I think that's irrelevant. Some people do keep a change jar, but it's only the low-value coins -- exactly the same as many Americans who presumably already have a jar of 25 (or less) coins.
I can't remember for certain, but my sense was that they were taking into account the value of the coin based on the use of similarly valued coins in other nations. Can anyone comment on this?
Frankly I'd love to see dollar coins more in circulation, and I do use them whenever I can get my hands on them, but it seems like I'm not very representative. Regardless of how people would react or adapt to the dollar coin if made more available, I've just been dumbfounded at the utter lack of effort to actually get the coin out there. I listened to all of the Planet Money episodes about the dollar coins, particularly those piling up in government warehouses, and I couldn't help wondering where the signs were in banks to let people know they could ask for dollar coins. More than half the time when I request them at the bank someone has to go looking for them, and at least a quarter of the time they can't find any, or any more than a dozen or so. I mean, maybe people don't like the coins, but it's silly to use the argument that no one is asking for them to say they're unpopular if most people are simply unaware of them.
I'm surprised no one posted this sooner. Mod parent up informative! This is a vital part of the conversation. And I even like having some dollar coins around.
Fair enough. I certainly wouldn't argue that it is purely an insurance program, but it clearly does provide a form of insurance. It seems to me that it is the insurance aspect that has provided the basis for the argument not to privatize the program.
It's insurance against not having saved up enough for retirement, or for living longer than your savings could cover. This could be because you never made enough to save enough, you had bad luck (like a market downturn, investment gone bad, etc), or just poor judgement. That doesn't mean it is not a pay-as-you-go retirement plan as well, but there is certainly a very large insurance component. One might argue that we should then be means testing, which might be worthwhile, but others argue against it for strategic reasons as it could reduce the program's support.
While I would not completely rule out your scenario, let me go into more detail about why I see it as being far less likely. While an extremist Christian with sufficient support within the military (as opposed to some other type of extremist who probably does not have such a power base) may support the structure of our government, such a person/group might be spurred to action by a liberal administration that has held power for long enough and/or holds sufficient majorities in Congress. I would imagine these extremists acting in the interest of "restoring the Christian nation to the ideals of the Christian founders" or something like that.
On the other hand you have those in the military who have a better grasp on the Constitution and our nation's history and ideals. At some point in the future our government may degrade the system and its adherence to the Constitution sufficiently to provoke a coup of the sort you'd like to see. However we are nowhere near such a scenario because many people still believe that we can fix the government through traditional means (elections and political pressure). Moreover, there is great risk in a coup and so it would only be undertaken by such people in the scenario in which it is fully clear that traditional means will fail AND the current administration is clearly surpassing its Constitutional authority in an irreversible manner.
A coup would result in a standoff between parts of the military and in a divided nation could lead to serious bloodshed and martial law. The unknowns of such a scenario are so great that responsible individuals would be much less likely to make such an attempt compared with those of a more extremist attitude.
Ok, so they decided to honor the man. Great. They even named a research vessel class after him. Spiffy.
But am I the only though who is somewhat depressed that we named an ocean vessel after him, and not a class of spaceships? I mean..... isn't that just a bit a step backwards?
Sigh. Today doesn't seem to be a good day for space, research or the human race.
Ocean exploration is just as important as space exploration, arguably more so. I'm certainly an advocate of space exploration, but I think the idea of naming a class of research vessels after the man is both a great way to honor him and to recognize his passion for exploration of all sorts, not just space.
Yea, shit like this is why I occasionally pray for a military coup d'état - hey, it's not like they could do any worse than the pirate ringmasters who currently run this freakshow, right?
Except that those who might conceivably commit a coup are NOT the ones you'd want running things. There are a lot of great people in our military, but there are some really scary people too (I'm specifically thinking of the far right "Christians" like Lt. Col. Matthew Dooley), and the good people would not be the ones to get involved in a coup. Be careful what you wish for.
Mod parent up, even with the ad hominem, and GP waaaaaaay down (overrated). The whole "America is not and was never a democracy" line is tired and stupid. Yes, we know America is not a pure democracy, but it follows democratic ideals and is a democratic republic. And you well know that when someone says "a democracy" that's what they mean. EVERYONE KNOWS THIS!
This is the central point that many, nearly all, willfully fail to acknowledge. If the US just wanted him why bother trumping up charges in Sweden, involving all these extra people and complicate things to no end instead of just charging him with the crime they would actually try to get him for? They wouldn't. They'd just charge him and be done with it.
