, peer-reviewed studies which actually show any negative effect of seeing violence on a screen?

There is tons of credible, peer-reviewed studies on this type of thing. The fact that you demand it only shows that you haven't looked.

The conclusions are less certain, though, because of the difficulty of isolating the different variables. Does the fact that murder rates skyrocketed in South Africa after television was introduced prove conclusively that violent TV was to blame? Of course not, we would need to perform dozens of such experiments to be sure. A similar effect was noticed in isolated communities of northern Manitoba, with direct evidence linking it to television (the kids were acting out violence they saw on TV). On the other hand, some researchers have pointed out that Japan has violent TV, but low murder rates. What is the difference? The effects are hard to quantify.

There are tons of studies showing that kids who watch violent TV are more likely to be violent when they play afterwards. Some have criticized this again because it is only looking at the immediate effects, not at the long term effects. But these are reproducible experiments, if you do a search you will soon find one.

There are also studies that show a correlation between children who watch violent TV, and those who are violent as adults. It's a real link, but it's also problematic because, as we know, correlation is not causation. It is difficult to design an experiment that would test the causation.

So yeah, of course it is obvious that violent games and TV don't cause everyone who consumes them to become a murderer, but there is evidence that it might be a contributing factor, and there is strong evidence that violence has immediate effects on its viewers.

It is 3D in the sense that it is a 2D image with topography (a height map). Basically they are using a very sharp (nano-sized) heated stylus to desorb ("burn") away nano-sized amounts of polymer. (This is basically a variant of "scanning probe" methods like atomic force microscopy.) By carefully positioning the probe in x-y you can draw a pattern, and by controlling the stylus height and burn time, you can control the depth. In this way you can create arbitrary topography at the nano-scale.

Many of the comments in this thread seem to be fixating on the uselessness of such a small map of the world. Making a world map was just a cute proof of principle (the paper also shows test patterns so that you can judge patterning fidelity). Basically this is a new way to pattern at the nanoscale in an fairly arbitrary way. Of course raster scanning a stylus is going to be very slow compared to optical lithography, but at this stage it's better to compare to something like e-beam lithography which is the raster-scanning of an electron beam. This is also slow, but can make very high-resolution patterns and is thus great for exploratory research and for creating the masters that are then used for optical lithography. This new nano-desorbing technique could be another way to make master patterns. In fact, the papers mention that the resolution and throughput are in fact comparable to e-beam methods. And this new technique has a couple of advantages:
1. The ability to not just pattern in 2D, but control the topography could reduce the number of patterning steps in microchip construction.
2. These mechanical 'scanning tips' can in principle be built into massive arrays, allowing parallel (high-throughput) patterning. In fact IBM has been working on a project called millipede for using these arrays of tips as a data storage device. (This most recent patterning work appears to be an offshoot, where instead of melting pits to store data, they are blasting away material to pattern.)

It's always difficult to predict whether these things will become real products one day, but the proof-of-principle for both tip arrays, and now for nano-scale patterning using heated tips, means that we're actually relatively close. If IBM pursues this, it could become a new nano-patterning method in the toolbox of the microelectronics industry (which is, of course, always looking for techniques that can push patterning to ever smaller scales).

For anyone interested (and with subscription access), here are the papers:
"Nanoscale 3D Patterning of Molecular Resists by Scanning Probes" by D. Pires, J. L. Hedrick, A. De Silva, J. Frommer, B. Gotsmann, H. Wolf, M. Despont, U. Duerig and A. W. Knoll was published by Science on the Science Express website on April 22, 2010, DOI: 10.1126/science.1187851
"Probe-based 3-D Nanolithography Using Self-Amplified Depolymerization Polymers" by A. Knoll, D. Pires, O. Coulembier, P. Dubois, J. L. Hedrick, J. Frommer and U. Duerig was published in Advanced Materials, advanced online publication on April 23, 2010, DOI: 10.1002/adma.200904386

Or the genetic impacts on wild salmon (naturally selected for overall fitness) of interbreeding with escaped farmed salmon (human selected for fast growth rates). It's actually a fairly nasty problem for wild stocks, and is being extensively researched.

Tests that involve giving people the ability to see novel colors, such as this one:

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/122217490/main.html,ftx_abs#h4

don't seem to have any negative effects.

I call shenanigans. Humans don't have the gear for that. Other species do, but it's no simple mutation - the whole system is adapted to work with the extra sensitivity.

From the University's own press release:

"“If we put bare nanoparticles into your body,” says Xia, “proteins would deposit on the particles, and they would be captured by the immune system and dragged out of the bloodstream into the liver or spleen.”

To prevent this, the lab coated the nanocages with a layer of PEG, a nontoxic chemical most people have encountered in the form of the laxatives GoLyTELY or MiraLAX. PEG resists the adsorption of proteins, in effect disguising the nanoparticles so that the immune system cannot recognize them.

Instead of being swept from the bloodstream, the disguised particles circulate long enough to accumulate in tumors."

They keep calling it "passive" targeting so I take it there's no specific mechanism: cells generally take up the particles (somehow) but because tumours try to maximise the blood flow they receive they get a bigger dose of blood-borne gold. So the other 94% could have still been floating around in the blood.

(I can't get at the actual article, but if anyone has a subscription to Small and can read it here feel free to enlighten us if they mention where the rest went)

Note that this abstract of a paper said that the individuals were not able to repeat their demonstration of sensitivity. That shows, probably, that the individuals had some other way of determining whether the radiation was on or off during the first test.

These are the problems in Physics: 1) The wavelength is too long to couple much energy into any one molecule. 2) There is an enormous amount of energy of approximately the same wavelength always present at room temperature. It's known as heat. A wide bandwidth of microwave energy is always there unless the temperature is absolute zero. Absolute zero is -459.67 degrees Fahrenheit or -273.15 degrees Celsius.

