It was modded off topic according to the history. Some mod was mad that we weren't taking "We probably aren't all going to die in 2032" seriously, or at least not directly discussing it.
I, for one, am glad that if I am smooshed by a big rock in 2032, odds are around 99.99998% that it will be a big terrestrial rock and not a space rock. Perhaps slightly lower given that there are other space rocks out there which could fall on me.
That's a good question. I wasn't really thinking there, must have been lack of sleep. It does show that the fluid is always present in the central nervous system I suppose. And the brain ventricles are contiguous with the central canal of the spinal cord. But I don't actually know if that is connected with the area that spinal taps are done in and I couldn't immediately find anything suggesting they are connected. I'm pretty sure they are: it's used to determine if someone has meningitis, which affects the brain. If they were seperate compartments, you couldn't rely on bacteria being in both of them.
I guess I should have just said the ventricles always have CSF in them and not mentioned the spinal tap, sorry about that.
I have absolutely no experience with either (beyond playing games as a consumer). I am skeptical on principle that if a much cheaper but just as good version of something existed, Cyan would choose to pay more, even if they do know they're going to raise as much money as they need through donations.
A big dumb company like EA, I could believe they would go with Unreal rather than a cheaper less known version simply because that's what everyone is doing, but the people who made Myst certainly aren't just following the crowd to follow the crowd.
You're right, but I'm going to forgive him for engaging in hyperbole, given that the other side flat out lied about much bigger issues, while under oath to congress.
I agree that it doesn't seem like night or day would matter much.
The second point, you're responding to a new hypothesis put forth by the researcher based on the current findings. The current findings are only that it's cleared out during sleep, not saying that low neural activity is the reason. That part is just speculation. I'd suggest it's probably more complex, that the glial cleaning activity causes abnormal neuronal activity when it's in that mode. Perhaps the reason it happens during sleep is because if it happened while you were awake, you'd hallucinate, act even more irrationally and irregularly etc. Perhaps that's part of the reason that dreams are so bizarre. Pure speculation.
The slashdot title is taken from the preview article from Science, the second of the two links. I see that the staff writer of that doesn't appear to be a professional scientist, but I have definitely run into scientists using catchy titles.
It's probably not the only cause of sleeping. There's a suggestion that mammals evolved to sleep more at night because a common ancestor was otherwise too stupid to realize that roaming in the dark = more danger of being eaten by nocturnal predators. The brown bat at the top of that list obviously has a huge disadvantage in daylight. Sleeping conserves precious energy of course.
Someone has probably noticed if brain ventricle size correlated with amount of time sleeping across different species and within humans. You might imagine that more surface area for the ventricles = clears out faster = less sleep.
I had a problem with that line: the ventricles of the brain are ALWAYS full of that fluid. That's what they take during a spinal tap. You don't need to be asleep for that.
There are a lot of science articles published in a day. Most titles, a given scientist is only going to glance at them once. The journal and the authors have an interest in making it memorable.
It's not like researchers are going so far as to pay for advertising their papers.
Many neurological diseases—from Alzheimer's disease to stroke and dementia—are associated with sleep disturbances, Nedergaard notes. The study suggests that lack of sleep could have a causal role, by allowing the byproducts to build up and cause brain damage. "This could open a lot of debate for shift workers, who work during the nighttime,” Nedergaard predicts. "You probably develop damage if you don’t get your sleep."
Beta amyloids are specifically mentioned, those make up the plaques that are found in Alzheimers.
Worth pointing out that the effects of sleep deprivation are well known, this is simply trying to explain HOW those symptoms occur.
A lot of people suffer from high blood pressure. Using your logic, I have a great solution: such people should cut open their wrists for a few minutes. Fixes everything.
You're comparing apples to oranges. You got absolutely nothing out of the shutdown. I'm guessing you are convinced absolutely nothing good is LIKELY to come out of Obamacare, but you'd be beyond brainwashed if you suggest there's no chance of anything good coming out of Obamacare. So you're comparing a complete waste to something that could benefit plenty of Americans.
So I guess it's less like comparing apples to oranges and more like comparing apples to someone kicking you in the groin.