Yeah, they would. More than likely some in the US government and intelligence services want revenge and more importantly (in their minds) to warn others against doing anything similar in the future. They don't need to extradite him to the US to do this. All they need to do is put some pressure on the Swedes to convict him of something and send him to jail. It's not likely that the US would actually put Assange on trial, give him more exposure to the general public, and make him even more of a martyr. My take is that they're trying to smear him without getting their hands dirty and drawing more attention to the issue (including the details of the leaks and the problems that led to the leak) from those not already paying attention.
If you want to claim that science is on your side, try siding with science for once. Fusion is the answer. If all the bullshit, the money, the political will, the "awareness", etc that's gone into Green Energy went straight into current Fusion research programs, we'd get there a lot faster. As it is it's going to be a close race whether we get there (practical wide-scale adoption) before we run out of oil.
You are sorely mistaken. Solar is a far more promising solution to our problems. We have many proven methods of harnessing solar power whereas we have zero ways currently of harnessing fusion. Solar research has been producing regular technological advances while fusion has been and still is "30 years away". The sun provides way more than enough energy for our planet provided we have the technology to take advantage of it, and the way the technology has been advancing I think there is every reason to believe that it will be one of the primary solutions. Best of all, solar will be a distributed and democratizing source of power that you'll be able to put on your car, home, or even your shirt. Some regions will still benefit most from wind, geothermal, or some other source such as tidal, and maybe someday fusion will enter the mix (particularly on any interstellar craft), but that's a looooong way away compared to what we're looking for in the next 30-50 years.
It's hard to tell when someone is just expressing a cynical sentiment and when someone is being completely serious. I do take issue though when people suggest that statistics are lies, largely because I think many people get to thinking that all statistics are meaningless. Statistics are meaningful when properly applied. Statistics are complicated and there are many models because the world is complicated. Different tests are better in different situations, depending on for instance how much you want to trade off power (the likelihood of detecting a real effect) for precision (avoiding false positives), whether you have a large or small sample size, or whether you think there might be interactions between variables. Now it might be the case that someone isn't sure which test to use. Assuming they can't figure out the answer, they can run multiple tests, but if they do then they should control for that by adjusting the p-values of each test accordingly. Ultimately though scientists are human, and they will have competing interests to be honest and to cheat. The key is the process, including forms of peer review, and hopefully some day a venue for publishing negative results, such that there is less pressure to cheat. Profit will always push the needle the other direction though.
What gets me is the number of people who fail to realize that the majority of lobbyists work for non-profit organizations, from Greenpeace to the NRA. That is the majority of lobbyists are hired by groups of people who have gotten together and pooled their money so as to petition Congress to take action on issues that are of particular concern to them...you know, the way some here on slashdot have done concerning Network Neutrality.
Granted Bigby seems to be making that mistake, but I think that when most people say "lobbyist" they really mean "corporate lobbyist". Some people may not understand the difference, and special interests are a problem in any system of government, but corporate special interests are a special problem because corporations (or the associations that represent them) represent only peoples' commercial and financial interests. There is a legal firewall between those interests and all other interests (e.g. environmental, social, civil/human rights).
Non-corporate special interests may be less influential in a direct democracy, but I would certainly disagree with Bigby's claim that lobbyists/special interests are in general the worst problem. That is an incredibly poor generalization.
The Heartland Institute, and those they target, are deniers, not skeptics. There are certainly some climate skeptics out there, but most people I have ever seen, heard, read on the subject made the same tired arguments that have been refuted time and again. Those people are deniers. Read here for an engaging and thoughtful article on the distinction and tell me where you come out:
"What traits distinguish a rational, pro-science "skeptic" -- who has honest questions about the AGW consensus -- from members of a Denier Movement that portrays all members of a scientific community as either fools or conspirators?"
Partial skim:
"Skeptics first admit that they are non-experts in the topic at hand. And that experts tend to know more than they do."
"Skeptics go on to admit that it is both rare and significant when nearly 100% of the scientists in any field share a consensus-model, before splitting up to fight over sub-models."
"Deniers glom onto an anecdotal "gotcha!" from a dogma-driven radio show or politically biased blog site."
"We cannot say too often that, just because nearly all of experts are in consensus, their paradigm might still turn out to be wrong. Still, the Skeptic admits this is rare in science history."
"[The skeptic] openly admits who the chief beneficiaries of the current status quo are: those who spent two decades delaying energy efficiency research and urging us to guzzle carbon fuels like mad."
etc
The second to last section is entitled "So what's a sincere and enlightened skeptic to do?".
