The fact that rat studies were wrong once doesn't mean they're wrong again. Not to say "don't be skeptical" of course, but it sounds like you're not being skeptical, you're being simply closed minded.
And don't confuse the researchers here with the people who will overstate the results in exchange for attention on Dr. Oz or elsewhere. Different people. Read the paper. I didn't come across anything which suggested this should influence anyone's medical treatments. The researchers aren't being irresponsible. Your problem is with the media, not the scientists.
To extend that, biology dissertations are often just the research papers they've published stapled together. Which you only write up after you've gotten most of the results, starting writing a paper before getting results is asking life to prove your hypotheses wrong on every level. Starting research before OP is IN a lab is probably not realistic, even for a purely bioinformatics project. Odds are, OP has no idea what his research project will even be.
So it cannot be done beforehand, and it takes very little time anyway. I "wrote my dissertation" in about two weeks, and the only reason it took that long was because my boss wanted me to write up my methods so the next guy could understand it. And proofread it multiple times for some reason. And I was more interested in browsing slashdot.
OP could and should start reading every paper he can get the PDF for that seems remotely interesting. Most undergrad schools don't have their students read many primary literature papers, and that's most of what the first year is, at least in my experience.
Could also be "knowledge or skills that are not particularly common in your field is often a commodity."
In my field (cell biology), you could say the same thing about calculus, statistics, programming, or people skills. Most cell biologists have good lab bench skills and an ability to think about cell biology and come up with good ideas. The ones that have a good handle on cell biology, lab techniques, AND calculus, or statistics, or programming, or people skills are much more rare, and often more valuable.
I'm not 100% sure that the "Us vs Them" actually distracts us from right vs wrong. I think that if you removed the pro-wrestling aspects of politics, the people who got all jazzed up about it would simply find other things to be entertained by, and the important issues (such as whether death machines would be allowed to kill people on our own soil, presumably because the police or FBI were too incompetent to shoot the people they meant to shoot) would still be ignored.
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." - Margaret Mead. That's true here whether there are other people using it as a blood sport or not.
I could very well be wrong of course. I'd say we should get rid of the partisanship just to be safe. I mean, it's fucking annoying. Still, between focusing on preventing death machine strikes and between focusing on cleaning up how the two sides talk to each other, I say focus on the death machine strikes, since we KNOW that needs our attention.
Yeah, that might cause some problems, it is half the LD50 for an average male.
Indeed. Thanks to these studies, we know one of them is autoimmune diseases.
If your point was something along the lines of "This might not be specific to autoimmune diseases, they're practically killing the rats with salt, so it could cause any number of problems due to poor health," I'd remind you that the mouse models were merely bolstering the cell culture studies where they no doubt made sure they weren't killing the cells. They only did mice to show that what's true at the cellular level is true for the organism as a whole. The point was not to establish a specific dose at which your immune cells would attack you for eating too much salt (and, by the way, I'm not sure you can simply scale up from rats by weight like that when it comes to nutrition), they were merely to indicate that the effects were true of real organisms as well and not just cells in a dish.
The authors would no doubt be the first to admit that these findings are a long way from conclusive proof that people suffering from MS MUST eliminate all salt from their diets, just that the studies should move to the next level and see if low salt diets improve outcome for some autoimmune diseases.
They didn't use table salt for these studies either.
From the multiple sclerosis mouse paper's methods section:
Mice received normal chow and tap water ad libitum (control group) or sodium-rich chow containing 4% NaCl (SSNIFF) and tap water containing 1% NaCl ad libitum (high-salt group).
Hopefully, the normal chow and salty chow are pretty much identical except in how much NaCl SSNIFF added, though I don't know. Presumably the researchers would have thought of that.
The cell culture work, odds aren't bad that they tried multiple sources of NaCl to make sure it wasn't trace contaminants that were changing things.
At any rate, it's unlikely that the salt they used for their cell culture work in these two studies, and the salt they used in the mouse studies have a contaminant that is causing immune response and that you would not find in any salt you are eating.
I'm now going to have to give up potato chips in order to make my eczema clear up. Actually, fuck it. No one wants to look at my elbow anyway, and I love pringles too much.
Well, as a balance to cynicism, it's worth keeping in mind that things HAVE changed in the past, when things were worse. The pendulum does swing back the other way. It's just that things would have to get worse for consumers to actually take up arms.
I mean, labor conditions had to get horrible for labor unions to form.
If everyone appeals, ISPs will raise their rates more than they were planning to anyway. They might also raise the appeal rates or change the terms too.
Some of us will say "I'M NOT GOING TO STAND FOR IT ANYMORE! FUCK YOU GUYS! I'M GOING WITH THE COMPETI....oh..."
And the best way to not support that business model is to buy alternatives and boycott protected media.