I suspect the opposite, it will be chipped away at while we aren't looking until they break it completely. I don't fully understand the opposition to ACA, but I'm suspicious it doesn't have more to do with control and relative wealth than it does with small government values. People who are more concerned with their failing health, taking care of sick relatives, or paying outrageous medical bills are less likely to have time to pay attention to politics. They're less likely to demand their rights or question what they're being told. Keeping most Americans sick or in debt is a great way for certain rich elites to increase their own power. And I think they see Obamacare as standing in their way.
I don't know if Obamacare will actually be effective in preventing that, nor do I know what goes on in the Kochs' heads that makes them want to destroy Obamacare. Just that's what I'm paranoid about.
And scapegoats! Don't forget the scapegoating! The NSA could totally scapegoat him. Which would be better than what I'm guessing is going to happen: not a damn thing, and the clear message being sent to all future directors of spy agencies: you are operating utterly above the law. At least if we make one guy go to jail, that will give future directors pause before they ignore the constitution.
So, Guardian, the next time the government "politely" asks you to do something, you politely tell the cunts to bugger off and die from an acute lack of tea *. Because evidently they try to use you complying with their requests to be admitting you're wrong. Should have probably known that before.
(* Is that how you would say it? I'm not a British newspaper, so I'm not exactly sure.)
Let's be clear: the problem isn't the words themselves. It's how they are used and understood. Scientists use those words too: it's a desire to not overstate a theory. Even if you'd bet your house on your finding being true, you can't say you absolutely know with certainty.
Different cultures though have different relationships with reality. The legal world, for example seems a lot more comfortable with declaring things absolutely true. I guess admitting to themselves that we can never really have absolute knowledge might be burdensome to prosecutors, juries, and judges who are sending people to the gas chamber for crimes they say they didn't commit.
The general public seems to take admitting uncertainty as a weakness. Again, I'd suggest it's weak to insist you know something to be absolutely true.
That said, I'm pretty confident that yes, the NSA is spying on us. And I agree that presenting it as "maybe" is not the smartest move here since we do have to deal with the general public. They hear such words and they have the reaction of "Oh, it's not 120% certain beyond a shadow of a hint of doubt? Well then I can ignore it."
Seeing as how we're not in on most of the conversations that took place, we can only guess. It's possible they said they weren't going to do that for him anymore. It's also possible they will STILL do this for him, but as a separate organization on paper, there is less risk to the parent organization. I guess sort of like a shell corporation.
Eh, why so cynical? Look at history: there's good things to come out of every bad thing and bad things that come out of every good thing. Perhaps this will shock people into realizing that gerrymandering isn't something they can ignore. Perhaps tea party voters will start to question whether forcing people to buy healthcare is actually at all similar to fascism. Perhaps actual small government conservatives will take back control of their party, and we can actually cut wasteful spending rather than just cutting taxes and pretending that makes sense.
Don't say the sky is falling simply because you could see one way in which it COULD fall. For one thing, it's not going to cancel it's plans to fall simply because you discovered them. If the shutdown causes the worst to happen, you'll be able to say "Told ya so!' and everyone else in your shantytown will roll their eyes. If it doesn't, you just stressed yourself out, made everyone more cynical about politics, and less likely to take steps to prevent your prophecy from coming true.
Granted, the chances of anyone reading your post doing anything about it are really low anyway... Fuck, I think I just talked myself into looking up my house of reps number and considering calling them.... goddamn desire not to be a hypocrite...
The marketplace of ideas is enriched by every additional voice no matter the background, as long as that additional voice doesn't silence another voice. If they're saying "let them eat cake" type nonsense, then everyone will ignore them and the effect will be the same. If people take their dumb ideas to heart, they're probably not making good moves in the absence of nerds talking. If what the nerds are saying is better than what the alternatives are saying, like religious organizations, organizations dedicated to ignorance, or corporations interested in nothing more than money, then it will be a good thing that they talked.
Alternatively, everyone else should shut up too and give all power to a benevolent saintly king who will rule fairly. Oh, we don't have one of those? Well then, how about everyone gives their opinion and we don't resort to ad-homenim attacks.