Thanks for the clarification. Now I'm remembering that acceptability voting is a distinct and slightly different system. You've made me curious though, how many candidates do you usually have in the federal elections?
Spot on. Money needs to be *completely* removed from politics as a factor otherwise you end up with a death-spiral of who can outbid buying off the public.
The sensible way would to pool ALL donations, and split the balance every month.
Part of the reason campaign finance reform is the most difficult issue is that there is a real concern with regards to freedom of speech. SCOTUS is wrong IMHO that money=speech, but there is still a relationship between money and speech that must be dealt with. I'd rather not get into details on that in this forum, but I do think it is important to recognize that it isn't difficult just because of those who benefit from the current system.
I would add the other political reform would be is get rid of the parties, and focus on the *issues*, not this juvenile mudslinging crap that does nothing.
I don't feel like there is anything wrong with political parties per se, so long as the number of them is flexible and not dictated by entrenched interests. Political parties are a natural feature of any democratic system, in that like-minded individuals come together to form a power block to achieve more than they could individually. My suggested solutions wouldn't dissolve the Republican and Democratic parties, but it would force them to actually compete, and enable other valuable viewpoints to emerge and gain support more easily.
The root problem is most Americans don't give a shit, to actually DO anything to change the existing system.
I'd hesitate to call any one thing the root of the problem, only because we're dealing with a complex system with feedbacks, however I'll certainly agree that this is a major problem in our society. On the other hand, the number of people voting fluctuates greatly from one election to the next, and there are a lot of people on any given day that do give a shit. The real challenge in my mind is getting them to all focus on one or a few things (and particularly the ones I suggested in my prior post) at any given time.
That's why I prefer to put the focus on local and state elections, where individuals tend to have greater power when they choose to come together. While the power of corporations is strong, we do still live in a democracy. We're currently being divided in an effort to short circuit democracy, but momentum can be built around these issues if enough people realize that in order to advance their pet issues they need to focus on the core electoral problems preventing progress. If smart, charismatic people are drafted to run for state delegate and senate positions, from both parties, with the core issue to reform the electoral system to make their constituent's vote matter more (and there's a great marketing point), there is hope. Change has always appeared difficult, and it has always happened when people were motivated enough and kept fighting. The corporations don't have more power than the people, what they have is consolidated power against the people's diffuse power. If enough people join together in our system, they will prevail.
I'm pretty fed up with it and I want things to change but I really don't see what I can do, the FBI is busy trying to turn people into terrorists who are unhappy with the way the government is representing them. It doesn't matter if I vote for the right or left any politician I vote for is owned by someone, and most if not all the third party candidates are dubious or likely to be subverted the moment they become any more than 'third party' and or get seen as a threat to the status quo.
My favored solution is for grassroots organizations to stop banging their heads against the wall on issues that aren't going anywhere under the current system and focus on electoral reforms. 1) End political redistricting. 2) Enact some sort of acceptability voting (e.g. instant run-off), starting with local and state elections and building support for federal elections. 3) Enact campaign finance reforms of some sort (the biggest and most challenging issue, though one in which there are many avenues along which to make advances).
I could add more (like somehow modifying the primary system, rotating which states vote first in presidential primaries, media ownership reforms), but those 3 I think deal with the bulk of what's preventing progress in terms of true representation of the people and resistance to corporate special interests. (1) reduces individual power consolidation and polarization, (2) reduces party power consolidation, polarization, and provides an opportunity for the public to express their preferences in more dimensions (this might make it easier to push back against the advancing security state), and (3) reduces the power of wealthy donors and corporations (who aren't people), or in the case of greater transparency at least allows us to know who is spending how much on what/whom.
We choose to be a courteous society; something you might appreciate when a disease or accident takes your sight or hearing. Blind people don't have a choice about whether to not to be on the road, unless you want to pay for every blind person to have a servant who does everything for them. I'm quite certain most blind people would prefer their autonomy over being forced from streets due to a preventable danger though. If you want to argue about whether a particular practice or technology is sensible, fine, but you're just being a troll.
There is substantial scientific evidence for the carbon model in global warming theory. In M-Theory it is pretty much all theory for now. In either case it would be unscientific to challenge (note the distinction between challenging and asking for clarifications) a theory without actually understanding it and its relation to the data.