Planck's Constant is 1.054571628 x 10-27 erg-seconds. Twenty-seven is a lot of zeroes. See the sub-section, Black-body radiation. Anything that is warm radiates microwave energy.

I'm just guessing, and it's only my opinion, but it seems to me that the Popular Science author is engaging in fraud. Definition of fraud: A deliberate deception used to get a dishonest result.

If you read (or at least scan) the paper being referenced by the article, this is only studying sobering up faster (or more accurately the time until BAC is effectively 0). They are not testing headaches and hangovers. The only mention of headaches and hangovers is a throw-away sentence in the discussion section at the end.

Empirical evidence seems to indicate that marijuana improves my creative problem solving capabilities substantially. Then again, it can hinder the normal solution methods at times too. For example, I once struggled for about 10 minutes to compute 3 * 0.25 (definitely an exception, it usually does not impair numeracy so severely), but I approached the problem in ways I had never imagined before. A supposed 4-point temporary drop seems well worth the longterm effects of remodeling my perspective on, well, everything. I think I owe a lot of my intellectual development to that wonderful plant.

If society is open to allowing psychoactives with demonstrably negative long and short-term effects (i.e. ethanol), then why not allow psychoactives that make me creative, philosophical, non-belligerent, and in general the happiest man alive? One of my favourite inside jokes when high is to think that "Feeling this good should be a crime. Oh wait, it is" It's quite a depressing thought that it is in fact illegal to ingest (who inhales anyway? there are far more effective ways to go about it!) something to make oneself happy while not infringing on the rights of others. Unfortunately, by disobeying the law in this matter I am risking all credibility in my profession due to the strong social stigma against it. It's too bad that people fear that which they do not understand, that which they have only been told bad things about growing up and are thus nearly unable to form their own informed opinions on. However, as a greater portion of the population practices such peaceful civil disobedience, it drives the eventual rescindment of marijuana's illegality (at least one can hope).

I have been surprised to learn how prevalent this form of civil disobedience is. Perhaps a lot of people conceal their use out of fear (it's illegal, and socially frowned upon) as I do. Perhaps there are more benevolent marijuana missionaries out there spreading the word of peace and happiness.

These papers studying cannabis as a risk factor for steatosis and hepatitis C (a finding which is contradicted by another study that I can't find at the moment) indicate that 24-30% of patients use it daily (in France at least, but I've seen similar numbers for other locales).

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WFX-4R7J81G-5&_user=10&_coverDate=02%2F29%2F2008&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1212900528&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=fb8c342ecca065efc61e77e527067e0f

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/110493927/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

If that proportion ever exceeds 50% or so, I see no alternative for governments but to concede to the will of the people and legislate accordingly.

Not only is your link to an article about the "debate" NOT about the recent debate, which was still occurring mere months ago...

You didn't cite any papers, so I had to guess what you were talking about. If you could show me some papers regarding this other debate that happened mere months ago, maybe this would be a more productive conversation.

the article actually supports the assertion I was making, and is nowhere near a "solution" to the problem to which I was referring. ... the article specifically mentions that "The newest satellite dataset correction doesn't reconcile differences between climate trends in the lower layer of the atmosphere..." which was one of the obvious problems with the models to which I referred. ... it states that the tropospheric warming observed would need to be 2.6 times greater than what was observed in order to support what the climate models predicted. ... You just linked to an article that clearly and unequivocally stated it was fundamentally flawed as recently as 2005... off in a major way by a factor of 260%. That's not a "tweak", that's a fundamental flaw.

Upon re-reading the press release, I didn't see a factor of 2.6 anywhere. They do mention a 26 year data span, but here's the most relevant quote I can find: "As a general rule, the climate models predict that the tropical troposphere should be warming 1.3 times faster than whatever the surface is doing. And it is only in the tropics that the surface and the troposphere don't seem to follow what the models forecast."

I only linked that press release in an attempt to see if this debate is what you were talking about. Since it's apparently not, I should really just wait for you to link the journal papers that are central to this other debate.

But just in case you're interested, this particular debate began with a 2004 paper by Douglass, Pearson and Singer. As usual, the first step in evaluating any scientific debate is to follow the citations in (for example) google scholar. Notice that a more recent paper (PDF) says: "Our results contradict a recent claim that all simulated temperature trends in the tropical troposphere and in tropical lapse rates are inconsistent with observations. This claim was based on use of older radiosonde and satellite datasets, and on two methodological errors: the neglect of observational trend uncertainties introduced by interannual climate variability, and application of an inappropriate statistical consistency test. "

There are useful lessons to be drawn from this debate. For instance, they suggest (along with other lines of evidence) that GCMs can't yet fully account for ENSO and other inter-annual oscillations, need improved moist convection and cloud parameterizations, etc. I caution people not to make regional climate predictions for precisely this reason: the GCMs aren't yet sophisticated enough. Global averages, however, are considerably more reliable and robust for the same reason that opinion polls with larger sample sizes have smaller error bars.

I understand your statement that "they settled on more robust model evaluation techniques", but if so then they did so remarkably quickly, since this debate was still going on mere months ago, until troposphere warming data was updated to show observations that it was in fact warming as it should have been according to the models.

If you really did under

Studies show that people with more bumper stickers have higher levels of road rage.

There has, unfortunately, been a recorded instance of someone believing that they(ie. themselves directly, not their computer) receive email.

Very odd.

Your link suggests that resistance to disinfectants and antibiotics may go hand-in-hand. However it still seems like a stretch to suggest livestock would develop and retain antibiotic resistance without the use of antibiotics, due solely to disinfectant use by their handlers.

I'm not suggesting that disinfectants cause antibiotic resistance, but that antibiotic resistance genes can have beneficial effects for the bacteria outside of antibiotic resistance. When that is the case, removal of the selective pressure provided by antibiotics will not result in the resistant bacteria operating at a competitive disadvantage, so there is no selective pressure to make the genes go away.