I believe the slightly more effective way to do that is to give money to the EFF or other organizations which will lobby politicians to reverse such rules, while voting against politicians who support the MPAA/RIAA, and calling and bugging the ones you don't.
I'm deeply cynical about both, but I can't recall a consumer movement that did anything substantial. Threats of boycotts work if you want walmart to start saying "Happy Jesus' Birthday," but they don't seem to have driven any walmart locations to stop killing local retail, for example.
The people buying EA games, Ke$ha songs, and buying Argo on DVD aren't going to stop doing those things because ISPs are eroding their rights.
There are actually some sources saying you won't have to pay if you're "[paid] a gross monthly income that is less than 300% of the federal poverty income level, are full-time students receiving needs-based financial aid, or who qualify for one of a series of means-tested federal benefits." (One such source, referring to leaked AT&T documents I think.)
It goes without saying that I'll believe such rumors when I see them and see how much trouble ISPs give you for proving you don't have to pay the fee. And, more importantly, whether an appeal will do anything at all in the first place.
You and I and GP realize that. Probably the best way to get all the morons who don't already realize it is through satire, such as AC was doing.
The Daily Show is, after all, doing more to safeguard liberty by informing the public right now than any of the news networks are. While that's awful, it's the truth, and we should probably learn something from it.
Given that most slashdotters are probably more interested in videogames than 90's angsty bands, I expect most people clicked on the comments trying to figure out what this has to do with harmonix.
Good example. Yes, it was a compromise. One that no one liked and that probably allowed our nation to be formed. Had our founding forefathers stuck to their convictions and refused to compromise on whether or not slaves were people, it's anyone's guess what would have happened, but I can tell you what would NOT have happened: slavery would NOT have magically ended in the south, racism would NOT have declined sooner.
Perhaps the US would have split off as two separate new nations, and maybe that would have worked out for them. But I'm guessing both would have failed and/or the civil war would have happened sooner.
Compromise is necessary in politics. Unless you all magically agree, or you kill the other side, or your side has absolute power, you need to compromise. Failure to compromise is just being immature and stupid, especially when both sides feel strongly that they're right about the issue.
Kind of amazing that microsoft has had the nerve to go after Google's privacy practices, when its own regarding Bing generally arent as good.
What's amazing about it? The public has shown itself to be remarkably stupid in terms of detecting hypocrisy. MS would have to be amazingly stupid not to look at any given political race and not realize they could do the same thing.
Not that it matters, but I'm not in that party. I was going to register as a republican to vote for him in the primary, but wouldn't have voted for him in the general election. A move precluded that action though.
I guess there's one sure fire way to find out: continuing this wild global experiment we're conducting.
I'd argue that finding out the results for sure, and the probably cheaper energy isn't really worth it, but what do I know, I'm not a fossil fuel tycoon or politician.
the ONLY ones you will be allowed to vote for, be it in a primary or general election, are the pre-bought.
How does that work exactly? Ron Paul was allowed on the primary ballot.
Oh and you might want to look up "Jon Stweart Ron Paul" to see how badly the primaries are rigged, he got footage that doesn't even try to hide how badly its rigged. It even shows that at places where Paul might have had a snowball's chance in hell the MSM treated him as "he who shall not be named" with talking heads practically tap dancing around their sentences so they would NOT ever speak his name, with it going so far as one naming the first, second, and FOURTH place finishers without even saying the words third place much less the fact that Paul took it.
I was paying attention when it happened. I'm aware of the theories that he didn't win because the media ignored him. A simpler theory is that he didn't win because he wasn't socially conservative enough to win the primary, and wasn't compelling enough to convince people who weren't already with him to join him.
Either way had voters voted in their interests, for him, he would have won. Instead they voted for Romney, plainly against their interests. Because keeping pot illegal and tax cuts are more important than their rights.
I think you have an overly cynical view of the voting system but a ridiculously optimistic view of the voting base. No conspiracy is needed: the voters really ARE THAT DUMB.
Really? I'm not sure a scapegoat is even needed. Is this actual news in West Virginia? Because if it is, I expect the next sex scandal to completely wipe it out of the news and not enough people will care to even necessitate a sacrifice of some lowly functionary.
as these countries realize the need for sustainable management of their labor base.
Seems to me that it was realized a long time ago. Then people realized that they could setup the system to reward shortsightedness, and could cash out before the consequences of their actions happened. Witness most of the financial industry. China seems to have already skipped over the step of making happy, productive workers and went right to the "bleed it dry immediately" model.
Slashdot Mirror
Anyone know of any of those "pray away the gay" camps that will allow me to take the treatment in reverse order?
The fact that rat studies were wrong once doesn't mean they're wrong again. Not to say "don't be skeptical" of course, but it sounds like you're not being skeptical, you're being simply closed minded.
