I'm in the West Coast, but I could easily get a listing for MP3 files available on publicly-accessible webservers on Boston U.'s network if I spent 10 minutes looking for them, and I wouldn't have to be a 'private investigator' in MA to get them After all, these 'precious snowflakes' are advertising that they have this stuff available to everyone. Finding such files is not the same as doing so while acting as an investigator, which is what MediaSentry is specifically claimed to be by their RIAA handlers. Attempting to determine the 'owner' of the available files is beyond simply finding the files, and is what MediaSentry is trying to do in their stated role of investigator. Looking for the files after being told not to by the law is a violation of that law, regardless of status of 'investigator' or not.
The uncannily similar ridiculous behavior of RIAA and MediaSentry makes me think that the latter was not hired by the former, but rather formed by and spun off from the former for its own purposes and according to its own operating principles. If so, and that comes out, RIAA could not only be the primary defendant, but also guilty of perjury for claiming otherwise. That'd tear a hole in every case in which MediaSentry generated data was used.
"... the Boston University students... have brought a new motion to vacate the RIAA's court papers altogether, on the ground that the RIAA's 'evidence' was procured by criminal behavior."
That's all? Just vacate them? If they are in fact violating it, file charges and have the bastards arrested and tried. The RIAA would get sucked in by an "or caused to" clause in the law and/or a suit filed against them by MediaSentry in self-protection. Such a violation would place their balls firmly in the hands of the 'defendants'. They should squeeze.
Then, "nuke 'em from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
Darn, and I never EVER rtfa, but the summary made it necessary. So for my fellow slashdotters who hate to RTFA, what they mean by "reignite" is to turn into a quasar. The way the black hole could turn into a quasar is for the galaxy to collide with another galaxy.
I don't think we have anything to worry about. Nothing to see here (and if it happened, nobody to see it) Obviously there is something to see here. Us. Our sun was a member of a galaxy that was absorbed by the Milky Way. The evidence is in the fact that we do not orbit the center of this galaxy in the plane of its arms, but rather perform a wave-like motion alternatively above and below the center plane, passing through the plane in between peaks. A galactic collision could produce the effect noted in TFA, while simultaneously increasing interstellar gas and dust cloud densities, protecting the outer stars from the radiation produced (as well as forcing new star production). So much for "It's not understood what is causing the black holes to become newly active, because in most cases there is no evidence of collisions or mergers." We are the evidence, and our existence is evidence the result need not be as dangerous as stated.
While we are well out from the center, we'd be in periods of more danger from the radiation than those stars native to this galaxy, due to our cyclic motion going outside the galactic plane. More danger, yes, but whether the danger is significant and whether other side effects might dampen the effects, are factors not addressed.
In any case, reignition of an active galactic core is due to an increase in infalling matter, and that's obviously not necessarily due to galactic collision. We can't see the details of the matter near the core, so we can't tell whether there's clumps that can fall in en mass, or whether it's relatively smooth and unlikely to cause bursts of activity.
> By watching how different neural circuits light > up or go dark during the buying process, the > researchers
can't possible determine whether the circuits involved are firing because they're working or because they're firing randomly in the absence of a function to perform, or whether the "lighting up" is excitatory or inhibitory. For that matter, without a simultaneous test of neural activity, all an fMRI can tell you is that blood is concentrating in these areas for reasons that may have nothing to do with neural functioning. I'm ashamed to say I've had fMRI work published , as have many other researchers, based on this "lighting up = working hard" idea, knowing full well all the time that there are fundamental errors in the assumptions. Sexy science that makes pretty pictures gets published, but does little to further understanding. In this case it inhibits understanding.
I find this sadly typical of the kind of defective fiscal NASA-think that emerged when the engineers running things were replaced by professional administrators (and the political thinking that made that happen). The rovers are the single most successful high profile mission since the Apollo 13 rescue. The good PR generated is worth the budget. Witness the persistence of positive media reports about the success in excess of the intended mission, and compare with the other long term, ongoing mission ISS and the positive reactions of those who see those reports. (Not to compare with long term, punctuated missions, such as the Voyagers' fly-bys with long absence of reporting in between). NASA has people whose job it is to keep people engaged. Were they included in this decision?