The antibiotics used for growth promotion and for treating diseases, are in many cases the same drug, with only the dosage being different. As you point out, those drugs that are used for disease treatment and not prophylaxis/growth-promotion are used MORE heavily in the wake of the ban because of increased disease outbreaks. In those cases, the ban has actually done more damage than good to the stated goal of reducing antibiotic resistance in bacteria. The net result of the ban has been an increase in total tons of antibiotics used/year for agriculture, and a shift in the families used toward those related to those most important to human medicine, and no measurable decrease in resistance in the wake of the ban. It's time to reconsider the ban, but instead they are talking about banning more antibiotics and a couple of US Representatives are pushing to get an EU style ban even with all of the evidence that it has not beneficial effects, only negative ones. That can only be described as a leap of faith into a pit of cobras, IMO.

Some citations:
Vancomycin resistant enterococci (VRE) still persist in slaughtered poultry in Hungary 8 years after the ban on avoparcin

A longitudinal study to assess the persistence of vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium (VREF) on an intensive broiler farm in the United Kingdom

Prevalence and Mechanism of Resistance against Macrolides, Lincosamides, and Streptogramins among Enterococcus faecium Isolates from Food-Producing Animals and Hospital Patients in Belgium

here http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/123232355/abstract
abstract of article

Genetic and Environmental Influences on self-reported G-Spots in Women: A Twin Study
Andrea Virginia Burri, MSc, Lynn Cherkas, PhD, and Timothy D. Spector, MD
Department of Twin Research and Genetic Epidemiology, King's College London, London, UK
Correspondence to Andrea Burri, MSc, Twin Research and Genetic Epidemiology, King's College London, St. Thomas' Hospital, Westminster Bridge Road, London SE1 EH7, UK. Tel: 00447943802987; Fax: 004402071886718; E-mail: andrea.burri@kcl.ac.uk, tim.spector@kcl.ac.uk
Copyright © 2009 International Society for Sexual Medicine
KEYWORDS
G-Spot Twin Study Genetics Heritability
ABSTRACT

Introduction. There is an ongoing debate around the existence of the G-spot—an allegedly highly sensitive area on the anterior wall of the human vagina. The existence of the G-spot seems to be widely accepted among women, despite the failure of numerous behavioral, anatomical, and biochemical studies to prove its existence. Heritability has been demonstrated in all other genuine anatomical traits studied so far.

Aim. To investigate whether the self-reported G-spot has an underlying genetic basis.

Methods. 1804 unselected female twins aged 22–83 completed a questionnaire that included questions about female sexuality and asked about the presence or absence of a G-spot. The relative contribution of genetic and environmental factors to variation in the reported existence of a G-spot was assessed using a variance components model fitting approach.

Main Outcome Measures. Genetic variance component analysis of self-reported G-spot.

Results. We found 56% of women reported having a G-spot. The prevalence decreased with age. Variance component analyses revealed that variation in G-spot reported frequency is almost entirely a result of individual experiences and random measurement error (>89%) with no detectable genetic influence. Correlations with associated general sexual behavior, relationship satisfaction, and attitudes toward sexuality suggest that the self-reported G-spot is to be a secondary pseudo-phenomenon.

Conclusions. To our knowledge, this is the largest study investigating the prevalence of the G-spot and the first one to explore an underlying genetic basis. A possible explanation for the lack of heritability may be that women differ in their ability to detect their own (true) G-spots. However, we postulate that the reason for the lack of genetic variation—in contrast to other anatomical and physiological traits studied—is that there is no physiological or physical basis for the G-spot. Burri AV, Cherkas L, and Spector TD. Genetic and environmental influences on self-reported G-spots in women: A twin study. J Sex Med **;**:**–**.

Apple and Quaalcom didn't sign the RAND agreement with the other cell phone industry conglomerates. Quaalcom holds quite a few patents as well in the GSM arena that Apple may be infringing upon. We shall see.

I would think that not signing the (legally-binding) RAND agreement, leaves you excluded from the terms therein, beneficial to you or not, and allows the signers to make you, the non-signer, whatever offer (or non-offer) they so wished, so long as the RAND terms were fairly and equally applied to the other signers.

Let's also not forget SA Fractus, who owns several patents on internal cell phone antennas, and other cell phone technology.

And then there is this patent on internal cell phone/mobile antennas, specifically a 5-band printed (as in, printed directly on the internal system circuit board) planar antenna. This seems to be the most likely type of antenna in use inside the iPhone (I don't have one to tear apart and look, I'd really like to tear apart one of the latest iteration), since the iPhone patents clearly state and show no space in the containing shell for an internal USB-link antenna or a solid monopole antenna, or a separate antenna unit of any kind (in fact, all that seems to be described are the shell, the touch screen interface, the internal rail mounts, and an abstract of the system board).

Wonder if those guys in Taiwan have even gotten a chance to dissect an iPhone, being after all, employees for a university.

The Mediterranean flood hypothesis is not new - these authors have just done more work on the geology. They lean against the giant waterfall idea ("We do not envisage a waterfall..."), which is a shame - I always liked the idea of a supersonic waterfall.

The measurements revealed that for all types of tasks, subjects lost time when they had to switch from one task to another, and time costs increased with the complexity of the tasks, so it took significantly longer to switch between more complex tasks. Time costs also were greater when subjects switched to tasks that were relatively unfamiliar. They got "up to speed" faster when they switched to tasks they knew better, an observation that may lead to interfaces designed to help overcome people's innate cognitive limitations.