Pretty sure everyone involved in making decisions DID learn well from history. We're not spending as much as we are on the military because it's a good long term strategy. We're spending that much on the military because lobbyists and politicians are getting rich off of the taxpayers through that scheme, and the taxpayer hasn't realized we don't need stealth fighters to keep safe from a bunch of cultists with boxcutters and AK47s.
Lets move away from the silly evil / not evil. It's a good motto, it's good to try to not be evil, but in judging the actions of people or companies, declaring whether things are good or evil is simplistic and useless. It's clear that google fiber is better than most of the options that currently exist for most people, but it's clear that it's not perfect compared to how good it could be while still making a healthy profit. I think that's about as simple a statement as one can make.
I don't know, but I'm willing to accept bioware or whoever saying it's for a technical reason. I mean, the guns are fictional, so whoever made ME 2 and 3 gets the power of fiat.
We won't be taking part in the discussion either. That gets decided by lobby groups and politicians, all of whom are playing hot potato with the future. No one wants to be in office or be leading the fossil fuel industry when carbon can no longer be written off as externalized costs. That's why you hear only discussions of non-binding resolutions to limit carbon on the next guy's term.
The voters and consumers themselves are also trying to convince themselves it's not real, so lobbyists and politicians can't take all the blame. Most of us too want someone else to make sacrifices. "WHAT? YOU'RE GOING TO RAISE GAS PRICES BY A WHOLE FUCKING CENT!?!? AND MY ELECTRICITY BILL!"
Honestly, I'm confused as to why we're not throwing money at researching iron fertilization. Seems like that's the lazy way out. I don't think that's the BEST solution, but it's just what I'd expect us to do, we avoid the problem and avoid having to limit carbon. Could really mess up the ocean, but the ocean is already going to be messed up. Reminds me of the anti-nuclear environmental movement back in the day: by rejecting imperfect solutions, we are basically limiting ourselves to no solutions, since a perfect solution doesn't exist.
Slashdot Mirror
It was modded off topic according to the history. Some mod was mad that we weren't taking "We probably aren't all going to die in 2032" seriously, or at least not directly discussing it.
I, for one, am glad that if I am smooshed by a big rock in 2032, odds are around 99.99998% that it will be a big terrestrial rock and not a space rock. Perhaps slightly lower given that there are other space rocks out there which could fall on me.
There, anonymous troll mod, are you happy?
That's a good question. I wasn't really thinking there, must have been lack of sleep. It does show that the fluid is always present in the central nervous system I suppose. And the brain ventricles are contiguous with the central canal of the spinal cord. But I don't actually know if that is connected with the area that spinal taps are done in and I couldn't immediately find anything suggesting they are connected. I'm pretty sure they are: it's used to determine if someone has meningitis, which affects the brain. If they were seperate compartments, you couldn't rely on bacteria being in both of them.
I guess I should have just said the ventricles always have CSF in them and not mentioned the spinal tap, sorry about that.
Maybe nitpicky, but isn't 100% unlikely for kickstarter? I mean, it's less than 100% certain that they'll put out ANY game, right?
I have absolutely no experience with either (beyond playing games as a consumer). I am skeptical on principle that if a much cheaper but just as good version of something existed, Cyan would choose to pay more, even if they do know they're going to raise as much money as they need through donations.
A big dumb company like EA, I could believe they would go with Unreal rather than a cheaper less known version simply because that's what everyone is doing, but the people who made Myst certainly aren't just following the crowd to follow the crowd.
You're right, but I'm going to forgive him for engaging in hyperbole, given that the other side flat out lied about much bigger issues, while under oath to congress.
I agree that it doesn't seem like night or day would matter much.
The second point, you're responding to a new hypothesis put forth by the researcher based on the current findings. The current findings are only that it's cleared out during sleep, not saying that low neural activity is the reason. That part is just speculation. I'd suggest it's probably more complex, that the glial cleaning activity causes abnormal neuronal activity when it's in that mode. Perhaps the reason it happens during sleep is because if it happened while you were awake, you'd hallucinate, act even more irrationally and irregularly etc. Perhaps that's part of the reason that dreams are so bizarre. Pure speculation.