Much appreciated, and you're welcome. Hopefully it makes sense to most. I don't know if the average reader here will know much about phosphorylation states or not, but that post could have doubled or tripled in length if I'd allowed myself to explain much more. I have a tendency to go on if I don't restrain myself:)
Tubulin is a major structural protein, so manipulating it may allow you to create 'memory structures' whatever they may be. However, my reading of TFA is that it's the logic information held by the kinase by way of the degrees of phosphorylation on the molecule that actually encodes the data.
As you say, very speculative but interesting. I'm sure there are experimental systems with mutations in both the kinase and tubulins - that should offer some experimental avenues to look into this.
Good point on the idea of mutations, though under either theory (direct vs indirect impact on memory storage and computation) there would be a deficit in memory at some point. Both theories would need to be firmed up to actually make a prediction as to how a given mutation would impact memory in a given task. And while I am highly skeptical that those degrees of phosphorylation encode memory in the way they suggest, I wouldn't be surprised if the specific phosphorylation states do have functional implications at some level. There's plenty more to learn down there, I'm just not sure it's absolutely necessary to know all of it to understand learning and memory. Granted, it may be important to understand specific diseases.
"Now, a team of scientists believe that they may have figured out what's going on. Their findings could have huge implications for the treatment of diseases such as Alzheimer's."
This statement is utterly absurd, but the authors of the PLoS article appear to have done some important work here. I'm not a physicist and can't evaluate the quality of the modeling and measurement, but assuming that is all legitimate (and I have no reason to doubt it), then their findings could prove useful to furthering theories on memory formation and stability. Basically they found a series of potential mechanisms by which activated CAMKII (via synaptic activity) can interface with microtubules to update their phosphorylation states. In what I would consider heavy speculation, they suggest that these phosphorylation states, along with the structural and electrostatic properties of microtubules, can produce and modulate information processing along/within the microtubules.
Keeping Occam's Razor in mind, to me it would be simpler if these interactions simply increase or decrease microtubule stability, and possibly affect shape to promote dendritic bifurcation versus elongation or retraction. Not to say some kind of information processing can't be happening in the microtubules, but we already have some pretty good theories regarding information processing in dendrites based on membrane voltage propagation. With changes in microtubule phosphorylation state there is also the possibility of making cross-linking tighter or looser, making it possible to fit in more or fewer microtubules and change a dendrite's diameter. All of these changes are important for signal processing, but by impacting the propagation properties of the membrane rather than through the microtubules directly. I base these comments on other research that have found changes in dendrite morphology and physiology concurrent with synaptic plasticity. One must always keep in mind though that anything as complex as memory is going to rely on multiple mechanisms. Any claim that "the mechanism for X" has been found is always hyperbole.
I would say that some of that speculation, as well as the fact that this is all highly theoretical (no experimental work) are the major reasons this wasn't published in a journal like Nature or Science. Still PLoS Computational Biology often has some very good and important articles.
This is a drastically different reaction than what I have, but I find it just as intriguing. While we tend to focus on the neural effects, most drugs interact with a variety of receptors in the body. Do you get that sort of response after drinking soda? I know the amount of caffeine in soda is relatively little compared to coffee, but with the severity of reaction you have I'd expect you'd notice something. These sorts of different responses are why I'm excited about the idea of "personalized medicine", though I'm not expecting much anytime soon.
With luck though we'll have some caffeine free coffee to enjoy sometime in the near future.
You're over analyzing. From what I understand the cause and effect are a fair bit simpler in nature. ADHD (or ADD), as far as I comprehend it are caused by a supressed function of the brain (as opposed to an overactive one). There is a controlling function that isn't doing the controlling it should. Caffeen "wakes" up that structure, and it starts to exhibit more control over impulses. Net result is that the individual feels *calmer*.
Over analyzing is what I do:)
I don't have a detailed understanding of ADD, but I do recall being told that the increase in brain activity due to medication (amphetamines) is about promoting a proper balance of excitation and inhibition. Promotion of that balance may enable a particular part of the brain responsible for "control" (some part of the prefrontal cortex) to exert itself and reduce the conflict between other brain regions. On the other hand it may just help synchronize brain regions allowing them to be less in conflict. Or it may do both. There are many ways to bring excitation and inhibition into balance, and having experienced a positive effect of Adderal I know that it acts very differently than caffeine, though caffeine may still aid others with slightly different brain chemistry.
Also, having further considered jimbolauski's idea, I realize this may be the sort of effect he was thinking of. If so, then it doesn't fit for me, as ADD medication calms people by promoting balance and increasing the ability to focus, not by making people sleepy.
And I should stop now, because once I start analyzing, I may never stop...
