Slashdot Mirror


Is Lack of Sleep a Public Health Crisis? (washingtonpost.com)

According to The Washington Post, "a growing number of scientists, not normally known for being advocates, are bringing evangelical zeal to the message that lack of sleep is an escalating public health crisis that deserves as much attention as the obesity epidemic." "We're competing against moneyed interests, with technology and gaming and all that. It's so addictive and so hard to compete with," said Orfeu Buxton, a sleep researcher at Pennsylvania State University. "We've had this natural experiment with the Internet that swamped everything else." From the report: The sleep research community, formerly balkanized into separate sleep disorders such as insomnia and sleep apnea, has begun to coalesce around the concept of "sleep health" -- which for most adults means getting at least seven hours a night. But time in the sack has been steadily decreasing. In 1942, a Gallup poll found that adults slept an average of 7.9 hours per night. In 2013, the average adult had sheared more than an hour off that number. In 2016, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that a third of adults fail to get the recommended seven hours. In the blink of an eye, in evolutionary terms, humans have radically altered a fundamental biological necessity -- with repercussions we are still only beginning to understand.

For years, animal studies have shown that learning activities are reactivated during sleep, a critical part of how lasting memories are formed. More recently, Princeton postdoctoral researcher Monika Schonauer asked 32 people to sleep in the lab after they had been asked to memorize 100 pictures of houses or faces. By analyzing their patterns of electrical brain activity, she found she could effectively read their minds, predicting which images they had been studying while awake -- because they were replaying them. [...] Sleep problems have long been recognized as a symptom of psychiatric and neurological disorders, ranging from depression to Alzheimer's. But increasingly, researchers are exploring the two-way street between disrupted sleep and disease. And researchers who started out interested in cognitive functions such as memory or brain development are finding themselves focused on sleep because it is so fundamental.

109 comments

  1. apparently not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This article put me to sleep

    1. Re:apparently not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes, excessive microwave radiation causes lack of sleep. So, if you have a cell phone in your bedroom, cordless DECT phone by your bed, or a computer router nearby, you are being dosed all night while you try to sleep. Also possible is that a cell phone antenna is within a block or two -- that is close enough to cause problems.

      Great question.

    2. Re: apparently not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, the constant stream of solar neutrinos is bad for sleep. That's why I've oriented my sleeping position to minimize my exposure. Try it, works wonders.

    3. Re: apparently not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      is that your username or is it the land of nod

    4. Re:apparently not by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Gee Wizz that sounds really sciencecy and stuff.
      I figured having my Cell phone next to me, is a distraction where when I wake up in the middle of the night other then just turning around and going back to sleep. I feel the need to check my email, get caught up on my daily comic strips, see the news alerts then not being able to get to sleep because other then a minute shifting to get comfortable, I had actually done a lot of activities that woke me up further. Then before I go to sleep I will watch that one more Video....

      But I guess I am wrong and it must be radiation at types and levels that have no evidence of being harmful or effect the human body.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    5. Re: apparently not by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      So you sleep standing up at exactly midnight, and flat on your back with your feet facing east at 6am?

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    6. Re: apparently not by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      So you sleep standing up at exactly midnight, and flat on your back with your feet facing east at 6am?

      Don't forget the magnet mattress.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    7. Re: apparently not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speaking of things that don't make sense -

      "predicting which images they had been studying while awake -- because they were replaying them"

      How does that work? Do the images create the same patterns in everyone's brains? Or are they saying that if they record what patterns each image makes in your brain once, then if you study that image any other day you'll be repeating the brain pattern in your sleep and they can recognize it? And if you study the same images every day what are we learning about memory and retention? Just confused by that part of the summary.

    8. Re: apparently not by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Speaking of things that don't make sense -

      "predicting which images they had been studying while awake -- because they were replaying them"

      How does that work? Do the images create the same patterns in everyone's brains? Or are they saying that if they record what patterns each image makes in your brain once, then if you study that image any other day you'll be repeating the brain pattern in your sleep and they can recognize it? And if you study the same images every day what are we learning about memory and retention? Just confused by that part of the summary.

      I'm pretty skeptical as well. If as stated, this woman can read the minds of these subjects in this simple manner - that would be the real discovery.

      But since I get 5 hours of sleep a night, feel well rested, and haven't used an alarm but maybe a few times in the last 50 years, the Evangelist Scientists apparently think I have a psychiatric and/or neurological disorder, so we have to take my observations with a grain of salt.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    9. Re: apparently not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reading between the lines (bad summary! Bad! Don't do that!), I'd say she's taking scans of their brain activity while the subjects are studying the images, and then their brain activity echoes similar enough patterns while they're dreaming that she found a correlation.

  2. So, what's the baseline? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1, Interesting

    But time in the sack has been steadily decreasing. In 1942, a Gallup poll found that adults slept an average of 7.9 hours per night. In 2013, the average adult had sheared more than an hour off that number.

    That's all very interesting, but was 1942 a typical year, comparable to, say, the norm for the last five centuries?

    Mind you, I grew up at a time when the "norm" (theoretically) was eight hours a night. And I generally get seven to eight these days. Or six, if the weather is bad and my dog is in panic mode due to thunder. Or five some nights, because, you know, I'm getting older and older people need less sleep, and....

    But asserting that eight hours is the norm and " In the blink of an eye, in evolutionary terms, humans have radically altered a fundamental biological necessity" based on a 1942 survey seems a bit of a stretch....

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    1. Re: So, what's the baseline? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your basement logic that because you do it everyone else is doing exactly the same fails basic cognitive brain function.
      From which I conclude you are a stinking liar.

