For all your alleged intelligence, you seem to be unable to vary your style significantly enough to prevent those of us with mere average intelligence to be able to determine that you're samefagging and have replied multiple times to the OP while trying to imply that most of these replies are from different individuals. Even your grammatical errors are consistent across your posts. I see nothing "high functioning" here, just a sad troll.
I am stunned that troglodyte moderators took a poorly punctuated post such as his at face value and marked you the troll instead. Someone with an IQ of 191 would surely know that the first comma should be a semicolon, the first dash a comma, and so on. Even deeper ignorance is betrayed by referring to socialization as a "form of thought".
You called BS too early and I'll refute your post now:
1. All the difference is the difference is in waking up normally, at light stages in a sleep cycle, as opposed to being woken up forcefully when you're likely to be into a deeper stage. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep#Sleep_stages Referring to the sleep diagram there, if you're woken up at any point where you're deeper than stage 1, it has a very stressful effect on the brain. If you're woken up from stage 3 or 4 of a cycle, you'd be worse off than if you had stayed awake. Biphasic sleep is simply the natural tendency to sometimes fully wake after the first 90-120 minute cycle (instead of just surfacing up to REM sleep) and be awake for a couple of hours before going back to sleep for another two or three sleep cycles. This has NOTHING to do with your kids waking you up at random points in your sleep cycles!! So take your strawmen arguments elsewhere
2. Studies show that when removed from artificial lighting completely for significant periods, people naturally settle into biphasic sleep. For example, see A. Roger Ekirch (April 2001). "Sleep We Have Lost: Pre-industrial Slumber in the British Isles". The American Historical Review 106 (2).
An example experimental drug to increase the portion of a sleep cycle spent in deep stages (3 and 4) is gaboxadol, on which Merck and H. Lundbeck spent tons of money but turned out to have severe side effects and only limited increase in deep sleep. The point is, Uberman is the wrong solution as it has no mapping to actual biology of sleep. The solution is already known, and is the natural biphasic sleep pattern we've used for millions of years until a couple centuries ago.
There are several huge problems with the article. One is claiming REM is stage 5. That's backwards. REM sleep is the _lightest_ stage of sleep within a sleep cycle!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep#Sleep_stages
Studies have shown by far the most rest happens in the deep non-REM stages, to the extent that there's research into drugs that maximize the portion of sleep that happens in the deep non-REM stages in order to maximize the restorative effects of less cycles of sleep.
Another issue is that natural wake points are the light REM-stages (look at the sleep stages diagram in the link above). Waking from a deep stage is very counterproductive and it's better to just skip that last sleep cycle (this is also why a 20 minute nap is ineffective, and why the Spanish siesta has settled to around two hours).
The best argument against Uberman and other such contrivances are the studies showing that when removed from natural lighting, people settle into the ancient biphasic sleep pattern discussed in RTFA. For example, see A. Roger Ekirch (April 2001). "Sleep We Have Lost: Pre-industrial Slumber in the British Isles". The American Historical Review 106 (2).
What's worse: a cretinous imbecile or those up-moderating his flamebait post?
> sometime around the industrial revolution, we evolved into humanoid machine meta sapiens
No, we have not evolved an iota over the past 10,000 years since civilization has appeared. Evolution takes millions of years, and now over two decades of cognitive psychology research has only strengthened the evidence for primacy of nature over nurture. Studies relating to the segmented sleep issue specifically have shown that when modern people are put into an environment without artificial lighting, they naturally settle into the ancient two-phase sleep pattern discussed in TFA. So go fuck yourself.
You're either trolling, or have been trained in sociology or one of the other soft "sciences".
There's a very good reason siesta is around two hours. That's the length of the average first sleep cycle. See http://www.lakesidepress.com/pulmonary/Sleep/hypnogram.png and take note that being woken during a deep stage can leave you feeling worse than if you had not slept at all. This is why the 20 minute nap is useless, and study after study has pretty much confirmed that.
This is simply a bad recommendation. You should nap a full sleep cycle, which is 90 minutes on average (usually the first one is a bit longer, around two hours). Please see the average somnogram here: http://www.lakesidepress.com/pulmonary/Sleep/hypnogram.png
There's a reason the Spanish siesta is about two hours. It's been shown that interrupting a sleep cycle during the deeper parts is extremely counter-productive, and can leave you even worse off than if you had stayed awake (or woken up at the previous point of light sleep, i.e. REM portion).