Slashdot Mirror
I think that's irrelevant. Some people do keep a change jar, but it's only the low-value coins -- exactly the same as many Americans who presumably already have a jar of 25 (or less) coins.
I can't remember for certain, but my sense was that they were taking into account the value of the coin based on the use of similarly valued coins in other nations. Can anyone comment on this?
Frankly I'd love to see dollar coins more in circulation, and I do use them whenever I can get my hands on them, but it seems like I'm not very representative. Regardless of how people would react or adapt to the dollar coin if made more available, I've just been dumbfounded at the utter lack of effort to actually get the coin out there. I listened to all of the Planet Money episodes about the dollar coins, particularly those piling up in government warehouses, and I couldn't help wondering where the signs were in banks to let people know they could ask for dollar coins. More than half the time when I request them at the bank someone has to go looking for them, and at least a quarter of the time they can't find any, or any more than a dozen or so. I mean, maybe people don't like the coins, but it's silly to use the argument that no one is asking for them to say they're unpopular if most people are simply unaware of them.
I'm surprised no one posted this sooner. Mod parent up informative! This is a vital part of the conversation. And I even like having some dollar coins around.
Fair enough. I certainly wouldn't argue that it is purely an insurance program, but it clearly does provide a form of insurance. It seems to me that it is the insurance aspect that has provided the basis for the argument not to privatize the program.
It's insurance against not having saved up enough for retirement, or for living longer than your savings could cover. This could be because you never made enough to save enough, you had bad luck (like a market downturn, investment gone bad, etc), or just poor judgement. That doesn't mean it is not a pay-as-you-go retirement plan as well, but there is certainly a very large insurance component. One might argue that we should then be means testing, which might be worthwhile, but others argue against it for strategic reasons as it could reduce the program's support.
While I would not completely rule out your scenario, let me go into more detail about why I see it as being far less likely. While an extremist Christian with sufficient support within the military (as opposed to some other type of extremist who probably does not have such a power base) may support the structure of our government, such a person/group might be spurred to action by a liberal administration that has held power for long enough and/or holds sufficient majorities in Congress. I would imagine these extremists acting in the interest of "restoring the Christian nation to the ideals of the Christian founders" or something like that.
On the other hand you have those in the military who have a better grasp on the Constitution and our nation's history and ideals. At some point in the future our government may degrade the system and its adherence to the Constitution sufficiently to provoke a coup of the sort you'd like to see. However we are nowhere near such a scenario because many people still believe that we can fix the government through traditional means (elections and political pressure). Moreover, there is great risk in a coup and so it would only be undertaken by such people in the scenario in which it is fully clear that traditional means will fail AND the current administration is clearly surpassing its Constitutional authority in an irreversible manner.
A coup would result in a standoff between parts of the military and in a divided nation could lead to serious bloodshed and martial law. The unknowns of such a scenario are so great that responsible individuals would be much less likely to make such an attempt compared with those of a more extremist attitude.
Ok, so they decided to honor the man. Great. They even named a research vessel class after him. Spiffy.
But am I the only though who is somewhat depressed that we named an ocean vessel after him, and not a class of spaceships? I mean..... isn't that just a bit a step backwards?
Sigh. Today doesn't seem to be a good day for space, research or the human race.
Ocean exploration is just as important as space exploration, arguably more so. I'm certainly an advocate of space exploration, but I think the idea of naming a class of research vessels after the man is both a great way to honor him and to recognize his passion for exploration of all sorts, not just space.
Yea, shit like this is why I occasionally pray for a military coup d'état - hey, it's not like they could do any worse than the pirate ringmasters who currently run this freakshow, right?
Except that those who might conceivably commit a coup are NOT the ones you'd want running things. There are a lot of great people in our military, but there are some really scary people too (I'm specifically thinking of the far right "Christians" like Lt. Col. Matthew Dooley), and the good people would not be the ones to get involved in a coup. Be careful what you wish for.
Mod parent up, even with the ad hominem, and GP waaaaaaay down (overrated). The whole "America is not and was never a democracy" line is tired and stupid. Yes, we know America is not a pure democracy, but it follows democratic ideals and is a democratic republic. And you well know that when someone says "a democracy" that's what they mean. EVERYONE KNOWS THIS!
This is the central point that many, nearly all, willfully fail to acknowledge. If the US just wanted him why bother trumping up charges in Sweden, involving all these extra people and complicate things to no end instead of just charging him with the crime they would actually try to get him for? They wouldn't. They'd just charge him and be done with it.