    2. Re:So, what's the baseline? by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 3, Insightful

      was 1942 a typical year,

      Not really. There were a lot of explosions keeping people up throughout Europe, Asia and the Pacific. Most factories were working three shifts.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    3. Re: So, what's the baseline? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is your point? A renowned Slashdot bedraggled looking collaborator working for a 3 letter agency in Palo Alto sure seems to lack sleep.

      That was my ponit.

    4. Re: So, what's the baseline? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is he the one living on Fruitdale, San Jose?

      Boy, they should have named that avenue Fruitcake!

    5. Re: So, what's the baseline? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Is it Fruitcake or Fruit Cage? Learn your memes!

      https://genius.com/Peter-gabri...

    6. Re: So, what's the baseline? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cdreimer left /. after 20 years and posted 100+ videos in 2018. His trolls are still butthurt that he left them alone with APK.

      The thing to do for him: post more videos :)

    7. Re: So, what's the baseline? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Citing the Gallup poll as evidence of necessary sleep is misleading and probably the journalist's error. AFAIK, we need between 7 & 9 hours (individual variation) of good quality sleep every night. Anything less, including irregular or chemically disturbed sleep, e.g. alcohol, cannabis, or caffeine, results in cognitive impairment. Being tired is like being drunk and yet who gets sent home for being tired?

    8. Re:So, what's the baseline? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably easy to sleep with no tv, internet and mandatory blackouts.

    9. Re:So, what's the baseline? by Daralantan · · Score: 1

      I recall a study a few years ago about the affects of too much and too little sleep on weight in various patients of various ethnicities. And while it did vary some what the ideal range was and what was bad... generally the ok/good ones ranged from 7-9 hours before it was too little/much. So shaving an hour off of 8 doesn't seem too bad except for a few people. I'm assuming we're probably not worried about the 7 hour crowd.... but the 3-5 hour guys that just slam 200 Red Bulls a day instead.

    10. Re: So, what's the baseline? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They asked a question. It is impossible for a question to be a lie because a lie is an assertion and a question is the exact opposite of an assertion.

    11. Re:So, what's the baseline? by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 1

      And I generally get seven to eight these days. Or six, if the weather is bad and my dog is in panic mode due to thunder.

      There's a pretty good solution for this, it worked for our dogs: Anti-anxiety shirt for dogs

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
  3. ahemm... the new Church by SirAstral · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "a growing number of scientists"..."are bringing evangelical zeal to the message"

    I think the new church of science has become well established. Research that cannot be duplicated, constant misrepresentation of facts or evidence, outright deception and money pandering.

    I am a big fan of science, but it has become more of a religion of late than the search for truth about our world.

    1. Re:ahemm... the new Church by 110010001000 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I've noticed that too. The word "scientist" is meaningless. Who is a scientist? Some guy who wrote a paper? What is a sleep researcher going to say? "Yeah, everything is fine and everyone is getting enough sleep". No, everything is a "crisis" according to the "scientists" who get paid to make the claims.

    2. Re:ahemm... the new Church by SirAstral · · Score: 0

      Yea, it's a real shame that science progresses one funeral at a time [Max Planck]. First coffee was bad, then its good, eggs were bad then they were good, milk was bad then good and now bad again depending on who you ask, fat is bad and here recently it is becoming good again. The only minds that are made up about this are the unmade minds.

      Science definitely should have the ear of the people, but most of the time the people never check out who is signing the checks. Most of the time, most of the science is mostly wrong. Of course the benefit of decent science is that it will correct for this and change how it researches and its claims when new evidence is presented or something new is learned that might be helpful to learn the truth. But today, its not that anymore, it's all confirmation bias. Evidence that does not support the pursuit is omitted or assailed when presented by the opposition. The opposition... constantly treating people that are looking for the truth as well as though they are opposition. How quaint!

      Even the term "climate deniers" is nothing more than a baseless accusation against anyone that does not "believe" or parrot the proscribed mantras.

      I don't not believe in climate change, I just do not see enough evidence that can prove it, and definitely not enough to let a bunch of corrupt politicians come up with their version of a solution to it. But do you know what? I want the research to continue, until they get enough to prove it one way or the other. Many people here are mistaken that "a scientific consensus" is the only requirement or even a good requirement... well it's not. How many times has the "scientific consensus" been wrong? Far too many to ever use that logic while expecting to be taken seriously. Even climate change has its own history of flip flopping, heck it even got downplayed during the GW phase only to be just now refereed to as "Climate Change".

      Is it warming? I don't have a reason to doubt that claim, but I have more than enough reasons to doubt that the scientific consensus knows why or how to fix it, and I definitely have good cause to doubt that the same people that can't even resolve a government shutdown will have a viable solution. Even Macron can't get the yellow vest under control.

      I definitely want to get renewable working, but not just because of GW. And like this article, some people are missing sleep, but what are we going to do about it? run around and knock people the fuck out so they do get a bit of shuteye?

      I know... how about a "sleep tax"! That will make them jump for joy!

      heck I even bet that the reason they are saying that it is already too late to stop it now no matter what we do is because they need a fall back if they get their way and get all sorts of climate change legislation done and we still bake like little potatoes. But hey... lets not let a good crisis go to waste eh?

    3. Re:ahemm... the new Church by shess · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yea, it's a real shame that science progresses one funeral at a time [Max Planck]. First coffee was bad, then its good, eggs were bad then they were good, milk was bad then good and now bad again depending on who you ask, fat is bad and here recently it is becoming good again. The only minds that are made up about this are the unmade minds.

      Science definitely should have the ear of the people, but most of the time the people never check out who is signing the checks. Most of the time, most of the science is mostly wrong. Of course the benefit of decent science is that it will correct for this and change how it researches and its claims when new evidence is presented or something new is learned that might be helpful to learn the truth. But today, its not that anymore, it's all confirmation bias. Evidence that does not support the pursuit is omitted or assailed when presented by the opposition. The opposition... constantly treating people that are looking for the truth as well as though they are opposition. How quaint!