Another reason it doesn't make sense to sleep for 20 minutes is that BY FAR the most restorative action of sleep happens during the deep parts of the cycle, to the extent that there is research into drugs that increase the portion of sleep spend in those parts so that, say, soldiers etc. can sleep a smaller number of cycles for the same rest.
Of course, electronics make the least difference, but it's the easiest target for manufacturers and snake-oil salesmen. Speakers are a much more difficult problem, and room acoustics, even more. Full 3D spatial reproduction can only be fully done in two ways: either with headphones using binaural recordings (microphones in the ears of a dummy head--but even then the dummy head only approximates the listener's own HRTF http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head-related_transfer_function ), or with a many-speaker-in-a-sphere-around-listener setup, which is based on spherical harmonics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambisonics.
The human ear has a dynamic range of 120 dB (between threshold of audibility to threshold of pain). In practice, of course, loud signals mask small distortions (depending on the harmonic order of the distortion or whether it's harmonically related at all; THD has been found in blind studies to have little correlation with audible distortion so is a poor metric), but a significant fraction of the population can hear some types of distortion down to -70 or even -80 dB below the signal. While good modern electronics have no problem with this (a few new DAC chips have exceeded even the full 120 dB range of the ear, and there have been various amplifiers from the mid-80s onwards which have done exceeded 110 dB), speakers are several orders of magnitude worse than electronics. While many blind tests have shown that usually only a fraction of people can tell the difference between mid-level and high-end electronic components, the differences between speakers are very easily noticeable.
For men, the biological basis of sexual orientation has been well established; for women, however, it remains unclear. See for example http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10825779 and similar research which indicate that female sexual orientation is not fixed, and thus likely has a significant cultural components. So for women, it may be partly a choice after all in many cases, albeit usually not a conscious one.
I've got karma to burn so I'm going to ask this here.
The summary refers to the company planning on "developing another drug to try and address that problem." While I understand that most language, and particularly English, is ultimately defined by usage rather than by formal standards, as someone for whom English is not his first language, I find myself flabbergasted by the "try and" idiom. I can understand "try to" as it makes logical sense; I don't see, however, the logic behind "try and" as it implies two different activities, trying, and actually doing. That seems semantically inconsistent, I'd even say gratingly incongruous (to me at least, perhaps because I did not learn English as a child). I also doubt it's what the idiom is semantically implying anyhow. So, can a kind reader explain the logic behind "try and" replacing "try to" in most usage?
Note that some physics theories, such as quantum gravity, support a block-time (eternalism) point of view where the present/past/future distinction and the flow-of-time are simply psychological illusions. From a block time perspective there is no causality, just correlation between observables. Mohrhoff's interpretation of QM is another example.
I already wrote about this days ago here (second part of the post) http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2643505&cid=38851887 (and read about the thought experiment many years ago, probably in Paul Davies' "Impossibility". Nothing new under the sun:)
> - It's not illegal to run from the police at all
Too bad in Canada it's not the same. Cop car driving by. I start running--specifically to test my freedom. Cop gave chase. I enter my building and start closing door behind me. Cop bursts in. Punches me in the face--hard--and takes me down, though I offered no resistance. Takes me to car, cuffed, and is flabberghasted when a search didn't turn up something and had to let me go. I file freedom of information request for the police report and turns out the guy had a great imagination, saying things about me being in a "sort of trance" and holding an aggressive posture (that given I have BMI of 18 for fuck's sake).
Slashdot Mirror
Of course.
For all your alleged intelligence, you seem to be unable to vary your style significantly enough to prevent those of us with mere average intelligence to be able to determine that you're samefagging and have replied multiple times to the OP while trying to imply that most of these replies are from different individuals. Even your grammatical errors are consistent across your posts. I see nothing "high functioning" here, just a sad troll.
I am stunned that troglodyte moderators took a poorly punctuated post such as his at face value and marked you the troll instead. Someone with an IQ of 191 would surely know that the first comma should be a semicolon, the first dash a comma, and so on. Even deeper ignorance is betrayed by referring to socialization as a "form of thought".