In any case, I'd think it more productive to hibernate the two rovers alternately, 20% of the time each. Or even 25% each, to make up for the additional shut-down and start-up costs. Both regions get 75%+ of the exploration and science done with only about half the ground personnel at the consoles and performing analyses. Hopefully some one or more group like The Planetary Society or the Mars Society will collect donations to make up for the cut.
We hatessss adminimonstersssss, don't we my precioussss roverssss?
I don't think I've ever enjoyed dissenting comments as much as this. I'm not disagreeing them them, only expanding on them and explaining why I formed my opinion.
Symes sez:
> but with such a small sample size the researchers would not have been able to adjust for > exposure, or age in this case.... > age could easily explain this beer/science relationship - younger scientists drink more - as could a whole host of other variables.
A small N should have the same effect on all the variables. Without seeing the author's calculations, or reconstructing them from the original data, I would assume* he took N into account in his variance calculations. But point taken. If the N is too small Fischer's Exact Statistic should be employed.
cvd6262 sez:
> it does not mean that "all other variables" only account for half the variance in > performance because other variables could "share" the variance associated with beer drinking.
Again, I assume* that the author determined the interactions and found them to be negligible and so used correlation, almost certainly as you said by ANOVA. Since he was looking at how the two variables covary, correlation is the proper stat to report, but that doesn't preclude using ANOVA on the same data to examine the interactions. (For the less familiar, correlation looks at whether things are adequately similar to say they're connected, ANOVA or its minimal derivative Student's T** looks at how different things are. When there's at least two variables and they're looked at in at least two ways, they can interact resulting in an effect not due to any primary comparison alone.) I almost mentioned just this in my first response. I'm glad you did.
* I rarely assume an author (and editors involved) performs adequate tests on their statistics, particularly in social sciences. Many simply know what's most used and use that. But when an author published a correction or a change in conclusion based on secondary analysis, I believe I can trust it. This usually means either they understand the stats adequately, or [have come to] understand the intent of the tests used by their software (SPSS or SAS most often in social sciences), or has obtained expert advice on the stats from a statistician or another from their own field more conversant with stats.
** Ironically, this test was developed by a book keeper for a beer company. He feared the reaction of his employer if they found he was "moonlighting" as a statistician. He had his paper introducing the statistic published with the pseudonym "A. Student" for this reason, hence the name of the test. It is the minimal form of ANOVA (analysis of variance), testing the difference between only two variables without cross testing two others such as different conditions. To employ this or a more complex ANOVA the author would have had to group the data (non-drinkers vs. drinkers for two, non-drinkers vs. drink few beers vs. drink lots of beer for three). He apparently wanted to compare the variables along continuous axes, so correlation was the proper statistic to report.
For those who have Twain's comment "lies, damn lies and statistics" pop into their minds, I say that it applies only to those who don't understand statistics. Those who do might disagree with a particular test in a particular case, but for good reason, and they don't confuse that with a lie.
R-squared is the amount of variance accounted for by the variable in question. That means half their productivity is explained by beer drinking, and half on all other variables combined.
As a comparison, 0.3 is pretty much the top end R-squared in personality psychology. that field is built on correlations that account for no more than 10% of the observed variance.
To combine the two, it's far more likely that TFA didn't actually measure beer drinking, but rather how much beer those scientists who drank beer would admit to drinking. Those who'll drink it are probably more likely to relax, which will make them more productive, and those who will admit it are less likely to fall prey to negative opinions of others, a major source of which is reviewers' comments on papers submitted for publication. Such comments are often undeservedly harsh, and in many cases coming from someone who doesn't know as much as the author about the topic. That can turn away those who place great store in the opinions of others, especially perceived authorities.
Yet one more time again, a company's policy over its own property is not censorship. It is an exercise of property rights. Renting said property does not give the renter the right to use it in a manner they disapprove of. He and we can disapprove of their policy, but that's all.
Censorship is a policy enforced against the information carrier from outside, forcing them not to carry something. While not censorship, forcing a one to carry content they deem unsuitable is just as much a violation of their rights of ownership.