Or here:

"People can't multitask very well, and when people say they can, they're deluding themselves," said neuroscientist Earl Miller. And, he said, "The brain is very good at deluding itself. Switching from task to task, you think you're actually paying attention to everything around you at the same time. But you're actually not. You're not paying attention to one or two things simultaneously, but switching between them very rapidly. Think about writing an e-mail and talking on the phone at the same time. Those things are nearly impossible to do at the same time. You cannot focus on one while doing the other. That's because of what's called interference between the two tasks. They both involve communicating via speech or the written word, and so there's a lot of conflict between the two of them."

Researchers say they can actually see the brain struggling. And now they're trying to figure out the details of what's going on.

Regarding music, see Music while you work: the differential distraction of background music on the cognitive test performance of introverts and extraverts, Adrian Furnham, Anna Bradley, Department of Psychology, University College London, UK:

The current study looked at the distracting effects of pop music on introverts' and extraverts' performance on various cognitive tasks. It was predicted that there would be a main effect for music and an interaction effect with introverts performing less well in the presence of music than extraverts. Ten introverts and ten extraverts were given two tests (a memory test with immediate and delayed recall and a reading comprehension test), which were completed, either while being exposed to pop music, or in silence. The results showed that there was a detrimental effect on immediate recall on the memory test for both groups when music was played, and two of the three interactions were significant. After a 6-minute interval the introverts who had memorized the objects in the presence of the pop music had a significantly lower recall than the extraverts in the same condition and the introverts who had observed them in silence. The introverts who completed a reading comprehension task when music was being played also performed significantly less well than these two groups. These findings have implications for the study habits of introverts when needing to retain or process complex information.

Not that I agree with the boss of course; I like listening to music to block out the sound of people talking, which is a bigger distraction. I would imagine that if there were a comparison between working while listening to music, and working in a noisy, talkative environment, you'd find that the latter has worse performance results than the former. And no, I don't have a citation for that :)

Thank you! (Yes, I mean it) It is the first time you actually gave me something to read ;)

The first study shows that one species (out of 275000) planktonic foraminifera seem to have evolved during a period of 50k years :) It also includes the following quote:

other variables such as temperature, salinity and nutrient availability may also influence calcification rate ... but I don't think it's important - I'm do not believe in a static environment and the fact that shell builders adapt their shells in response to varying levels of dissolved CO2 feels reassuring. As I wrote before, they've apparently survived magnitudes higher CO2 levels before - why should today's fluctuations pose any problems?

The second link is the same as the first. Was that intentional?

The third link is one of the worst papers I've read - and it only deals in projections, models and weird citations, like this one:

Bibby and colleagues (2007) documented interesting behavioral, metabolic, and morphological responses of the intertidal gastropod Littorina littorea to acidified seawater (pH=6.6)

pH 6.6 - seriously? What's that supposed to prove? ... and I'm not sure how well reviewed it was before being published:

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119880047/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

In contrast, the study I linked to deals in actual observations of multiple species (and more complex species at that).

So do condoms. Also, the one study that showed anti-HIV effects was found to have used cherry picked population samples.

You mean like the three randomized controlled trials in Africa with multiple thousands of men that all were stopped early because they showed such a dramatic benefit to the circumcised group? Meaning, 50% the infection rate of the control group? See, e.g., here. The results might not be as drastic outside of Africa, due to different transmission vectors for HIV, but circumcision is definitely an effective measure to cut HIV in some important cases.

What's always bothered me is that people insist on doing it to children. If it's so helpful, then parents would naturally wait until the child is old enough to choose for himself. I've always suspected that the reason it's done to children is that it's a part of culture, and that parents know that when the child gets old enough to choose for himself, their reaction will be "Oh, HELL no.".

Parents already make far more momentous decisions for their kids, which can be equally irreversible. They can leave the kid watching TV all day so they get bored by real life, feed them only junk food so they get diabetes, and send them to a terrible school where they don't get an education and end up stuck with a menial and low-paying job for the rest of their life. But circumcising them is somehow a crime against humanity.

Yeah, people only circumcise their kids for cultural reasons. People also only object to circumcision for cultural reasons. It causes no more demonstrable harm than a ten-year-old girl getting her ears pierced. Any possible harm anyone can come up with is speculative, and certainly doesn't significantly outweigh its possible benefits. But some people freak out about it because of their ideologies and biases.

Looking through their paper they show diffraction patterns that are roughly 4 pixels across on a sensor with 9 micron pixels (36 microns) for red blood cells which are 5 microns. This implies roughly 7.2x magnification, which means their actual field-of-view is about 18 mm^2 or 1/55th of their claimed field of view.

There's some serious issues with their idea of cost, too. Most field clinics in India (I have a brother who works as a malaria epidemiologist there) use microscopes that cost around $100-150, to claim replacing that with a $300+ camera phone (admittedly, the whole cell phone things looks like a huge marketing gimmick since they just use a high-end kodak interline CCD anyways) is "inexpensive" is more than a little disingenuous.

I've ranted before on the science behind the LUCAS system before, so I'll try not to repeat myself, but the utility of such as system would be limited primarily to RBC/WBC counts which are typically done either in counting chambers on a microscope or in an automated system measuring light scatter (both are called hemocytometers). While I can believe that they could very well do what an automated hemocytometer does using a lower cost instrument, applications in screening for disease causing agents such as malaria parasites and mycobacteria are doubtful except at very high parasitemia (when a high enough density of parasites are present to scatter a detectable quantity of light) or at very high concentrations of bacteria in sputum (same story) at which point microscopy would be easier and cheaper to detect the objects. When objects start getting down to the 1 micron size-scale, it becomes exceedingly difficult to scatter light with them. Even looking at their published results, some of their diffraction patterns are already barely above background with cells in the 5-10 micron range. Trying to detect a minute variation inside one of those diffraction patterns (from a malaria parasite within an RBC, for example) while perhaps possible would not be very clinically reliable when you have no control over what might be in your samples.