      I feel like you're talking about science journalism, here, rather than actual science.

      I'll grant that scientists sometimes engage in that as a marketing tool, but I really don't feel like SCIENCE came to me and said "Butter is bad", any more than I feel like DEMOCRACY came to me and said "Guns are good" or "Cardi B is an excellent singer".

      Even if SCIENCE did make statements like that, I currently live in a country where a lot of people make arguments about how the world is flat, the earth was created in less than 13.5 billion years (plus or minus), and that vaccinations cause autism and chemtrails and fluoride are mind-control devices. I'm not sure what you expect science to do, here.

    4. Re: ahemm... the new Church by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Blah blah blah, did you get enough sleep?

    5. Re:ahemm... the new Church by SirAstral · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "I feel like you're talking about science journalism, here, rather than actual science."

      No, talking about the real science. Sure journalism is also to blame but that is a red herring or straw-man argument. Just stick to the science parts keep the journalism out of it. You are pulling it in because you already know you are wrong and hate being called out on it.

      "I'll grant that scientists sometimes engage in that as a marketing tool, but I really don't feel like SCIENCE came to me and said "Butter is bad", any more than I feel like DEMOCRACY came to me and said "Guns are good" or "Cardi B is an excellent singer"."

      Completely unrelated arguments. Doctors all over whom are supposed to be trained to properly disseminate the science to their patients said butter was bad because science said that. Is this just another attempt to lay the blame on the journalists? Are we to treat the doctors, "Scientists of the Body" in this case like courts treat the police? Not expected to know or understand the information/laws they enforce/act upon? Are you saying you knowingly put your life into the hands of a person that ignores the science and follows the journalism?

      "Even if SCIENCE did make statements like that, I currently live in a country where a lot of people make arguments about how the world is flat, the earth was created in less than 13.5 billion years (plus or minus), and that vaccinations cause autism and chemtrails and fluoride are mind-control devices. I'm not sure what you expect science to do, here."

      And that is why I called it a Church, your arguments are just as unreasonable as theirs. You are not even intelligent enough to understand you look and sound like those you hate, just on the opposite side.

      Science has made all sorts of contradictory statements, and people like you treat a lot of it as gospel. I am trying to get you stop making it a Church and just leave it as it should be... science.

      If God exists with the power they claim then Science cannot touch that. Put yourself in the shoes of a developer that creates a virtual world. Constructs in that world cannot know they are virtual for it is real to them as you have defined it. Unless you give them the capacity to see outside of that reality they are like you. They see a 13.5 billion year old existence... even if it is only just 3 seconds in the frame of time of a dimension above it. You cannot see past 3 dimensions because that is where you exist... how do you describe a 3rd dimension to a 2 dimensional being? They might be able to conceptualize it, but can they fully understand?

      I am not expecting Science to do anything, what I am expecting is for folks like you to stop making it into a church and worshiping it like it has a God... one where YOU just like those that ridiculed Copernicus for thinking the Sun was at the Center of the universe instead of Earth. The problem is that Copernicus was not right either, he just was not as wrong as the others. But because of people like you, the ones in the major, become the oppressors because they did not parrot your views.

      This is the current Science, sure it has always had elements of this problem, scientists are humans, but even the scientists themselves ridicule each other for their ignorance and stupidity.

      A couple of my favorite quotes on this subject.

      Einstein ~ "Only Two Things Are Infinite, the Universe and Human Stupidity, and I Do Not Know About the Former."

      You are one of the humans he was talking about, along with those the modded my comments down.

      Freeman Dyson ~ "Trouble arises when either science or religion claims universal jurisdiction, when either religious dogma or scientific dogma claims to be infallible. Religious creationists and scientific materialists are equally dogmatic and insensitive. By their arrogance they bring both science and religion into disrepute. The media exaggerate their numbers and importance. The media rarely mention the fact that the great majority of religious people belong to mo

    6. Re:ahemm... the new Church by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      I think the new church of science has become well established. Research that cannot be duplicated, constant misrepresentation of facts or evidence, outright deception and money pandering.

      I am a big fan of science, but it has become more of a religion of late than the search for truth about our world.

      I bet you'll feel better about things after a good night's sleep.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    7. Re:ahemm... the new Church by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Most of the time, most of the science is mostly wrong.

      Science isn't "right" or "wrong". It's simply a model of how things work based on analysis of available data. Either the model accurately reflects observation or it does not. Either it helps predict or it does not.

      If you're on a search for "right" and "wrong", then maybe you're the one who's confusing science with religion.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    8. Re:ahemm... the new Church by SirAstral · · Score: 1

      lol, yea... but only for a little while. Until I open up a news site and read something like this again.

      It just amazes me that people stop acting like humans and their corrupting influences stops existing once you call them "Scientist's" or "Government Personnel" or by "Political Label" and then start acting like they are infallible or too good to be touched. Sounds more like the Catholic Church to me... I guess they are all jealous that the Pope beat them to the claim of being infallible and excommunicating those not parroting the mantra's because only the "Clergy" can understand while the lay folk can't.

    9. Re:ahemm... the new Church by SirAstral · · Score: 1

      "Science isn't "right" or "wrong". It's simply a model of how things work based on analysis of available data."

      There is still a context for it being right or wrong. Literally the entire reason they conduct tests... to you know... find out if the hypothesis cannot be dis-proven to become a theory. If a Hypothesis or theory can be proven, then it likely will become a Law or Fact which then makes it... right (correct) instead of wrong (incorrect). Additionally, you can still be right or wrong without having possession of any information or model for analysis... you just need info and models to help convince others you are right. The sky is blue right? How do I go about convincing you of that?