The film maker has no "right" to use any given carrier. Where ever one finds the "right" to free speech on the net, it is either because one owns the carrier themselves, or is only the illusion of the right in the form of permission of the carrier to present one's material through their property. If the Dutch government tried to force its removal, THAT would be censorship. The Dutch government is one of the least likely to do so. Instead, they have "distanced themselves".
That said, NetSol is a lousy carrier in several respects. There are far better hosts. Using Wikileak's host or even piggy backing on Wikileaks itself is more likely to be successful. If he wants his stuff or material about his stuff seen, finding a suitable carrier will be more productive than trying to force NetSol to carry it.
If you were to replace mention of Apple with 'the Apple II', much the same things could be said about its users, prior to Apple dropping it in favor of the Mac. There is one important difference: the title of TFA is "Why Apple Users Hate Tech Reporters". Apple II users held just the opposite view. We understood the tech because the lid came off (literally and figuratively) Woz's machine. Even after decades the Mac line is far less open than the Apple II ever was. Mac users have to be rabid to make up for the lack of depth of technical understanding. They're much more savvy than early adopters of Mac or Mac II, but they're still behind where we were when we could read every bit of ROM and had documented for us exactly what it did, or see the entire wiring schematic in a SAMS Photofact and a book on TTL logic chips describing their gates. Some modern Mac users can make use of what they can learn and push the machine to its limits, but in terms of running available software including the OS rather than running the machine itself by modifying the software, OS and even the wiring. Apple II users learned how to make that machine do things for which it was never intended. For this we relied in part of tech reporters, who had to be extremely well versed with the machine's innards, which then meant they were one of us. Jobs' legacy of a closed box lives on, and TFA illustrates just another manifestation. Mac users aren't wrong in their intense dedication, they just can tell you why down to bare metal. And since they can't see that far down, they can't logically argue against a tech reporter who these days aren't necessarily one of them. On the other hand, tech reporters of the Apple II not only had to be one of us, they had to get their work past the editors of the magazines of the day, and any magazine worth reading also had editors who were some of us. The tech writers had to be very good if they were going to say something negative, and if they did so they'd back it with hard evidence we could understand. Sometimes they did so, and no matter how much we didn't like it we had to admit they were right. But at least we were allowed to learn enough to be able to do so. Mac users are right in the same way Einstein was right though not showing technically why in his reply to the question asked of him regarding Eddington's search for stellar image displacement: "What if the data fail to show the effect?" "Then God help the data. The theory is correct." He, and they "know" it. They're right, they just can't prove it, and so they replace objective certainty with a prima facia stance of certainty. This makes it somewhat of a faith, which is what Apple intended when they promoted the idea of Mac 'evangelism'. Jobs' tendency to act somewhat like a cult leader supports that. A cult leader isn't necessarily wrong, but they're frequently far more "right" than they need to be, and that rubs off on the followers.
The temperature/heat problem is easily solved by simply making the device compatible with current light fixtures. Build the device into a bulb of similar size and shape to incandescents and/or compact fluourescents. You have to build them into the same screw-in fitting, so doing the whole job is simply including both parts (bulb envelope and screw-in fitting) of the existing process. The vacuum in the bulb (between the bulb envelope and the device) would help the device maintain its operating temperature, a necessary part of its operation. This too is part of the existing process. The device will never replaced LED in closed spaces, such as instrument panels, but replacing light bulbs and compact fluourescents is very doable safely with existing manufacturing processes.
Bob sez (among other enjoyably coherent and appreciated things):
> Ok I'll one-up you: I attended a lecture this week, on this particular paper, at CERN.
>> why pull an unknown particle rabbit out of the quantum hat?
> Because in addition to the expected effects, TFA claims NEW effects not explainable by > the standard theory. So, we need a new rabbit. The original theory is NOT sufficient > if their claims are not due to statistical fluctuations.
The B/anti-down vs. -B/down asymmetry as theorized was also not explainable by the standard model. The rabbit in TFA is then not necessarily new, but may be a different color than the one of 10 years ago. I'd still like to know if the experiment in TFA can differentiate between their hypothesized particle and that of the previous theory on the same effect.
> FYI, it's generally a bad assumption that some piece of science you read about in the press > has a simple explanation, and the scientists are idiots.