Yeah, they would. More than likely some in the US government and intelligence services want revenge and more importantly (in their minds) to warn others against doing anything similar in the future. They don't need to extradite him to the US to do this. All they need to do is put some pressure on the Swedes to convict him of something and send him to jail. It's not likely that the US would actually put Assange on trial, give him more exposure to the general public, and make him even more of a martyr. My take is that they're trying to smear him without getting their hands dirty and drawing more attention to the issue (including the details of the leaks and the problems that led to the leak) from those not already paying attention.
If you want to claim that science is on your side, try siding with science for once. Fusion is the answer. If all the bullshit, the money, the political will, the "awareness", etc that's gone into Green Energy went straight into current Fusion research programs, we'd get there a lot faster. As it is it's going to be a close race whether we get there (practical wide-scale adoption) before we run out of oil.
You are sorely mistaken. Solar is a far more promising solution to our problems. We have many proven methods of harnessing solar power whereas we have zero ways currently of harnessing fusion. Solar research has been producing regular technological advances while fusion has been and still is "30 years away". The sun provides way more than enough energy for our planet provided we have the technology to take advantage of it, and the way the technology has been advancing I think there is every reason to believe that it will be one of the primary solutions. Best of all, solar will be a distributed and democratizing source of power that you'll be able to put on your car, home, or even your shirt. Some regions will still benefit most from wind, geothermal, or some other source such as tidal, and maybe someday fusion will enter the mix (particularly on any interstellar craft), but that's a looooong way away compared to what we're looking for in the next 30-50 years.
It's hard to tell when someone is just expressing a cynical sentiment and when someone is being completely serious. I do take issue though when people suggest that statistics are lies, largely because I think many people get to thinking that all statistics are meaningless. Statistics are meaningful when properly applied. Statistics are complicated and there are many models because the world is complicated. Different tests are better in different situations, depending on for instance how much you want to trade off power (the likelihood of detecting a real effect) for precision (avoiding false positives), whether you have a large or small sample size, or whether you think there might be interactions between variables. Now it might be the case that someone isn't sure which test to use. Assuming they can't figure out the answer, they can run multiple tests, but if they do then they should control for that by adjusting the p-values of each test accordingly. Ultimately though scientists are human, and they will have competing interests to be honest and to cheat. The key is the process, including forms of peer review, and hopefully some day a venue for publishing negative results, such that there is less pressure to cheat. Profit will always push the needle the other direction though.
What gets me is the number of people who fail to realize that the majority of lobbyists work for non-profit organizations, from Greenpeace to the NRA. That is the majority of lobbyists are hired by groups of people who have gotten together and pooled their money so as to petition Congress to take action on issues that are of particular concern to them...you know, the way some here on slashdot have done concerning Network Neutrality.
Granted Bigby seems to be making that mistake, but I think that when most people say "lobbyist" they really mean "corporate lobbyist". Some people may not understand the difference, and special interests are a problem in any system of government, but corporate special interests are a special problem because corporations (or the associations that represent them) represent only peoples' commercial and financial interests. There is a legal firewall between those interests and all other interests (e.g. environmental, social, civil/human rights).
Non-corporate special interests may be less influential in a direct democracy, but I would certainly disagree with Bigby's claim that lobbyists/special interests are in general the worst problem. That is an incredibly poor generalization.
The Heartland Institute, and those they target, are deniers, not skeptics. There are certainly some climate skeptics out there, but most people I have ever seen, heard, read on the subject made the same tired arguments that have been refuted time and again. Those people are deniers. Read here for an engaging and thoughtful article on the distinction and tell me where you come out:
"What traits distinguish a rational, pro-science "skeptic" -- who has honest questions about the AGW consensus -- from members of a Denier Movement that portrays all members of a scientific community as either fools or conspirators?"
Partial skim:
"Skeptics first admit that they are non-experts in the topic at hand. And that experts tend to know more than they do."
"Skeptics go on to admit that it is both rare and significant when nearly 100% of the scientists in any field share a consensus-model, before splitting up to fight over sub-models."
"Deniers glom onto an anecdotal "gotcha!" from a dogma-driven radio show or politically biased blog site."
"We cannot say too often that, just because nearly all of experts are in consensus, their paradigm might still turn out to be wrong. Still, the Skeptic admits this is rare in science history."
"[The skeptic] openly admits who the chief beneficiaries of the current status quo are: those who spent two decades delaying energy efficiency research and urging us to guzzle carbon fuels like mad."
etc
The second to last section is entitled "So what's a sincere and enlightened skeptic to do?".