      " Either the model accurately reflects observation or it does not."
      Comment is too obtuse or subjective to work with, likely on purpose. What is accurate or not is in the eye of the beholder and often up to interpretation based on what one believes evidence to represent. A broken window with a ball nearby accurately reflects an observation that the ball broke the window... and yet can still be totally wrong.

      "Either it helps predict or it does not." Broken window and ball again here... it can help predict a false positive.

      "If you're on a search for "right" and "wrong", then maybe you're the one who's confusing science with religion."

      No, that is where I am unique as a person... I keep science and religion properly separated, hence my complaint that many of you are failing to do that. I treat the science as it should be. I do not worship it, I do not treat it as infallible, I do not allow majority opinions to justify them, I do not allow it to convince me religion is false and I do not allow religion to convince me that science is false. If God exists, science is one of the ways we can learn how God did something. It is not against the existence of a God or Gods, it is a sign of a small mind to think so as well. It is also the sign of a small mind when religious folks trash the sciences considering that their God(s) gave them a brain. God's don't need being with brains to be worshiped. A God can compel your obedience.

    10. Re: ahemm... the new Church by Evtim · · Score: 3, Interesting

      https://youtu.be/pwaWilO_Pig

      Start here if you prefer listening than reading. Otherwise buy his book which summarizes all we know about sleep.

      Having followed his advices in the last 8 months I started sleeping 7 to 9 hours per night. The effect is nothing short of miraculous...

      Why do I know so much (general culture) people often ask me. Could it be in part that I read hundreds of books while growing up, every day for hours, usually before sleep? I think so...

    11. Re:ahemm... the new Church by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Science isn't "right" or "wrong". It's simply a model of how things work based on analysis of available data. Either the model accurately reflects observation or it does not. Either it helps predict or it does not.

      It's a myth that science is somehow indifferent and disconnected from the whims of those who practice it.

      If you're on a search for "right" and "wrong", then maybe you're the one who's confusing science with religion.

      Or maybe you're confusing ideology with reality. The truth is all science is pathological.

    12. Re:ahemm... the new Church by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Literally the entire reason they conduct tests... to you know... find out if the hypothesis cannot be dis-proven to become a theory. If a Hypothesis or theory can be proven, then it likely will become a Law or Fact which then makes it... right

      Man, you have mistaken impression of what science is and does. A hypothesis can be supported by data and still be wrong.

      Scientists seldom deal in facts. Facts are for text books. Laws are for law books. Every scientist knows that his work is either supported by data or not supported by data, and only within the realm of the current ability to measure the data. And in context of many other eyes checking the work. Replicating it. Or not.

      Scientists do not make the kind of pronouncements you claim they do.

      What is accurate or not is in the eye of the beholder and often up to interpretation based on what one believes evidence to represent.

      Which is why science is not done by one scientist, but by generations of scientists, testing each others' hypothesis and rechecking each others' data. It's not definitive, except within boundaries of possibility. It's iterative, and iteration is how error-correction is done.

      A God can compel your obedience.

      OK, I'm not sure we share enough of a frame of reference to be having this discussion. But you seem like a good enough guy. I wish you well, friend.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    13. Re:ahemm... the new Church by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, evaluating all research by "who is signing the checks" is politics, not science. We call it argumentum ad monsantium.

    14. Re:ahemm... the new Church by GrumpySteen · · Score: 1

      Research that cannot be duplicated, constant misrepresentation of facts or evidence, outright deception and money pandering.

      Those aren't features of science becoming a religion. Those are features of a capitalist society where science is increasingly limited to for-profit organizations. "Publish or perish" policies, biased studies funded by groups with an agenda to push, pandering to big corporations for research funds... all of that is capitalism.

      Now, if you want to argue that the belief that pure capitalism can actually work in real life is basically a religion based on no evidence whatsoever... well, there are a lot of good arguments in favor of doing so but it's too early in the morning for me to deal with the inevitable replies from whiny idiots who think all regulations are bad.

    15. Re:ahemm... the new Church by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      I think the biggest part is the horrible news reporting for science.
      For it to be part of the news cycle to bring in advertising money, often the latest hypothesis being called a theory, which get people all excited and rialed up, only to become like a lot of science, shown to be a wrong path.

      Real science is not a good spectator sport. When something becomes classified a theory in science, actually a lot of strong evidence it going for it. But often when it gets to that level, there is a lot of peer review and able to duplicate the results, that often it is consider common knowledge.

      Now people like to point to "Science" to prove their point. But it rarely really does, unless the Science has gone a long rigorous process.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    16. Re:ahemm... the new Church by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Most of the time, most of the science is mostly wrong.

      Science isn't "right" or "wrong". It's simply a model of how things work based on analysis of available data. Either the model accurately reflects observation or it does not. Either it helps predict or it does not.

      If you're on a search for "right" and "wrong", then maybe you're the one who's confusing science with religion.

      This. Sadly there are a lot of non-scientist who call themselves scientists and manage to spew enough psudo-scientific babble to confuse idiots who want desperately to believe something. I think that the likes of Andrew Wakefield and Anthony Watts are the worst conmen of our generation.

      The difference between a scientist and a conman is that a scientist sets out test a hypothesis and looks at what the data tells them. A conman looks for the data that supports their hypothesis and ignores anything else.

      Sadly there are enough thick people around who cant tell the difference, so they think science == religion.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    17. Re:ahemm... the new Church by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hawking said, the value of a scientific theory is in its ability to predict future observations.

      Beauty, truth, justice, none of these things mattered, the value was just in its predictive power.

    18. Re: ahemm... the new Church by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do not have an account to mod you, so I would like to thank you for your suggestion!

    19. Re:ahemm... the new Church by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      "a growing number of scientists"..."are bringing evangelical zeal to the message"

      I think the new church of science has become well established. Research that cannot be duplicated, constant misrepresentation of facts or evidence, outright deception and money pandering.