I'm painfully aware of the problems associated with having one's science reported in the popular press -- it's happened to me. I hold forth on the subject regularly, and very recently in an article here on just this. I do not assume that scientists are idiots, and can usually differentiate between what they're trying to do from what a supposedly science reporter writes, even without reading the original paper. In particular I do not assume the group in TFA are idiots and did not imply that. Questioning why they came up with an unknown as opposed to a known explanation for the same violation of the standard theory is not such an accusation of idiocy, but is an accusation of failure to cover the background adequately if they didn't address the previous hypothesis. This failure, if it occurred, and the circular dark matter/dark energy theories, make them wrong in principle and possibly in fact, but not idiots.
I do, however, find that scientists can be idiots just as often as non-scientists, typically (but not always) for the same non-science reasons. And as a scientist, I reserve the right to be an idiot myself and recommend others do the same.
I attended a lecture on the CP violation in B and anti-B meson decay at Virginia Tech in 1998. The theory and maths pointed to asymmetry in the binding force of the (respectively) anti-down and down quarks involved. The amount of asymmetry was calculated to be a few parts in a billion. It hadn't then been seen, but the exact nature of the experimental set-up had been worked out (that was the nature of the lecture). Now it has been seen. Now that it has, why pull an unknown particle rabbit out of the quantum hat? What happened to a perfectly good hypothesis derived from known factors which predicted exactly this?
Astronomers noticed an anomaly. They dreamed up dark matter to explain it. Actually, they dredged it up -- the concept had been applied to other phenomena and always found not to be involved if it even existed. Then they set about looking for other signs that matched the theory, and in a fit of circular reasoning claimed it supported the hypothesized existence of the dream-stuff. Now that they're getting away with it so well that The Teaching Company even has a 12 hour lecture series on it for sale, it's encouraging others to invent all manner of invisible widgetons to blame it on, because hey, anyone can do science, but how many people get to dream up something imaginary and get taken seriously? Dream-stuff is sexy even if it doesn't exist. It gets you noticed. It gets you published, and if the publication is more a question than an answer, well, it's invisible or massless or some other quality which makes it unseen by everyone except you and your imagination.
I'm not buying until I see how they dismiss the previous workable theory based on entirely known quanta that predates this supposed discovery by 10 years.
TFA: [re: Ken Miller] There are few people better placed to discuss the often-messy intersection between science and religious faith.
There is no intersection, messy or otherwise. They are orthagonal -- entirely independent. It is only as vocal few of the religious that want to force their world view as acceptable as science, or worse, to supplant science. Miller, an author of both science and theology (his own Catholic thinking anyway), falls prey to the thinking they are not independent and should be somehow reconciled. There are plenty of people who both understand science and have religious leanings who have no problem with either and who manage to keep them separate. Science writers should thus focus on the science, not blur the view by trying to be inclusive of two entirely different ways of looking at the world.
Writers for popular media are especially prone to convolve the two because of the "controversy" which exists in part because they insist it does in their writing, thereby helping create (or at best, exacerbate) the "controversy" because it makes good copy. As science writers, if they feel the need to include both, should do so in historical terms. Sagan does so in "Cosmos", reporting the facts that religious extremists in (among others) Ionian Greece, Alexandria and Italy imposed their world view onto science and scientific thinking, forcing them into exile. If they did this, they'd make themselves more aware of the danger of not keeping them separate, a danger which they make more likely to come to pass whether in their ignorance or in their attempts to sell ad space.
Ironically, it is the Catholic church that is one of the few religious groups who now hold that the two ways of thinking are separate. The Jesuits, and often the Vatican also, tackle scientific issues on their own terms, stating that they "intersect" only at the object of their scrutiny, the mysteries of the universe. They hold that doing so illustrates the beauty of creation, honoring a creator. Einstein held a personal world view not very different. But in keeping the two otherwise separate they allow people to accept this reason for doing science, or to appreciate those mysteries for their own sake. For example, the Vatican held a conference on scientific cosmology, noting in particular Stephen Hawking's contribution. They are comfortable with thinking such as:
Judeao-Christrian cosmology: In the beginning... God said "Let there be light" and there was light. Modern scientific cosmology: In the beginning [the Big Bang happened; why?, and ] there was light.