A high-throughput on-chip imaging platform that can rapidly monitor and characterize various cell types within a heterogeneous solution over a depth-of-field of ~4mm and a field-of-view of ~10 cm^2 is introduced. This powerful system can rapidly image/monitor multiple layers of cells, within a volume of ~4 mL all in parallel without the need for any lenses, microscope-objectives or any mechanical scanning.

In this high-throughput lensless imaging scheme, the classical diffraction pattern (i.e., the shadow) of each micro-particle within the entire sample volume is detected in less than a second using an opto-electronic sensor chip. The acquired shadow image is then digitally processed using a custom developed ‘‘decision algorithm’’ to enable both the identification of the particle location in 3D and the characterization of each micro-particle type within the sample volume.

Through experimental results, we show that different cell types (e.g., red blood cells, fibroblasts, etc.) or other micro-particles all exhibit uniquely different shadow patterns and therefore can be rapidly identified without any ambiguity using the developed decision algorithm, enabling high-throughput characterization of a heterogeneous solution.

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/121401991/abstract
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/121401991/PDFSTART

This topic was also covered a few months ago -- with better results, but using actual lenses instead of just the bare CCD sensor:
http://science.slashdot.org/story/09/07/24/1440227/Use-Your-Cell-Phone-To-Diagnose-Blood-Diseases

A high-throughput on-chip imaging platform that can rapidly monitor and characterize various cell types within a heterogeneous solution over a depth-of-field of ~4mm and a field-of-view of ~10 cm^2 is introduced. This powerful system can rapidly image/monitor multiple layers of cells, within a volume of ~4 mL all in parallel without the need for any lenses, microscope-objectives or any mechanical scanning.

In this high-throughput lensless imaging scheme, the classical diffraction pattern (i.e., the shadow) of each micro-particle within the entire sample volume is detected in less than a second using an opto-electronic sensor chip. The acquired shadow image is then digitally processed using a custom developed ‘‘decision algorithm’’ to enable both the identification of the particle location in 3D and the characterization of each micro-particle type within the sample volume.

Through experimental results, we show that different cell types (e.g., red blood cells, fibroblasts, etc.) or other micro-particles all exhibit uniquely different shadow patterns and therefore can be rapidly identified without any ambiguity using the developed decision algorithm, enabling high-throughput characterization of a heterogeneous solution.

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/121401991/abstract
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/121401991/PDFSTART

This topic was also covered a few months ago -- with better results, but using actual lenses instead of just the bare CCD sensor:
http://science.slashdot.org/story/09/07/24/1440227/Use-Your-Cell-Phone-To-Diagnose-Blood-Diseases

Plants cannot metabolize nitrogen directly.

You are correct. However, the article talks about nitrogen oxides, not molecular nitrogen. The nitrogen in nitrogen oxides is already "fixed" and can be absorbed by many different kinds of plants.

Why do you think you put nitrogen fertilizers to plants, if the atmosphere is > 70% nitrogen?

As you probably know, we'd all be dead if the atmosphere were ~70% nitrogen oxides.

If you have access to Angewandte Chemie, check out this review (free abstract) on hydrogen storage. In one of the first figures in the paper (not at work, forget offhand whether it was figure 1 or 2), it makes a comparison between diesel, hydrogen, and state of the art lithium batteries, considering both energy density and "fuel tank" requirements. Even though the authors are very much pro-hydrogen, the figure is very much pro-diesel. Sure, the weight of the hydrogen is miniscule. But the tanks even under calculated ideal circumstances are rather heavy.

From the actual issue of Arthritis and Ruhmitism where Ig Nobel Prise winner Dr. Donald L. Unger, published the results of his investigation into a possible cause of arthritis of the fingers. - http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/86510619/PDFSTART

Read the reply... I love it when serious people let loose!

Does knuckle cracking lead to arthritis of the fingers?

To the Editor:
During the author's childhood, various renowned authorities (his mother, several aunts, and, later, his mother-in law [personal communication]) informed him that cracking his knuckles would lead to arthritis of the fingers. To test the accuracy of this hypothesis, the following study was undertaken. For 50 years, the author cracked the knuckles of his left hand at least twice a day, leaving those on the right as a control. Thus, the knuckles on the left were cracked at least 36,500 times, while those on the right cracked rarely and spontaneously. At the end of the 50 years, the hands were compared for the presence of arthritis. There was no arthritis in either hand, and no apparent differences between the two hands. Knuckle cracking did not lead to arthritis after a 50-year controlled study by the one participant. While a larger group would be necessary to confirm this result, this preliminary investigation suggests a lack of correlation between knuckle cracking and the development of arthritis of the fingers. A search of the literature revealed only one previous paper on this subject, and the authors came to the same conclusion (Swezey RL. Swezey SE. The consequences of habitual knuckle cracking. West J Med 1973;122:377-9.).

This result calls into question whether other parental beliefs, e.g., the importance of eating spinach, are also flawed. Further investigation is likely warranted. In conclusion, there is no apparent relationship between knuckle cracking and the subsequent development of arthritis of the fingers. This study was done entirely at the author's expense, with no grants from any governmental or pharmaceutical source.

Donald L. Unger, MD
Thousand Oaks, CA

Reply

To the Editor:

I appreciate the opportunity to review Dr. Unger's report. His "self-controlled" study adds considerable credence
to our 1973 study findings. Dr. Unger exercised amazing self control by performing 50 years of knuckle cracking (KC) on his left hand at least twice daily, "while those on the right cracked only rarely and spontaneously.'' No evidence of arthritis in either hand was found at the end of 50 years. I have taken the liberty of consulting Dr. John Adams, PhD, at the Rand Corporation. who has generously provided me with the following statistical analysis.