      I am a big fan of science, but it has become more of a religion of late than the search for truth about our world.

      It wouldn't be science media now would it?.

      I find the idea of combining Scientists and evangelical zeal together to be about as ludicrous and oxymoronic as you can get.

      This story is silly. Do people need more sleep? Some do. Some don't. How much? Differs by person.

      I like around 5 hours per night. Less than 4, and I start feeling the effects, and more than 5 simply doesn't happen unless I am ill.

      My wife likes 8 hours. Her sister likes 10.

      But none of the scientists I've known and worked with are evangelical about anything. A few are envious that I need a lot less sleep than they do.

      Your body will tell you when you are getting too little or too much sleep. Lameass hyperbole in stories doesn't.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    20. Re:ahemm... the new Church by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

      I feel like you're talking about science journalism, here, rather than actual science.

      Of course he is. Science the field has an unfortunate property of not giving a shit about what people feel or think. That puts it at odds with people who demand surety. Which is why the idea of "evangelical zeal" is unamalgamated bullshit.

      I'll grant that scientists sometimes engage in that as a marketing tool, but I really don't feel like SCIENCE came to me and said "Butter is bad", any more than I feel like DEMOCRACY came to me and said "Guns are good" or "Cardi B is an excellent singer".

      Scientists are people, and come with all of the foibles that normal people do. But the evangelical bullshit came from the word processor of the writer. It is true that science gets sidetracked by business interests from time to time depending on who the scientist is working for. Even then, the scientist probably gave the truth to the company, and the company spun it to whatever agenda they had. Exxon's understanding of the energy retention effects of atmospheric carbon while publicly decrying it come to mind.

      Even if SCIENCE did make statements like that, I currently live in a country where a lot of people make arguments about how the world is flat, the earth was created in less than 13.5 billion years (plus or minus), and that vaccinations cause autism and chemtrails and fluoride are mind-control devices. I'm not sure what you expect science to do, here.

      Science is merely a bugaboo to hate, yet another target for people who have a deep seated need to hate as many things as possible.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    21. Re:ahemm... the new Church by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Disclaimer: I have a philosophy degree.

      Without "right" and "wrong" you can't talk about science in a meaningful way, I'm afraid. What if theories A and B contradict each other, but both reflect observations and help to predict reasonably well?

    22. Re:ahemm... the new Church by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Science costs money. Anything that costs money will need to provide benefits to justify that money. That will always taint the nature of the research done.

      Science has the power to influence the decisions people make. Anything that can do that will be tainted by political influences.

      There is no escaping any of this.

    23. Re:ahemm... the new Church by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Disclaimer: I have a philosophy degree.

      Oh boy.

      Without "right" and "wrong" you can't talk about science in a meaningful way, I'm afraid. What if theories A and B contradict each other, but both reflect observations and help to predict reasonably well?

      Still no. We actually have often seen contradictory theories that both reflect observations and are predictive. They are both useful models until they aren't any more. If you need things to be definitive, then stick with moral philosophy.

      "Right" and "wrong" are value judgments that are beyond the purview of science.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    24. Re:ahemm... the new Church by Trogre · · Score: 1

      For better or worse, "Science" is often used as a term for the scientific community.

      And that community can be very, very, wrong when they build models on bad data, personal bias, or funding pressure.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
  4. For a start... by msauve · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Just another reason to get rid of daylight "saving" time. (and, no, that doesn't mean go on it year 'round)

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    1. Re:For a start... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What possible difference would it make either way? Once we finally settle on a "standard" for when noon "happens" at a given spot on the Earth we will adjust to it.
      Before the preponderance of clocks capable of keeping accurate time over more than a week (which really wasn't all that long ago) Noon "happened" about when the sun was right overhead. The daylight hours grew shorter and longer on equally at either end of the day and hardly anyone gave it a thought. Pick Standard Time or DST or BatTime or whatever you want and stick with it. No one cares.

  5. Boring by TimMD909 · · Score: 4, Funny

    The study is so boring banal you'll be asleep before the end. Truly, a magnificent public serv....zzzzzzzzz

  6. Would be nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It would be nice to get 8 hours of sleep at night. I'm in my mid 30's and I'm lucky to get 4 or 5 most of the time. Stress and just not being able sleep when I'm tired really sucks. Feeling tired all the time sucks too.

    1. Re: Would be nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm in my 50s and due to a neurological condition I'm lucky if i average 4 hours of straight sleep. I generally have to take several naps during the day. Usually after about 4 days my body cries uncle and i pass out for 6 to 8 hours. With everyone's life style being so different i dont see how they can claim any serious average amount of sleep. I've know season citizens that average 5 hours and they are perfectly fine.

      -geekpoet

  7. if ura redneck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then lack of sheep could be a public health crisis, yes.

  8. check your sleepist privilege by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    lack of sleep is an escalating public health crisis that deserves as much attention as the obesity epidemic

    Healthy at any size!
    Rested at any sleep!

  9. If you make everything a public health issue by guruevi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Then what are things going to be such as an outbreak of polio? If you can fix a 'disease' by changing your habits and lifestyle, it's not really a 'disease', it's slow, assisted suicide.

    A public health issue is something the CDC can fix with strategic quarantine, a vaccine or antibiotics/antivirals. Changing behaviors is not the job of the government.

    --
    Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    1. Re:If you make everything a public health issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, someone who disagrees with or is unaware of the social determinants of health.

    2. Re:If you make everything a public health issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The justice system begs to differ.

    3. Re:If you make everything a public health issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " Changing behaviors is not the job of the government. " - Dead wrong, Guruevi. You're a pedo, it's the government's job to stop you.