And don't confuse the researchers here with the people who will overstate the results in exchange for attention on Dr. Oz or elsewhere. Different people. Read the paper. I didn't come across anything which suggested this should influence anyone's medical treatments. The researchers aren't being irresponsible. Your problem is with the media, not the scientists.
To extend that, biology dissertations are often just the research papers they've published stapled together. Which you only write up after you've gotten most of the results, starting writing a paper before getting results is asking life to prove your hypotheses wrong on every level. Starting research before OP is IN a lab is probably not realistic, even for a purely bioinformatics project. Odds are, OP has no idea what his research project will even be.
So it cannot be done beforehand, and it takes very little time anyway. I "wrote my dissertation" in about two weeks, and the only reason it took that long was because my boss wanted me to write up my methods so the next guy could understand it. And proofread it multiple times for some reason. And I was more interested in browsing slashdot.
OP could and should start reading every paper he can get the PDF for that seems remotely interesting. Most undergrad schools don't have their students read many primary literature papers, and that's most of what the first year is, at least in my experience.
Could also be "knowledge or skills that are not particularly common in your field is often a commodity."
In my field (cell biology), you could say the same thing about calculus, statistics, programming, or people skills. Most cell biologists have good lab bench skills and an ability to think about cell biology and come up with good ideas. The ones that have a good handle on cell biology, lab techniques, AND calculus, or statistics, or programming, or people skills are much more rare, and often more valuable.
I'm not 100% sure that the "Us vs Them" actually distracts us from right vs wrong. I think that if you removed the pro-wrestling aspects of politics, the people who got all jazzed up about it would simply find other things to be entertained by, and the important issues (such as whether death machines would be allowed to kill people on our own soil, presumably because the police or FBI were too incompetent to shoot the people they meant to shoot) would still be ignored.
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." - Margaret Mead. That's true here whether there are other people using it as a blood sport or not.
I could very well be wrong of course. I'd say we should get rid of the partisanship just to be safe. I mean, it's fucking annoying. Still, between focusing on preventing death machine strikes and between focusing on cleaning up how the two sides talk to each other, I say focus on the death machine strikes, since we KNOW that needs our attention.
Yeah, that might cause some problems, it is half the LD50 for an average male.
Indeed. Thanks to these studies, we know one of them is autoimmune diseases.
If your point was something along the lines of "This might not be specific to autoimmune diseases, they're practically killing the rats with salt, so it could cause any number of problems due to poor health," I'd remind you that the mouse models were merely bolstering the cell culture studies where they no doubt made sure they weren't killing the cells. They only did mice to show that what's true at the cellular level is true for the organism as a whole. The point was not to establish a specific dose at which your immune cells would attack you for eating too much salt (and, by the way, I'm not sure you can simply scale up from rats by weight like that when it comes to nutrition), they were merely to indicate that the effects were true of real organisms as well and not just cells in a dish.
The authors would no doubt be the first to admit that these findings are a long way from conclusive proof that people suffering from MS MUST eliminate all salt from their diets, just that the studies should move to the next level and see if low salt diets improve outcome for some autoimmune diseases.
From the multiple sclerosis mouse paper's methods section:
Mice received normal chow and tap water ad libitum (control group) or sodium-rich chow containing 4% NaCl (SSNIFF) and tap water containing 1% NaCl ad libitum (high-salt group).
Hopefully, the normal chow and salty chow are pretty much identical except in how much NaCl SSNIFF added, though I don't know. Presumably the researchers would have thought of that.
The cell culture work, odds aren't bad that they tried multiple sources of NaCl to make sure it wasn't trace contaminants that were changing things.
At any rate, it's unlikely that the salt they used for their cell culture work in these two studies, and the salt they used in the mouse studies have a contaminant that is causing immune response and that you would not find in any salt you are eating.
I'm now going to have to give up potato chips in order to make my eczema clear up. Actually, fuck it. No one wants to look at my elbow anyway, and I love pringles too much.
Major exception to your rule: sex. So long as you don't get an infection from it. I have yet to hear any study suggest that sex is bad for you.
Well, as a balance to cynicism, it's worth keeping in mind that things HAVE changed in the past, when things were worse. The pendulum does swing back the other way. It's just that things would have to get worse for consumers to actually take up arms.
I mean, labor conditions had to get horrible for labor unions to form.
He briefly paused eating cake.
If everyone appeals, ISPs will raise their rates more than they were planning to anyway. They might also raise the appeal rates or change the terms too.
Some of us will say "I'M NOT GOING TO STAND FOR IT ANYMORE! FUCK YOU GUYS! I'M GOING WITH THE COMPETI....oh..."
And the best way to not support that business model is to buy alternatives and boycott protected media.