Thanks for the clarification. Now I'm remembering that acceptability voting is a distinct and slightly different system. You've made me curious though, how many candidates do you usually have in the federal elections?
Spot on. Money needs to be *completely* removed from politics as a factor otherwise you end up with a death-spiral of who can outbid buying off the public.
The sensible way would to pool ALL donations, and split the balance every month.
Part of the reason campaign finance reform is the most difficult issue is that there is a real concern with regards to freedom of speech. SCOTUS is wrong IMHO that money=speech, but there is still a relationship between money and speech that must be dealt with. I'd rather not get into details on that in this forum, but I do think it is important to recognize that it isn't difficult just because of those who benefit from the current system.
I would add the other political reform would be is get rid of the parties, and focus on the *issues*, not this juvenile mudslinging crap that does nothing.
I don't feel like there is anything wrong with political parties per se, so long as the number of them is flexible and not dictated by entrenched interests. Political parties are a natural feature of any democratic system, in that like-minded individuals come together to form a power block to achieve more than they could individually. My suggested solutions wouldn't dissolve the Republican and Democratic parties, but it would force them to actually compete, and enable other valuable viewpoints to emerge and gain support more easily.
The root problem is most Americans don't give a shit, to actually DO anything to change the existing system.
I'd hesitate to call any one thing the root of the problem, only because we're dealing with a complex system with feedbacks, however I'll certainly agree that this is a major problem in our society. On the other hand, the number of people voting fluctuates greatly from one election to the next, and there are a lot of people on any given day that do give a shit. The real challenge in my mind is getting them to all focus on one or a few things (and particularly the ones I suggested in my prior post) at any given time.
That's why I prefer to put the focus on local and state elections, where individuals tend to have greater power when they choose to come together. While the power of corporations is strong, we do still live in a democracy. We're currently being divided in an effort to short circuit democracy, but momentum can be built around these issues if enough people realize that in order to advance their pet issues they need to focus on the core electoral problems preventing progress. If smart, charismatic people are drafted to run for state delegate and senate positions, from both parties, with the core issue to reform the electoral system to make their constituent's vote matter more (and there's a great marketing point), there is hope. Change has always appeared difficult, and it has always happened when people were motivated enough and kept fighting. The corporations don't have more power than the people, what they have is consolidated power against the people's diffuse power. If enough people join together in our system, they will prevail.
I'm pretty fed up with it and I want things to change but I really don't see what I can do, the FBI is busy trying to turn people into terrorists who are unhappy with the way the government is representing them. It doesn't matter if I vote for the right or left any politician I vote for is owned by someone, and most if not all the third party candidates are dubious or likely to be subverted the moment they become any more than 'third party' and or get seen as a threat to the status quo.
My favored solution is for grassroots organizations to stop banging their heads against the wall on issues that aren't going anywhere under the current system and focus on electoral reforms. 1) End political redistricting. 2) Enact some sort of acceptability voting (e.g. instant run-off), starting with local and state elections and building support for federal elections. 3) Enact campaign finance reforms of some sort (the biggest and most challenging issue, though one in which there are many avenues along which to make advances).
I could add more (like somehow modifying the primary system, rotating which states vote first in presidential primaries, media ownership reforms), but those 3 I think deal with the bulk of what's preventing progress in terms of true representation of the people and resistance to corporate special interests. (1) reduces individual power consolidation and polarization, (2) reduces party power consolidation, polarization, and provides an opportunity for the public to express their preferences in more dimensions (this might make it easier to push back against the advancing security state), and (3) reduces the power of wealthy donors and corporations (who aren't people), or in the case of greater transparency at least allows us to know who is spending how much on what/whom.
(Or maybe bicyclists should adopt some sort of artificial vroom-vroom noise just like cars?)
You mean, something like a bell? Yeah, that'd be novel.
We choose to be a courteous society; something you might appreciate when a disease or accident takes your sight or hearing. Blind people don't have a choice about whether to not to be on the road, unless you want to pay for every blind person to have a servant who does everything for them. I'm quite certain most blind people would prefer their autonomy over being forced from streets due to a preventable danger though. If you want to argue about whether a particular practice or technology is sensible, fine, but you're just being a troll.
There is substantial scientific evidence for the carbon model in global warming theory. In M-Theory it is pretty much all theory for now. In either case it would be unscientific to challenge (note the distinction between challenging and asking for clarifications) a theory without actually understanding it and its relation to the data.