    4. Re:If you make everything a public health issue by hackertourist · · Score: 1

      It may not be a physical disease that can be treated with medication, but it is a problem that shows up in increased healthcare cost. You know, one of the biggest money sinks on any government's budget.
      Also, you're wrong. Addiction is a disease. It's a psychological problem that can't be treated by giving someone a pill, but still a disease.
      Dismissing it by saying "you should just change your lifestyle" is a massive disservice to everyone who's ever had a psychological problem.

      It's also an issue in which outside actors ("moneyed interests, with technology and gaming and all that. It's so addictive and so hard to compete with") wage a battle against the public interest in favor of their own bottom line. These battles are so skewed in favor of the outside actors, that individual citizens have little hope of winning them.
      This is no different to e.g. the EPA combating pollution.

      Those factors make it a public health issue.

    5. Re:If you make everything a public health issue by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      But they already solved all the problems like polio. They have to continually invent new excuses to exist. Otherwise, their funding would be reduced, and that would be a tragedy above all.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    6. Re:If you make everything a public health issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So road rules aren't a job for the government ?

    7. Re:If you make everything a public health issue by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Public health crisis" doesn't mean you have to set up white tents and guys in hazmat suits to deal with it. It means that you designate it something that gets significant resources directed to it as a matter of urgency, and hopefully everyone starts to take it seriously.

      At the moment people tend not to even think of sleep as a major problem that affects many people, or something that we can tackle on more than an individual basis. This designation will help with things like getting companies to consider employee's sleep needs when setting schedules.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    8. Re:If you make everything a public health issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just like how they pretend like it's the individual doing this. There are plenty of people that work 12 hour shifts on rotations that are, for all purposes and intents, physiologically incompatible with the human body. The DuPont is one of them, rotating from days to nights with a single day off in between 3 days and 3 nights. Regardless of what method you use to rotate your sleep schedule your circadian rhythm simply cannot match the rapidity demanded, subsequently you lose both quality and quantity. A lot of my co-workers end up waking at noon or midnight depending on the shift and can't return to sleep. That's without several other factors like length of shift change, commute, traffic, and hygiene expectations.

      This isn't necessarily isolated to DuPont, either, while I was working retail the schedule was automated and would be forced to transition shifts over ridiculous periods of time.

      I think a lot of it has more to do with payroll exploiting the legalese of time, pay periods, and a total lack of humanity, than it does J. Doe hitting up CoD:BOIVIIVIVI.

    9. Re:If you make everything a public health issue by guruevi · · Score: 1

      No, that's up to the states

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
  10. Romans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Remember how the Romans built that lead lined water supply system that played a part in their decline and fall?

    1. Re: Romans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but I was just a kid, so my memory is a bit foggy.

  11. Take a break from the media by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    A lot of people lose sleep because they think political bogey men and women are personally gunning for them amid a grand web of conspiracy theories and evil minions. Other people think the world may not be around in the morning because it's a few degrees warmer or colder than whatever "normal" is. Still others need to win arguments on the Internet no matter the cost.

    Well guess what: There are real problems to lose sleep over like not making ends meet, or worrying over very ill relatives. Don't let fearmongering, rumors and gossip and anonymous user-driven nonsense deprive you of any further sleep.

  12. 'mature audience' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... with technology and gaming and all that.

    In my country, I'm more affected by the decision, taken 2 years ago, to delay 'mature audience' entertainment until 9 PM or later. That means a movie frequently doesn't finish until 11:30 or midnight. I'm irked that a children's novel remade as Scrooged (1988), starts at that time because it has 2 seconds of naked nipples. If children aren't tough enough to survive that, they shouldn't be watching Terminator 2 (1991), which started 30 minutes earlier and supposedly contains 270 acts of abuse. I have to decide if I want to stay awake that long because I sleep a fixed number of hours and will thus awake much later in the morning, losing 'me' time. Thankfully, I'm on an afternoon shift.

    1. Re:'mature audience' by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      Pirate the movie, watch it at whatever time you want.

    2. Re:'mature audience' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you're an obtuse idiot.

    3. Re:'mature audience' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wish we had digital VCRs. HDMI in, HDMI out, DVB-T tuner (gets metadata about the program too, though sometimes wrong or missing), recording to 100GB tapes (or 40GB, or whichever), hopefully still able to fast forward.
      I wonder if that would be cheap enough. It'd be digital tape but where data corruption is unimportant.

      Or, I'm waiting for the genius to come out with memory cards of a convenient form factor. Why not smartcards, but instead of containing 4 kilobytes or whatever the storage is on these they can have 8 gigabytes, 32 gigabytes and such. Insert one with movies, a TV show season, an .iso stash, etc.
      For reasons debit and credit cards did not switch to micro SD form factor.

  13. Working hours... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 2

    Working hours: 50+ hours a week in white-collar jobs is now the norm. No vacay time to catch up.

    Electronic connectivity: workers are expected to respond to emails outside of working hours. Yeah, 50 years ago, people had home phones, but calling someone outside of work was seen as more intrusive, and there had to be a damned good reason.

    Overscheduling: if you're running around with your sprogeny in the evening, taking them to extracurricular bullshit activities, you still need time for yourself and to make love to your spouse. Sleep suffers.

    1. Re:Working hours... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Working hours: 50+ hours a week in white-collar jobs is now the norm.

      Back in 1942, people worked even longer hours.

    2. Re:Working hours... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      1942 poll was probably based on 1941 hours, before US was involved in WW2.

    3. Re:Working hours... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Back in 1942, there were a lot more stay at home wives who got all of the housework and kid activities done so that all that was left in the evenings and weekends was relaxing and sleeping. That definitely helped, even if the man worked 60 hours a week or whatever.

      Ever since my wife became a stay at home wife we've had way more time for relaxing and enjoying life. Sure, we have less money, but we've never had such a high quality of life.