Same universe, same phenomenon, and the result is allowed to have one or the other causation applied, not forced to overlap, nor to have one supersede the other. They make no denials that the hope the latter leads people to consider the former, and possibly become comfortable with it or even embrace it, but they do not require this.
All this is very different from the present "controversy", which centers primarily around attempts by power hungry extremists using religion for their own purposes, as has often happened throughout history. They attempt to force their belief system to be accepted as equal to, if not superior to, scientific thinking on the same subject. They do not attempt to allow the two to coexist, as their intent is not to promote religion but to force their world view on others. This unjustly gives religion a bad name, as does journalism that fails to keep them separate. In this sense, religious writers who promote the open mindedness of their religions have it more right than the science writers who (usually unwittingly) actually promote the problem by insisting there's a "controversy".
Science does not insist that religion is an invalid world view, only that (as a set of presumptions or preconditions) it is not to be used in science. Religious belief does not require one to accept the tenets of a religion at the expense of science. Anyone coming from either viewpoint who tries to reconcile them is at best making a mi
Actually, it's the psychiatrists who publish the DSM, the American Psychiatric Association.
The DSM makes no differentiation, nor does it attempt to, about the causation of a disorder. So, in fact, the DSM does NOT "describes those with real, biologically based dysfunctions in one of more brain processes involved in attentional processing." The DSM doesn't care where a disorder comes from, it only provides behavioral checklists for clinicians to reliably (or not so reliably) diagnose the same symptoms across different people. D'Oh! I knew that. I've been away from teaching too long. The other APA (* Psychological *) does the manuscript format book. The other APA is in fact over half clinicians, and also pushes for diagnoses in the biased manner I suggest. I'll widen my net to accuse both groups.
The behavioral checklists don't differentiate behaviors from disorders. That gives them the ability to diagnose things in the absence of dysfunction. Inclusion of the clause "causes significant life problems" doesn't specify that those be determined by the affected person. They can't make this a requirement, because it'd preclude diagnosing those for whom denial of the behaviors is part of the problem, as well as those unable to rationally describe their experiences. And they should. This is especially true in the case of psychiatrists since their treatment is now days pretty much confined to application of various chemicals that alter brain function. If they're going to treat in this context their diagnoses should be at least verifiable in that context, or in another more objective manner known to be associated. In the case of AD(H)D, if they're going to treat with dopaminergic drugs like amphetamines, they should look at relative levels of dopamine and its metabolites and the enzymes that break it down (MAO-A and -B), and compare with the levels of neurotransmitters derived from dopamine (epinephrine and norepinephrine; broken down by MAO-A) versus serotonin, deactivated by MAO-B. They can also do some simple EEG testing using an attentional task, such as was pioneered by Joel Lubar while developing neurofeedback for AD(H)D diagnosis and treatment. These together can differentiate between, say those with real dysfunction in one of the hypothesized seven subprocesses involved in attention from say, thrill seekers whose attention tends to lag due to lack of excitement and who seek out things that pump them up. The latter show some, but not all, of the differences in chemical signatures, but are easily differentiated using exciting and non-exciting attentional tasks with EEG. Thrill seekers might have a tendency to engage in games more than others. So might people with OCD (with its own chemical and EEG evidence criteria) who happen to involve gaming in their 'rituals'. These two different (experimentally, not necessarily clinically certified; neurofeedback is so certified) verifiable disorders as they are known now can be the cause of this supposed addiction, and treating the wrong one can be worse than ineffective, it can be counterproductive and even harmful. But, going by behaviors, they convolve the possible origins, and the diagnosis criteria give them justification (I'd say rationalization) to do just that. Giving a more specific diagnosis than the already fallacious behavioral criteria compounds that mistake and widens their erroneous net.
Clinicians should treat disorders, not behaviors or complaints by the person or others around them. We have the ability to determine whether there's disorder based on independently verifiable physical conditions. That verification can differentiate workable from unworkable treatment options, making the present practice of essentially experimenting on a patient with various chemicals until a helpful one is found, to be unnecessary.