Much appreciated, and you're welcome. Hopefully it makes sense to most. I don't know if the average reader here will know much about phosphorylation states or not, but that post could have doubled or tripled in length if I'd allowed myself to explain much more. I have a tendency to go on if I don't restrain myself :)
Tubulin is a major structural protein, so manipulating it may allow you to create 'memory structures' whatever they may be. However, my reading of TFA is that it's the logic information held by the kinase by way of the degrees of phosphorylation on the molecule that actually encodes the data.
As you say, very speculative but interesting. I'm sure there are experimental systems with mutations in both the kinase and tubulins - that should offer some experimental avenues to look into this.
Good point on the idea of mutations, though under either theory (direct vs indirect impact on memory storage and computation) there would be a deficit in memory at some point. Both theories would need to be firmed up to actually make a prediction as to how a given mutation would impact memory in a given task. And while I am highly skeptical that those degrees of phosphorylation encode memory in the way they suggest, I wouldn't be surprised if the specific phosphorylation states do have functional implications at some level. There's plenty more to learn down there, I'm just not sure it's absolutely necessary to know all of it to understand learning and memory. Granted, it may be important to understand specific diseases.
"Now, a team of scientists believe that they may have figured out what's going on. Their findings could have huge implications for the treatment of diseases such as Alzheimer's."
This statement is utterly absurd, but the authors of the PLoS article appear to have done some important work here. I'm not a physicist and can't evaluate the quality of the modeling and measurement, but assuming that is all legitimate (and I have no reason to doubt it), then their findings could prove useful to furthering theories on memory formation and stability. Basically they found a series of potential mechanisms by which activated CAMKII (via synaptic activity) can interface with microtubules to update their phosphorylation states. In what I would consider heavy speculation, they suggest that these phosphorylation states, along with the structural and electrostatic properties of microtubules, can produce and modulate information processing along/within the microtubules.
Keeping Occam's Razor in mind, to me it would be simpler if these interactions simply increase or decrease microtubule stability, and possibly affect shape to promote dendritic bifurcation versus elongation or retraction. Not to say some kind of information processing can't be happening in the microtubules, but we already have some pretty good theories regarding information processing in dendrites based on membrane voltage propagation. With changes in microtubule phosphorylation state there is also the possibility of making cross-linking tighter or looser, making it possible to fit in more or fewer microtubules and change a dendrite's diameter. All of these changes are important for signal processing, but by impacting the propagation properties of the membrane rather than through the microtubules directly. I base these comments on other research that have found changes in dendrite morphology and physiology concurrent with synaptic plasticity. One must always keep in mind though that anything as complex as memory is going to rely on multiple mechanisms. Any claim that "the mechanism for X" has been found is always hyperbole.
I would say that some of that speculation, as well as the fact that this is all highly theoretical (no experimental work) are the major reasons this wasn't published in a journal like Nature or Science. Still PLoS Computational Biology often has some very good and important articles.
This is a drastically different reaction than what I have, but I find it just as intriguing. While we tend to focus on the neural effects, most drugs interact with a variety of receptors in the body. Do you get that sort of response after drinking soda? I know the amount of caffeine in soda is relatively little compared to coffee, but with the severity of reaction you have I'd expect you'd notice something. These sorts of different responses are why I'm excited about the idea of "personalized medicine", though I'm not expecting much anytime soon.
With luck though we'll have some caffeine free coffee to enjoy sometime in the near future.
You're over analyzing. From what I understand the cause and effect are a fair bit simpler in nature. ADHD (or ADD), as far as I comprehend it are caused by a supressed function of the brain (as opposed to an overactive one). There is a controlling function that isn't doing the controlling it should. Caffeen "wakes" up that structure, and it starts to exhibit more control over impulses. Net result is that the individual feels *calmer*.
Over analyzing is what I do :)
I don't have a detailed understanding of ADD, but I do recall being told that the increase in brain activity due to medication (amphetamines) is about promoting a proper balance of excitation and inhibition. Promotion of that balance may enable a particular part of the brain responsible for "control" (some part of the prefrontal cortex) to exert itself and reduce the conflict between other brain regions. On the other hand it may just help synchronize brain regions allowing them to be less in conflict. Or it may do both. There are many ways to bring excitation and inhibition into balance, and having experienced a positive effect of Adderal I know that it acts very differently than caffeine, though caffeine may still aid others with slightly different brain chemistry.
Also, having further considered jimbolauski's idea, I realize this may be the sort of effect he was thinking of. If so, then it doesn't fit for me, as ADD medication calms people by promoting balance and increasing the ability to focus, not by making people sleepy.
And I should stop now, because once I start analyzing, I may never stop...