    4. Re:Working hours... by houghi · · Score: 1

      And here I am, living in some Communist country.
      37.5 hour work week. 35 paid holidays. Sick days are not determined before, but on the fact that you are sick. Union in every company (Told ya it was communist). No overtime, unless it is paid or turned into extra free time (e.g. 1 day extra work, 1.5 days extra holidays). Cheep to free healthcare,adults can drink alcohol when they are adults. Also no locked phones and no real issues that time we took the world record in forming a governement ude to a multi party system.

      On top of that the best chocolate and beer in tghe world. Yeah for Belgium!

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    5. Re:Working hours... by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      I've actually proposed trimming working hours to 4 days of 7 hours. That's in response to an economic policy that severely-overheats the economy as a side-effect (it ends all poverty, but causes hyperinflation by making the middle- and lower-classes too rich), the correction for which is to make people poorer by reducing their productive labor time (working hours).

      It's not TV and video games. I've done that: I stayed up until 5am reading books before. The metronome is employment, and employment sucks up a large portion of daily life. People wake up too early and work too late.

    6. Re: Working hours... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "vacay"

      It's spelled "vacation"

    7. Re:Working hours... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever since my wife became a stay at home wife we've had way more time for relaxing and enjoying life. Sure, we have less money, but we've never had such a high quality of life.

      I'm a firm believer in this. Also read "The two income trap" which covers some of what can happen in todays society, at least in the USA. I enjoy nice suppers, real bread, eating together, time with family. I don't need a new car or a bigger house.

    8. Re:Working hours... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aren't you guys letting your homeless die in the streets while importing immigrants from the middle east? That's what I heard from a fellow Belgian.

    9. Re:Working hours... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Working hours: 50+ hours a week in white-collar jobs is now the norm.

      It's not the norm in most of the Western world, more the USA, South Korea, Japan.

    10. Re:Working hours... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      importing immigrants from the middle east?

      Countries have an obligation under international law to accommodate people fleeing war zones. This was international law developed largely at the behest of the USA and UK after WW2.

    11. Re:Working hours... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Working hours: 50+ hours a week in white-collar jobs is now the norm. No vacay time to catch up.

      Electronic connectivity: workers are expected to respond to emails outside of working hours. Yeah, 50 years ago, people had home phones, but calling someone outside of work was seen as more intrusive, and there had to be a damned good reason.

      Overscheduling: if you're running around with your sprogeny in the evening, taking them to extracurricular bullshit activities, you still need time for yourself and to make love to your spouse. Sleep suffers.

      Only in shitty white-collar jobs and even then only if you're a workaholic who allows it.

  14. Nope. Dumb question. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If "YOU" aren't getting enough sleep, then "YOU" fix it. It affects me ZERO.

    1. Re: Nope. Dumb question. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If "YOU" aren't getting enough sleep, then "YOU" fix it. It affects me ZERO."

      Just hope he isn't driving on the same road as you.

  15. Let's ask the insomniac in chief .... by mnemotronic · · Score: 1

    An alarming new line of research suggests poor sleep may increase the risk of Alzheimer’s, as even a single night of sleep deprivation boosts brain levels of the proteins that form toxic clumps in Alzheimer’s patients ... even modest sleep reductions are linked to increased feelings of social isolation and loneliness.

    Sleep problems have long been recognized as a symptom of psychiatric and neurological disorders

    Sounds important. Let's check with the man that has his finger on the nuclear and twitter button....(reference, and here)

    During a wide-ranging interview with Fox News's Bill O'Reilly this week, Donald Trump revealed that he is sleeping four to five hours a night in his new life as the US top dog. "I'm working long hours, long hours, right up til 12 o'clock, 1 in the morning." What time does he get up? "Five."

    Alzheimers huh? Well that does explain a few things.

    --
    The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
    1. Re:Let's ask the insomniac in chief .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One of which is your need for a cheap snark.

  16. Bwahahahahahaha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    not normally known for being advocates

    Now that's funny.

  17. 24h is not enough by sad_ · · Score: 1

    you got work, you got family requirements, other stuff you must do, etc.
    add some of that important me-time/down-time (even if it is just only an hour), and there is little time left to sleep.

    --
    On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
  18. Sleep is anything but by UnixUnix · · Score: 1
    "It is also known, that the hippocampus acts as a memory buffer. Once it is full, you need to sleep to empty its contents to the rest of your brain (through sleep spindles during REM sleep); this might be why babies sleep so much and so irregularly —once their learning buffer is full, they sleep to quickly clear their buffer in order to learn more after they wake. You can still learn when this memory buffer is full, but retention is much worse and new memories might wrangle with other memories in the buffer for space and displace them —so really get your needed amount of sleep. Sleeping less and irregularly is unproductive, especially for students who need to learn.

    Because memories are integrated with other memories during your “write buffer to hard-drive” stage, sleep is also very important for creativity. The next time you recall a certain memory after you slept, it might be altered with some new information that your brain thought to be fitting to attach to that memory."

    From this long, excellent article: http://timdettmers.com/2015/07...

  19. So smoke some pot by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

    Smoke some pot, drink less, chill out, sleep for 9hrs easy.

    Stupid govt and people who thinks pot is bad, "just do it"

    No amount of RF can stop you sleeping after a few spliffs.

    --
    Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
    1. Re:So smoke some pot by markdavis · · Score: 2

      >"Smoke some pot, drink less, chill out, sleep for 9hrs easy. Stupid govt and people who thinks pot is bad, "just do it""

      Smoking anything is "bad" if you define unhealthy as "bad". In which case it should be eaten or vaped.

      It is also "bad" if you define endangering others as "bad". In which case it should be used on your own time and in a way not endangering others when in an altered state.