Pray tell, how do we reconcile your alleged intelligence with your inability to write a post that's not marred by multiple grammatical errors?
Another study: Wehr, T.A. (June 1992). "In short photoperiods, human sleep is biphasic". J Sleep Res 1 (2): 103–107. (you can download it on PubMed)
Better study: Wehr, T.A. (June 1992). "In short photoperiods, human sleep is biphasic". J Sleep Res 1 (2): 103–107. (you can download it on PubMed)
You called BS too early and I'll refute your post now:
1. All the difference is the difference is in waking up normally, at light stages in a sleep cycle, as opposed to being woken up forcefully when you're likely to be into a deeper stage. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep#Sleep_stages Referring to the sleep diagram there, if you're woken up at any point where you're deeper than stage 1, it has a very stressful effect on the brain. If you're woken up from stage 3 or 4 of a cycle, you'd be worse off than if you had stayed awake. Biphasic sleep is simply the natural tendency to sometimes fully wake after the first 90-120 minute cycle (instead of just surfacing up to REM sleep) and be awake for a couple of hours before going back to sleep for another two or three sleep cycles. This has NOTHING to do with your kids waking you up at random points in your sleep cycles!! So take your strawmen arguments elsewhere
2. Studies show that when removed from artificial lighting completely for significant periods, people naturally settle into biphasic sleep. For example, see A. Roger Ekirch (April 2001). "Sleep We Have Lost: Pre-industrial Slumber in the British Isles". The American Historical Review 106 (2).
An example experimental drug to increase the portion of a sleep cycle spent in deep stages (3 and 4) is gaboxadol, on which Merck and H. Lundbeck spent tons of money but turned out to have severe side effects and only limited increase in deep sleep. The point is, Uberman is the wrong solution as it has no mapping to actual biology of sleep. The solution is already known, and is the natural biphasic sleep pattern we've used for millions of years until a couple centuries ago.
There are several huge problems with the article. One is claiming REM is stage 5. That's backwards. REM sleep is the _lightest_ stage of sleep within a sleep cycle!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep#Sleep_stages
Studies have shown by far the most rest happens in the deep non-REM stages, to the extent that there's research into drugs that maximize the portion of sleep that happens in the deep non-REM stages in order to maximize the restorative effects of less cycles of sleep.
Another issue is that natural wake points are the light REM-stages (look at the sleep stages diagram in the link above). Waking from a deep stage is very counterproductive and it's better to just skip that last sleep cycle (this is also why a 20 minute nap is ineffective, and why the Spanish siesta has settled to around two hours).
The best argument against Uberman and other such contrivances are the studies showing that when removed from natural lighting, people settle into the ancient biphasic sleep pattern discussed in RTFA. For example, see A. Roger Ekirch (April 2001). "Sleep We Have Lost: Pre-industrial Slumber in the British Isles". The American Historical Review 106 (2).
What's worse: a cretinous imbecile or those up-moderating his flamebait post?
> sometime around the industrial revolution, we evolved into humanoid machine meta sapiens
No, we have not evolved an iota over the past 10,000 years since civilization has appeared. Evolution takes millions of years, and now over two decades of cognitive psychology research has only strengthened the evidence for primacy of nature over nurture. Studies relating to the segmented sleep issue specifically have shown that when modern people are put into an environment without artificial lighting, they naturally settle into the ancient two-phase sleep pattern discussed in TFA. So go fuck yourself.
You're either trolling, or have been trained in sociology or one of the other soft "sciences".
There's a very good reason siesta is around two hours. That's the length of the average first sleep cycle. See http://www.lakesidepress.com/pulmonary/Sleep/hypnogram.png and take note that being woken during a deep stage can leave you feeling worse than if you had not slept at all. This is why the 20 minute nap is useless, and study after study has pretty much confirmed that.
This is simply a bad recommendation. You should nap a full sleep cycle, which is 90 minutes on average (usually the first one is a bit longer, around two hours). Please see the average somnogram here: http://www.lakesidepress.com/pulmonary/Sleep/hypnogram.png
There's a reason the Spanish siesta is about two hours. It's been shown that interrupting a sleep cycle during the deeper parts is extremely counter-productive, and can leave you even worse off than if you had stayed awake (or woken up at the previous point of light sleep, i.e. REM portion).