The slashdot title is taken from the preview article from Science, the second of the two links. I see that the staff writer of that doesn't appear to be a professional scientist, but I have definitely run into scientists using catchy titles.
It's probably not the only cause of sleeping. There's a suggestion that mammals evolved to sleep more at night because a common ancestor was otherwise too stupid to realize that roaming in the dark = more danger of being eaten by nocturnal predators. The brown bat at the top of that list obviously has a huge disadvantage in daylight. Sleeping conserves precious energy of course.
Someone has probably noticed if brain ventricle size correlated with amount of time sleeping across different species and within humans. You might imagine that more surface area for the ventricles = clears out faster = less sleep.
I had a problem with that line: the ventricles of the brain are ALWAYS full of that fluid. That's what they take during a spinal tap. You don't need to be asleep for that.
There are a lot of science articles published in a day. Most titles, a given scientist is only going to glance at them once. The journal and the authors have an interest in making it memorable.
It's not like researchers are going so far as to pay for advertising their papers.
Many neurological diseases—from Alzheimer's disease to stroke and dementia—are associated with sleep disturbances, Nedergaard notes. The study suggests that lack of sleep could have a causal role, by allowing the byproducts to build up and cause brain damage. "This could open a lot of debate for shift workers, who work during the nighttime,” Nedergaard predicts. "You probably develop damage if you don’t get your sleep."
Beta amyloids are specifically mentioned, those make up the plaques that are found in Alzheimers.
Worth pointing out that the effects of sleep deprivation are well known, this is simply trying to explain HOW those symptoms occur.
A lot of people suffer from high blood pressure. Using your logic, I have a great solution: such people should cut open their wrists for a few minutes. Fixes everything.
You're comparing apples to oranges. You got absolutely nothing out of the shutdown. I'm guessing you are convinced absolutely nothing good is LIKELY to come out of Obamacare, but you'd be beyond brainwashed if you suggest there's no chance of anything good coming out of Obamacare. So you're comparing a complete waste to something that could benefit plenty of Americans.
So I guess it's less like comparing apples to oranges and more like comparing apples to someone kicking you in the groin.
I suspect the opposite, it will be chipped away at while we aren't looking until they break it completely. I don't fully understand the opposition to ACA, but I'm suspicious it doesn't have more to do with control and relative wealth than it does with small government values. People who are more concerned with their failing health, taking care of sick relatives, or paying outrageous medical bills are less likely to have time to pay attention to politics. They're less likely to demand their rights or question what they're being told. Keeping most Americans sick or in debt is a great way for certain rich elites to increase their own power. And I think they see Obamacare as standing in their way.
I don't know if Obamacare will actually be effective in preventing that, nor do I know what goes on in the Kochs' heads that makes them want to destroy Obamacare. Just that's what I'm paranoid about.
And scapegoats! Don't forget the scapegoating! The NSA could totally scapegoat him. Which would be better than what I'm guessing is going to happen: not a damn thing, and the clear message being sent to all future directors of spy agencies: you are operating utterly above the law. At least if we make one guy go to jail, that will give future directors pause before they ignore the constitution.
So, Guardian, the next time the government "politely" asks you to do something, you politely tell the cunts to bugger off and die from an acute lack of tea *. Because evidently they try to use you complying with their requests to be admitting you're wrong. Should have probably known that before.
(* Is that how you would say it? I'm not a British newspaper, so I'm not exactly sure.)
Let's be clear: the problem isn't the words themselves. It's how they are used and understood. Scientists use those words too: it's a desire to not overstate a theory. Even if you'd bet your house on your finding being true, you can't say you absolutely know with certainty.
Different cultures though have different relationships with reality. The legal world, for example seems a lot more comfortable with declaring things absolutely true. I guess admitting to themselves that we can never really have absolute knowledge might be burdensome to prosecutors, juries, and judges who are sending people to the gas chamber for crimes they say they didn't commit.
The general public seems to take admitting uncertainty as a weakness. Again, I'd suggest it's weak to insist you know something to be absolutely true.