The basic study designed by Dr. Unger is a two-arm trial without randomization. Although it is not clear, it appears
that the study was not blinded. Blinding would only be possible if the investigator didn't know left from right. This is not likely since studies indicate that only 31% of primary care physicians don't know left from right. (The figure is reportedly somcwhat higher for most specialists.) The lack of randomization suggests the need for a multivariate analysis to reduce bias. Controlling for knuckle-to-knuckle variation in race, sex, socioeconomic status, initial severity, comorbidities, and Ecuadorian
barometric pressure at the time of measurement would be advisable. The sample size appears too small to support accurate inference. Typically, sample sizes of roughly twice the available research budget are required for valid inference. Restrictive
eligibility criteria and convenience sampling limit generalization of the results to knuckle-cracking physicians
with a lot of time on their hands.

I should note that SES, the co-author of our 1973 investigation, was 12 years old at the time of the study and that
the study was stimulated because of his grandmother's co

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/86510619/PDFSTART

The response to the article though, that's great.

There is a small density effect of melting sea ice on sea level, due to the density contrast between freshwater ice and salty seawater. (Sea ice contains less salt than sea water does, due to brine exclusion.)

[sea level rise from sea ice]

Yes, it's a small effect.

Again, I'd be more worried about the antarctic where nearly all the ice is already above sealevel, which means a much larger percentage is going to be affecting sea levels.

People are most worried about Greenland and the West Antarctic ice sheets, somewhat more worried about Greenland as it probably has a lower "tipping point" (warming necessary to melt the whole ice sheet).

I think that people who remembered their high school science classes on anthropology assumed he was comparing the focus group to neanderthals or "lesser" primates.

And why wasn't this published? The very conclusion is that we should be more careful when trusting fMRI results and conduct more testing before jumping to conclusion.

Perhaps because what he's saying isn't new? As far as I can tell he's merely restating a substantive point that was recently made by someone else, which attracted substantial publicity as well as sober rebuttals (along the lines of: nobody actually uses the flawed statistical methods that you're critiquing). All this guy is doing is illustrating the point in an absurd and attention-grabbing way.

Fair enough, I wasn't aware of that. In that case, why the hell did I read this nonsense post?

And why wasn't this published? The very conclusion is that we should be more careful when trusting fMRI results and conduct more testing before jumping to conclusion.

Perhaps because what he's saying isn't new? As far as I can tell he's merely restating a substantive point that was recently made by someone else, which attracted substantial publicity as well as sober rebuttals (along the lines of: nobody actually uses the flawed statistical methods that you're critiquing). All this guy is doing is illustrating the point in an absurd and attention-grabbing way.

Fair enough, I wasn't aware of that. In that case, why the hell did I read this nonsense post?

And why wasn't this published? The very conclusion is that we should be more careful when trusting fMRI results and conduct more testing before jumping to conclusion.

Perhaps because what he's saying isn't new? As far as I can tell he's merely restating a substantive point that was recently made by someone else, which attracted substantial publicity as well as sober rebuttals (along the lines of: nobody actually uses the flawed statistical methods that you're critiquing). All this guy is doing is illustrating the point in an absurd and attention-grabbing way.

And why wasn't this published? The very conclusion is that we should be more careful when trusting fMRI results and conduct more testing before jumping to conclusion.

Perhaps because what he's saying isn't new? As far as I can tell he's merely restating a substantive point that was recently made by someone else, which attracted substantial publicity as well as sober rebuttals (along the lines of: nobody actually uses the flawed statistical methods that you're critiquing). All this guy is doing is illustrating the point in an absurd and attention-grabbing way.

I wonder if radiation is the reason teenagers to day are so messed up. Maybe all the cell phone use is what's screwing up their brains. I wonder where I could get a grant to do the research.

No, I don't think so. I doubt cellphones are screwing up teenagers brains, but would like to see studies. Since at least the 1990s prescriptions for teenagers with and without AHDH, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, have gone up.

To balance that Huffington Post article, a study by Mayo Clinic researchers found that treatment with prescription stimulants is associated with improved long-term academic success of children with ADHD."

Last time I checked, the laws of physics still reigned supreme, and microwaves will not cause genetic damage to his plants.

You'd better tell all the scientists you know better than they do. They have studies that conclude that microwaves do affect DNA. Then again there are disagreement even between those who research the subject, and with it being like that saying there is no affect is not scientifically accurate.

Falcon

Microwaves don't alter DNA? You'd better tell a number of scientists and other researchers you know more than they do.

Quite frankly, if I was his neighbor, I'd sue the moron.

So if I lived next to you would it be alright if I opened a toxic waste dump next to you? Or would I have to sue you?

Falcon

Microwaves don't alter DNA? You'd better tell a number of scientists and other researchers you know more than they do.

Quite frankly, if I was his neighbor, I'd sue the moron.

So if I lived next to you would it be alright if I opened a toxic waste dump next to you? Or would I have to sue you?

Falcon

Microwaves don't alter DNA? You'd better tell a number of scientists and other researchers you know more than they do.

Quite frankly, if I was his neighbor, I'd sue the moron.

So if I lived next to you would it be alright if I opened a toxic waste dump next to you? Or would I have to sue you?

Falcon

there's a reason EM radiation of longer wavelengths is called "non-ionizing". Hint: it's because it's incapable of ionizing anything.

The fact that radiation is not ionizing anything does not imply that it has no effect on living tissue. It could induce microcurrents in some tissues, or cause certain molecules to resonate in a way which affected important chemical reactions.

Which is not to say that AM radio does have any effect, only that "it's not ionizing!" is not a refutation.

Biological systems are complex; if something as relatively simple as a computer can be effected by EM radiation, it's not completely batty to speculate that biological systems might be also. There are a few studies -- such as this one -- that have suggested effects on cerebral blood flow or on sleep patterns, but the data remains spotty at best.

I repeat, I'm not claiming that such effects exist, nor am I defending this vandalism. (Calling it "terrorism" is, of course, ridiculous.) But claiming that EM radiation can't have any health effects because it's not ionizing is bad science.