Another reason it doesn't make sense to sleep for 20 minutes is that BY FAR the most restorative action of sleep happens during the deep parts of the cycle, to the extent that there is research into drugs that increase the portion of sleep spend in those parts so that, say, soldiers etc. can sleep a smaller number of cycles for the same rest.
High five for mentioning Brazil. Gilliam's best movie.
Of course, electronics make the least difference, but it's the easiest target for manufacturers and snake-oil salesmen. Speakers are a much more difficult problem, and room acoustics, even more. Full 3D spatial reproduction can only be fully done in two ways: either with headphones using binaural recordings (microphones in the ears of a dummy head--but even then the dummy head only approximates the listener's own HRTF http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head-related_transfer_function ), or with a many-speaker-in-a-sphere-around-listener setup, which is based on spherical harmonics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambisonics.
The human ear has a dynamic range of 120 dB (between threshold of audibility to threshold of pain). In practice, of course, loud signals mask small distortions (depending on the harmonic order of the distortion or whether it's harmonically related at all; THD has been found in blind studies to have little correlation with audible distortion so is a poor metric), but a significant fraction of the population can hear some types of distortion down to -70 or even -80 dB below the signal. While good modern electronics have no problem with this (a few new DAC chips have exceeded even the full 120 dB range of the ear, and there have been various amplifiers from the mid-80s onwards which have done exceeded 110 dB), speakers are several orders of magnitude worse than electronics. While many blind tests have shown that usually only a fraction of people can tell the difference between mid-level and high-end electronic components, the differences between speakers are very easily noticeable.
For men, the biological basis of sexual orientation has been well established; for women, however, it remains unclear. See for example http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10825779 and similar research which indicate that female sexual orientation is not fixed, and thus likely has a significant cultural components. So for women, it may be partly a choice after all in many cases, albeit usually not a conscious one.
Ron Paul you say? Let's see...
Racism which his sycophants are trying to whitewash: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ron-paul-signed-off-on-racist-newsletters-sources-say/2012/01/20/gIQAvblFVQ_story.html -- check.
Being a dominionist with a hidden religious agenda: http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/10/is_ron_paul_a_dominionist.php -- check.
Looking for a return to the gold standard, which is what made the great depression worse: Hamilton, J.D. "The Role of the International Gold Standard in Propagating the Great Depression," Contemporary Policy Issues, April 1988 -- check.
Yep, that's the guy!
Good luck, anon.
I've got karma to burn so I'm going to ask this here.
The summary refers to the company planning on "developing another drug to try and address that problem." While I understand that most language, and particularly English, is ultimately defined by usage rather than by formal standards, as someone for whom English is not his first language, I find myself flabbergasted by the "try and" idiom. I can understand "try to" as it makes logical sense; I don't see, however, the logic behind "try and" as it implies two different activities, trying, and actually doing. That seems semantically inconsistent, I'd even say gratingly incongruous (to me at least, perhaps because I did not learn English as a child). I also doubt it's what the idiom is semantically implying anyhow. So, can a kind reader explain the logic behind "try and" replacing "try to" in most usage?
Considering you can buy a hot air soldering system for little over $100 on eBay, I call BS.
Note that some physics theories, such as quantum gravity, support a block-time (eternalism) point of view where the present/past/future distinction and the flow-of-time are simply psychological illusions. From a block time perspective there is no causality, just correlation between observables. Mohrhoff's interpretation of QM is another example.
No. You're views are not far from positivism, and that has been destroyed by Popper. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_rationalism
I already wrote about this days ago here (second part of the post) http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2643505&cid=38851887 (and read about the thought experiment many years ago, probably in Paul Davies' "Impossibility". Nothing new under the sun :)
Does I2P offer perfect forward secrecy the way Tor's newer "telescoping" routing does?
> - It's not illegal to run from the police at all
Too bad in Canada it's not the same. Cop car driving by. I start running--specifically to test my freedom. Cop gave chase. I enter my building and start closing door behind me. Cop bursts in. Punches me in the face--hard--and takes me down, though I offered no resistance. Takes me to car, cuffed, and is flabberghasted when a search didn't turn up something and had to let me go. I file freedom of information request for the police report and turns out the guy had a great imagination, saying things about me being in a "sort of trance" and holding an aggressive posture (that given I have BMI of 18 for fuck's sake).