I believe the slightly more effective way to do that is to give money to the EFF or other organizations which will lobby politicians to reverse such rules, while voting against politicians who support the MPAA/RIAA, and calling and bugging the ones you don't.
I'm deeply cynical about both, but I can't recall a consumer movement that did anything substantial. Threats of boycotts work if you want walmart to start saying "Happy Jesus' Birthday," but they don't seem to have driven any walmart locations to stop killing local retail, for example.
The people buying EA games, Ke$ha songs, and buying Argo on DVD aren't going to stop doing those things because ISPs are eroding their rights.
There are actually some sources saying you won't have to pay if you're "[paid] a gross monthly income that is less than 300% of the federal poverty income level, are full-time students receiving needs-based financial aid, or who qualify for one of a series of means-tested federal benefits." (One such source, referring to leaked AT&T documents I think.)
It goes without saying that I'll believe such rumors when I see them and see how much trouble ISPs give you for proving you don't have to pay the fee. And, more importantly, whether an appeal will do anything at all in the first place.
You and I and GP realize that. Probably the best way to get all the morons who don't already realize it is through satire, such as AC was doing.
The Daily Show is, after all, doing more to safeguard liberty by informing the public right now than any of the news networks are. While that's awful, it's the truth, and we should probably learn something from it.
Given that most slashdotters are probably more interested in videogames than 90's angsty bands, I expect most people clicked on the comments trying to figure out what this has to do with harmonix.
Good example. Yes, it was a compromise. One that no one liked and that probably allowed our nation to be formed. Had our founding forefathers stuck to their convictions and refused to compromise on whether or not slaves were people, it's anyone's guess what would have happened, but I can tell you what would NOT have happened: slavery would NOT have magically ended in the south, racism would NOT have declined sooner.
Perhaps the US would have split off as two separate new nations, and maybe that would have worked out for them. But I'm guessing both would have failed and/or the civil war would have happened sooner.
Compromise is necessary in politics. Unless you all magically agree, or you kill the other side, or your side has absolute power, you need to compromise. Failure to compromise is just being immature and stupid, especially when both sides feel strongly that they're right about the issue.
Kind of amazing that microsoft has had the nerve to go after Google's privacy practices, when its own regarding Bing generally arent as good.
What's amazing about it? The public has shown itself to be remarkably stupid in terms of detecting hypocrisy. MS would have to be amazingly stupid not to look at any given political race and not realize they could do the same thing.
Not that it matters, but I'm not in that party. I was going to register as a republican to vote for him in the primary, but wouldn't have voted for him in the general election. A move precluded that action though.
I guess there's one sure fire way to find out: continuing this wild global experiment we're conducting.
I'd argue that finding out the results for sure, and the probably cheaper energy isn't really worth it, but what do I know, I'm not a fossil fuel tycoon or politician.
the ONLY ones you will be allowed to vote for, be it in a primary or general election, are the pre-bought.
How does that work exactly? Ron Paul was allowed on the primary ballot.
Oh and you might want to look up "Jon Stweart Ron Paul" to see how badly the primaries are rigged, he got footage that doesn't even try to hide how badly its rigged. It even shows that at places where Paul might have had a snowball's chance in hell the MSM treated him as "he who shall not be named" with talking heads practically tap dancing around their sentences so they would NOT ever speak his name, with it going so far as one naming the first, second, and FOURTH place finishers without even saying the words third place much less the fact that Paul took it.
I was paying attention when it happened. I'm aware of the theories that he didn't win because the media ignored him. A simpler theory is that he didn't win because he wasn't socially conservative enough to win the primary, and wasn't compelling enough to convince people who weren't already with him to join him.
Either way had voters voted in their interests, for him, he would have won. Instead they voted for Romney, plainly against their interests. Because keeping pot illegal and tax cuts are more important than their rights.
I think you have an overly cynical view of the voting system but a ridiculously optimistic view of the voting base. No conspiracy is needed: the voters really ARE THAT DUMB.
Possibly, but they're still the most effective tactics I can think of short of, I dunno, voters voting to preserve their rights.
I'm not aware that Franklin herself ever stated that she had been robbed.
According to wiki and whoever they cite, she probably wasn't aware her data was used and died before she would have found that out.
Really? I'm not sure a scapegoat is even needed. Is this actual news in West Virginia? Because if it is, I expect the next sex scandal to completely wipe it out of the news and not enough people will care to even necessitate a sacrifice of some lowly functionary.
What "statistics" show that? The article you linked to doesn't even show he threatened to, only that he privately considered it.
as these countries realize the need for sustainable management of their labor base.
Seems to me that it was realized a long time ago. Then people realized that they could setup the system to reward shortsightedness, and could cash out before the consequences of their actions happened. Witness most of the financial industry. China seems to have already skipped over the step of making happy, productive workers and went right to the "bleed it dry immediately" model.