There's been quite a bit of previous research done on Tetris, which has found that just about the only thing playing tetris improves is your ability to play tetris. The spatial expertise acquired while playing tetris is highly domain specific (eg. see VK Sims, RE Mayer (2002) ). In fact Tetris has so few measurable changes on behavior that it's often used as the control game for action video game research (eg. Green CS, Bavelier D. (2003)).

Here is a link to the actual publication.

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/122539667/HTMLSTART

It always bothers me that these aren't provided, we can read the the actual results and not the news version!

Cool! After a little digging http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nepenthes_attenboroughii has a couple references to http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/122221934/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0 which seems to imply rodents are there by accident, just like they could drown anywhere. Apparently a rat was observed in the 19th century to be in a pitcher plant (on the article you linked), but this may be sensationalism http://www.cpukforum.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=33295&st=0&p=250762&#entry250762

"SOME biologists and neuroscientists will always be around who say what you want. If you can show that the mainstream opinion is against me, I'll happily concede the point, and thank you for enlightening me, but I doubt it."

Some studies of insect locomotion (which was where this discussion started) which use experimental data, modelling, or a mixture of the two to show that a great deal of locomotion sensing and control happens either in the limbs themselves before they reach any nerve centres, or in the thoracic ganglia. Nerve stimulation experiments have also shown that the characteristic "dual tripod" gait of hexapods is a mechanical oscillatory cycle that runs automatically when single nerves in the brain or mesothoracic ganglia are stimulated. The same is true for wing beats (which is some types share both muscles and central ganglia with the legs), which will cycle repeatedly when nerves in the thoracic ganglia are stimulated. The notable similarity in the data gathered from not only animals of the same species, but but those of different but closely related ones indicates that these movements are produced by a fixed "hardware" pattern generator, similar in principle to the electro-mechanical sequencers used in dishwashers and washing machines before microprocessor control became common:

(Note I apologise in advance for some of these only abstracts. Full scientific papers and book texts are hard to find on the web):

http://jn.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/82/1/512
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/45436/abstract

http://pt.wkhealth.com/pt/re/ejnr/abstract.00009274-200419070-00019.htm;jsessionid=KwpKVK0J1jTLRRXsZmb2QJJ53LlxD8s1Tnhv6l5Fqj9qNF2ncS7l!-1104825961!181195629!8091!-1

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v283/n5749/abs/283768a0.html

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/109692463/abstract

http://www.cell.com/biophysj/abstract/S0006-3495(65)86706-6

http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:5jTmyj1E8ywJ:biology.queensu.ca/~locust/Publications/locust%2520flight.pdf+insect+proprioceptors+ganglia&cd=75&hl=en&ct=clnk

"Oh really? You read it's mind then?"

There is absolutely no evidence that insects have anything that fits the description of a "mind" to read. Note though that some spiders may well have minds, e.g. Portia labiata, which displays a level of intelligence that makes many small mammals look like warm-blooded morons.

"Humans are predictable too. Doesn't mean they're not intelligent. They're just creatures of habit."

Humans are predictable en-masse, but not individually. Most insects on the other hand are entirely predictable individually, i.e. they always react in precisely the same way to the same sets of stimuli as another insect of the same species.

"Well, Jellyfish ARE pretty dumb, you know. The most complex behaviour I know of is in Box Jellyfish, which use simple visual contrast to avoid obstacles."

All jellyfish are sensitive to a variety of external factors such as light, orientation, water currents, temperature, and a variety of types of touch, so they're by no means as unsophisticated as you're trying to make out. It's notable that you avoid trying to deal with echinoderms, which like most animals with radial rather than bilateral symmetry, also lack cen

"SOME biologists and neuroscientists will always be around who say what you want. If you can show that the mainstream opinion is against me, I'll happily concede the point, and thank you for enlightening me, but I doubt it."

Some studies of insect locomotion (which was where this discussion started) which use experimental data, modelling, or a mixture of the two to show that a great deal of locomotion sensing and control happens either in the limbs themselves before they reach any nerve centres, or in the thoracic ganglia. Nerve stimulation experiments have also shown that the characteristic "dual tripod" gait of hexapods is a mechanical oscillatory cycle that runs automatically when single nerves in the brain or mesothoracic ganglia are stimulated. The same is true for wing beats (which is some types share both muscles and central ganglia with the legs), which will cycle repeatedly when nerves in the thoracic ganglia are stimulated. The notable similarity in the data gathered from not only animals of the same species, but but those of different but closely related ones indicates that these movements are produced by a fixed "hardware" pattern generator, similar in principle to the electro-mechanical sequencers used in dishwashers and washing machines before microprocessor control became common:

(Note I apologise in advance for some of these only abstracts. Full scientific papers and book texts are hard to find on the web):

http://jn.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/82/1/512
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/45436/abstract

http://pt.wkhealth.com/pt/re/ejnr/abstract.00009274-200419070-00019.htm;jsessionid=KwpKVK0J1jTLRRXsZmb2QJJ53LlxD8s1Tnhv6l5Fqj9qNF2ncS7l!-1104825961!181195629!8091!-1

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v283/n5749/abs/283768a0.html

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/109692463/abstract

http://www.cell.com/biophysj/abstract/S0006-3495(65)86706-6

http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:5jTmyj1E8ywJ:biology.queensu.ca/~locust/Publications/locust%2520flight.pdf+insect+proprioceptors+ganglia&cd=75&hl=en&ct=clnk

"Oh really? You read it's mind then?"

There is absolutely no evidence that insects have anything that fits the description of a "mind" to read. Note though that some spiders may well have minds, e.g. Portia labiata, which displays a level of intelligence that makes many small mammals look like warm-blooded morons.

"Humans are predictable too. Doesn't mean they're not intelligent. They're just creatures of habit."

Humans are predictable en-masse, but not individually. Most insects on the other hand are entirely predictable individually, i.e. they always react in precisely the same way to the same sets of stimuli as another insect of the same species.