  20. interesting by Sqreater · · Score: 1

    I've noticed that I struggle to get enough sleep. I have to force myself to go back to bed for a couple of hours more. There seems to be two things: the human brain, and the human mind. They constantly struggle with each other to control sleep time. The human brain needs a certain amount of time to reset its biochemistry. The human mind demands the waking state because it craves input (think of a young child fighting desperately to stay awake (search youtube). Our technology and the growing pace of society - the amount of input that is possible - skew our sleep time in favor of the mind more and more. In the past there was far less input possible and the brain won out for sleep time. No longer. We have to realize this and consciously force sleep time for the biochemistry to complete its rejuvenation - there are no parents to force it for us.

    --
    E Proelio Veritas.
    1. Re:interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you want to really go in the past, continuous eight hour sleep is said to not have existed. This came from continuous factory work from e.g. 8 AM to 8 PM every day of the year, or society switching to synchronized time with railroads, telegraph lines or telegraph lines running along rail roads.

      Waking up, wandering around and getting back to sleep is a natural thing to do.
      What if the only time of the day you would need to know about and be able to know about was noon?, either national or local noon. Want to do X or meet A, you can do it before noon or after noon, or in the evening or in the morning. If we invented this today we'd go make some TeD conference and call it asynchronous or fuzzy synchronous or find some buzzword.

    2. Re:interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a lot of confounding factors. There's the circadian rhythm and melatonin, which despite being correlated can be disrupted (melatonin release mechanisms are photosensitive). So if you pull an all-nighter you disrupt your circadian rhythm which is releasing hormones on a schedule that wakes you at 0600, but you want to sleep 'til 1200, you will meet somewhere in between during one of the cascade peaks. Returning to homeostasis could take quite some time. This sort of pattern is deeply compounded by rotating shifts, a common practice in 24h industries.

      Then there's the disruption that can be caused by stressing over whether or not you'll get enough sleep for the next day, a train of thought like that alone can disrupt your ability to fall asleep and can even extend into sleep, disrupting later phases. Thinking about work before sleep, and the stressors of challenges ahead can release stress hormones that diminish the quality and length of sleep through dream integration.

      So while you're right in part, without extreme mental discipline even someone who is very anal about sleep hygiene can lose sleep without any desire to pursue entertainment. Something like 75% of reported insomnia is caused by catastrophic stress.

    3. Re:interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      May have something to do with the level of alcohol in times past as a mitigation for waterborne disease, alcohol is known to disrupt sleep. Could also be a lack of insulation (uncomfortably cold, fire needing stoked) and what may be the necessity for a degree of vigilance (livestock being attacked, robbers, cold snap). I'll have to look into it, it'd be an interesting topic. In any case though, it's been evidenced that sleep is best done in lab conditions, for periods of 7-8 hours.

  21. Sleep Derivation is correlated with mental illness by zifn4b · · Score: 1

    I can't speak for other countries but we do know that over the past 10 years in the United States there has been an alarming increase in diagnosed depression and anxiety disorders. Suicide rates have also gone up. We also know that due to deteriorating work conditions largely due to The Great Recession people are sleeping less and less able to take care of their health due to increased "employee productivity".

    --
    We'll make great pets
  22. Modern lighting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We have destroyed the night. LEDs have made it worse. Our bodies and most of nature is adapted to a day night cycle. Now with bright outdoor lighting in cities, LCD screens on our phones and televisions our bodies are chemically out of sync. With modern LEDs people seem to prefer very white or bluish lighting which renders more accurate colours. That is exactly the kind of light one shouldn't be exposed to after sundown. Yellow/reddish light is much healthier (ie the old sodium vapour street lights).

    1. Re:Modern lighting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Outdoors light may switch to 2700K LEDs eventually and that would be an improvement, except I'm not sure it's still that great.
      I have no idea if people prefer ultra white blueish. In my town they very obviously rolled these in together with surveillance cameras.

  23. 8 continuous hrs = 20th century thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-16964783

    In pre-modern times, people slept differently, and it seemed to be the natural thing. How could you get sound, deep sleep anyway, when sharing your bed with your entire family plus a number of critters of various sizes biting you and making you quite uncomfortable?

  24. Sure is kicking my ass by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    I moved into a place where there is this crazy hum 24/7. I don't know if some neighbor is running off a diesel genset or what but I can't find it on the property and it happens even when the power is out. During the day I rarely notice it (although sometimes it is more intense than others) but it's really destroying my ability to sleep through a night, which is definitely having a noticeable effect on my ability to function during the day. Since it's not very loud and I moved in after it did, I have no recourse but to move, but producing noise like that ought to be illegal. Noise pollution is real, and has real effects on health.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  25. People stop being able to sleep as they age by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    it's been shown in more than one study that a major flag for a long, healthy life is people who can still sleep in their old age. The meme of the tired granpa is because grandpa is unable to get REM sleep and it's killing him.

    You're not watching a suicide, you're watching somebody slowly waste away while you make fun of them.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  26. Lighten up Francis by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    it's just hyperbole in the article. The scientists are still scientists.

    Go watch this for some context and stop attacking science. You're undermining people's belief in science with what are right wing talking points used to cut funding (and therefore taxes) to scientific research.

    I don't think you're doing it on purpose and that's what makes it so awful. It's become insidious propaganda that folks are completely unaware of.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  27. How much is due to corporations? by whitroth · · Score: 1

    Having worked for a Baby Bell back in the mid-nineties, and having heard stories from before that time, how many of *you* slashdotters have heard the infamous phrase "whatever it takes", meaning no sleep, no life, and no, you're never going to be given "comp time"?

    But we don't need unions. I have no idea why our grandparents and great grandparents objected to jobs that required 12 and 16 hour days, with no benefits. Back then was the *real* "gig economy".

  28. Stop lying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you going to stop fucking male donkeys in the ass? Just asking a question.