That said, I'm pretty confident that yes, the NSA is spying on us. And I agree that presenting it as "maybe" is not the smartest move here since we do have to deal with the general public. They hear such words and they have the reaction of "Oh, it's not 120% certain beyond a shadow of a hint of doubt? Well then I can ignore it."
Seeing as how we're not in on most of the conversations that took place, we can only guess. It's possible they said they weren't going to do that for him anymore. It's also possible they will STILL do this for him, but as a separate organization on paper, there is less risk to the parent organization. I guess sort of like a shell corporation.
Eh, why so cynical? Look at history: there's good things to come out of every bad thing and bad things that come out of every good thing. Perhaps this will shock people into realizing that gerrymandering isn't something they can ignore. Perhaps tea party voters will start to question whether forcing people to buy healthcare is actually at all similar to fascism. Perhaps actual small government conservatives will take back control of their party, and we can actually cut wasteful spending rather than just cutting taxes and pretending that makes sense.
Don't say the sky is falling simply because you could see one way in which it COULD fall. For one thing, it's not going to cancel it's plans to fall simply because you discovered them. If the shutdown causes the worst to happen, you'll be able to say "Told ya so!' and everyone else in your shantytown will roll their eyes. If it doesn't, you just stressed yourself out, made everyone more cynical about politics, and less likely to take steps to prevent your prophecy from coming true.
Granted, the chances of anyone reading your post doing anything about it are really low anyway... Fuck, I think I just talked myself into looking up my house of reps number and considering calling them.... goddamn desire not to be a hypocrite...
The marketplace of ideas is enriched by every additional voice no matter the background, as long as that additional voice doesn't silence another voice. If they're saying "let them eat cake" type nonsense, then everyone will ignore them and the effect will be the same. If people take their dumb ideas to heart, they're probably not making good moves in the absence of nerds talking. If what the nerds are saying is better than what the alternatives are saying, like religious organizations, organizations dedicated to ignorance, or corporations interested in nothing more than money, then it will be a good thing that they talked.
Alternatively, everyone else should shut up too and give all power to a benevolent saintly king who will rule fairly. Oh, we don't have one of those? Well then, how about everyone gives their opinion and we don't resort to ad-homenim attacks.
Stay strong apathetic non-voters. Don't bother. It's cool. Or whatever.
Pretty sure everyone involved in making decisions DID learn well from history. We're not spending as much as we are on the military because it's a good long term strategy. We're spending that much on the military because lobbyists and politicians are getting rich off of the taxpayers through that scheme, and the taxpayer hasn't realized we don't need stealth fighters to keep safe from a bunch of cultists with boxcutters and AK47s.
Lets move away from the silly evil / not evil. It's a good motto, it's good to try to not be evil, but in judging the actions of people or companies, declaring whether things are good or evil is simplistic and useless. It's clear that google fiber is better than most of the options that currently exist for most people, but it's clear that it's not perfect compared to how good it could be while still making a healthy profit. I think that's about as simple a statement as one can make.
I don't know, but I'm willing to accept bioware or whoever saying it's for a technical reason. I mean, the guns are fictional, so whoever made ME 2 and 3 gets the power of fiat.
We won't be taking part in the discussion either. That gets decided by lobby groups and politicians, all of whom are playing hot potato with the future. No one wants to be in office or be leading the fossil fuel industry when carbon can no longer be written off as externalized costs. That's why you hear only discussions of non-binding resolutions to limit carbon on the next guy's term.
The voters and consumers themselves are also trying to convince themselves it's not real, so lobbyists and politicians can't take all the blame. Most of us too want someone else to make sacrifices. "WHAT? YOU'RE GOING TO RAISE GAS PRICES BY A WHOLE FUCKING CENT!?!? AND MY ELECTRICITY BILL!"
Honestly, I'm confused as to why we're not throwing money at researching iron fertilization. Seems like that's the lazy way out. I don't think that's the BEST solution, but it's just what I'd expect us to do, we avoid the problem and avoid having to limit carbon. Could really mess up the ocean, but the ocean is already going to be messed up. Reminds me of the anti-nuclear environmental movement back in the day: by rejecting imperfect solutions, we are basically limiting ourselves to no solutions, since a perfect solution doesn't exist.