"Well, Jellyfish ARE pretty dumb, you know. The most complex behaviour I know of is in Box Jellyfish, which use simple visual contrast to avoid obstacles."

All jellyfish are sensitive to a variety of external factors such as light, orientation, water currents, temperature, and a variety of types of touch, so they're by no means as unsophisticated as you're trying to make out. It's notable that you avoid trying to deal with echinoderms, which like most animals with radial rather than bilateral symmetry, also lack cen

Not at all. A locomotive is not a hybrid, as there is only a single type of motor used for motive power. Calling them 'series hybrid' vehicles only started very recently, when manufacturers wanted to cash in on a buzzword.

If you check out the Journal article, they describe this system as an electric motor mounted on the drive shaft, powered by existing auxiliary electrical generation capacity on the ship. The motor would only be used at speeds under 12kt at maybe 1/10th peak power output, when the efficiency drops off considerably and the turbines are basically idling. The system would be set up to run in reverse, providing power back to the ship, presumably for future electric artillery that the Navy is developing.

Done correctly there's nothing inherently wrong with that kind of shock therapy, it's even made something of a minor resurgance in the US for treating PTSD and depression. The idea is that you shock the brain while it is remembering the dramatic memory, cuasing the brain to either fail to store the memory or to store the memory without the emotional content.

I have never heard of such a thing, and a quick Google search yields no supporting evidence. There are certainly cases of doctors using various drugs (such as propranolol) to try to block/inhibit/weaken memories. The evidence so far is a bit weak, as far as I know. Here's one paper for people who are interested:

Pltman. R. K., et al. (2002). Pilot study of secondary prevention of posttraumatic stress disorder with propranolol. Biological Psychiatry, 51, 189-192.

Geeze, you're so full of shit I'm not going to even read all of this.

I suppose that's one way to keep avoiding the question.

I stopped when I hit, "The evidence is in any study on diet and exercise." What the hells does that even mean? Any study?

It means that if you were to pick a study where diet, exercise and weight were taken into account. For example if you wanted to see if one diet (say Atkins) was equal to or better than another (say GI) in terms of controlling weight. If "gut inefficiency" is of great significance in ones weight - as you appear to claim. Then you would see one of three things:

i) The study would control for it - since comparing two people with different levels of "gut inefficiency" would be meaningless.
ii) The study would not control for it and when compared against a similar study. Would not agree.
iii) The study would agree but only by chance - as would show up in something like a meta-analysis.

So any study - or more specifically - any pair of studies of this kind which show agreement would be evidence unto itself that "gut inefficiency" is not a significant factor. A suitable P value could be derived to determine just how likely iii) is too.

Have you done any study? Have you read any study? Do you know anything on the topic?

Well I can estimate that we've pretty much reached the maximum depth of your knowledge here and it isn't very impressive.

Give me one study. Give me a single study with a diverse sample of people that shows that people with the same caloric intake and same exercise routine will all weigh the same, even as a general trend.

That's not exactly what I've said. It's that caloric intake and caloric spend (including BMR) overshadow every other factor significantly in the vast majority of cases. Tell you what, I'll produce a study if you can define your terms provided that they are sane. For example what does "a diverse sample of people" mean? Language like that simply does not appear in the abstracts in medical journals. Also what does "all weigh the same" mean - what variance is acceptable?

Sorry if this seems difficult but you clearly don't know which end of the slide rule to hold. So if I showed you a study like this where a group of overweight people were subjected to a proportional caloric restriction and got a *proportional* loss in weight with less than 1% error. Would you even know why that would be damaging to your theory (or theories)

On second thought, don't bother. I know you're wrong, and by now, you probably know you're wrong.

Well I know you're fond of shouting about other people being wrong. I suppose the difference between you and I. Is that I've outlined two very specific places where you are potentially wrong and you...well you seem to think if you repeat "wrong" enough times it will be true. Good luck with that.

Instead, go read something on the topic. Or even talk to your family doctor.

Well it's likely I talk to medical professionals far, far more often than you do. I live with a GP/Emerge doc.

Or look on the web [lmgtfy.com] for any number of websites for more information.

That's pretty amusing. So somehow this is 'so obvious' and 'everyone agrees' and you can't produce a single cite from a medical journal about your theories. Again, I have at least taken up your challenge.

I may as well have been arguing with the Time Cube guy.

I think you may well *be* the time cube guy.

Incidentally. Somehow you still can't get around to answering two questions. I think it's pretty obvious why. Your entire post was pretty much you blowing smoke.

HTML, especially XHTML, can already do what the OP describes, but browsers don't support all the bells and whistles needed for paper-like paged rendering. CSS goes some way towards meeting the deficiencies, but the end user still retains sufficient control to (perhaps unwittingly) defeat almost any attempt to force pagination and placement. It is tedious, but by no means impossible, to write documents of considerable complexity in HTML, as I pointed out long ago, but page support requires browser cooperation.

The only reliable answer at the moment is to provide multiple formats generated from a single source. An XML master (DocBook, TEI, whatever) can be used with XSLT to generate LaTeX source code for making a PDF, and the pagination data can be re-used in a subsequent XSLT script to generate paged HTML. The problem is the XML and LaTeX editors, which are unsuited for writing unless you learn about XML or LaTeX markup, and even the relatively smart ones don't implement a lot of the features needed for complex structured writing (<plug>come to Balisage to find out why</plug>).

LyX and similar editors (Scientific Word, Textures) provide synchronous typographic interfaces to LaTeX, and TeX4ht provides excellent conversion to web pages and other formats. Even Word and OpenOffice, when used with named styles (with utter rigour) can be converted reliably to HTML, LaTeX and other outputs.

The last thing on earth we need is to increase the size of the HTML tagset: HTML5 is already suffering from bloat.