The recommendation in TFA is similar to the American Psychological Association's. The APA writes the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) which defines what's a disorder and what is not, and the criteria that must be fit in order to determine whether there's a clinical diagnosis. In both cases there is biased based on the fact that the people making the recommendation (the APA being just over half clinical psychologists) stand to make money (whether individually or collectively as a field) treating people for what they're trying to push as a disorder. This bias can end up labeling people as defective when in fact they may just be different.
An example is in Attention Deficit Disorder (With or Without Hyperactivity). The DSM definition describes those with real, biologically based dysfunctions in one of more brain processes involved in attentional processing. However, they can also fit farm more people who happen to have an attentional system which differs from "normal". While it fits the criteria, those criteria do not take into account the fact that the condition may also provide them with other functions which are an improvement over "normal". For instance, those with this "disorder" often also show a tendency to take in a problem, file it away in a non-conscious area, and later have an answer pop out without having to actively and consciously think about it. This ability, using problem solving processes while simultaneously conducting living business as usual, can make them appear to have less attentional ability based on the fact that resources are going into the non-conscious process, taking some away from the conscious process.
To expand on the concept of bias in the definition of AD(H)D, read Diane McGuiness's "When Children Don't Learn", chapters 9 and 10. Her work got her a rare invitation from the APA to provide a dissenting opinion piece in their research material on this "disorder". To their credit, APA has previously used such dissenting opinion to negate a previous condition as a diagnosable disorder deserving of treatment, that of homosexuality (removing it from the DSM in the revision from the second to third volume).
While it is possible that people with obsessive-compulsive disorder may in fact get hooked on gaming, this doesn't mean that people who play games in an obsessive or compulsive manner have OCD. The definition should not be used if it fits only one set of circumstances, just as AD(H)D should not be applied to kids who are fidgety in class and don't listen to the teacher well, but can sit for hours and play a video game that requires focused attention over a long time frame. Using a contradiction here that comes from material similar to the article was done on purpose. It uses that same activity in a manner which negates another diagnosis, making it if not functional then at least non-clinical. It has in fact been observed in testing those diagnosed with AD(H)D to show the diagnosis as a disorder is fallacious.
I've seen that one minute per five hours. It sucks. It's usually so dumbed down that even when it's right it's so bad that it might was well be wrong.
Put science news on the science and other educational channels. Science channel(s), Discovery, History channel(s), National Geographic, NASA channel -- it's not like there's a complete lack of sources. If people want it, they'll go looking. If they can't handle it, they won't watch it and don't need it.
And don't give me any "the kids" nonsense. If kids need science, they need something better than news channels present. They need education, which means keeping them engaged, which means decent production. They're not prepared for science news yet. They're still in the stage where half hour shows with a few interesting longer stories are better for them. Besides, they don't need everything on TV. There's plenty of sources of science news that they can read. They're supposed to be doing that too.
... of the US just changed the citizenship requirement specification for astronaut candidates. Where is says "Applicants for the Astronaut Candidate Program must be citizens of the United States" add "or of those countries which are allies in space exploration." and have a treaty drawn up that these ally countries can sign so their people can train and fly from here while retaining citizenship. NASA gets more candidates in its pool, UK (probably, eventually) gets some astronauts to brag about.
They could build their own training facility and equipment and staff it, or send them to Baikonur for 5 megapounds each. The former will require they finish training at the site of their choice (or by selection), US or Russia, to be able to fly one one of their missions, the latter gets them fully trained, but to fly on Russian missions only. Doing it themselves would cost a great deal more, because they have to train the trainers; not having a program of their own yet, they don't have anyone qualified to teach it to others. Even if they did, to fly on US missions they'd still be required to train here after initial qualification. In light of this, it seems patently absurd to require they get basic qualification at home when they have to come here for mission training.
I suppose they could send their people to one of the more reasonable countries who have their own training and are willing to take Brits in. But NASA administration has become so politicized that those people probably wouldn't be selected for mission training. When NASA says "you can't" they tend to mean something like "you can't, unless you ask real nice, and you can't a whole lot more if it's with someone else."
And before those who work for or contract to NASA, hacking hardware (including the kind that makes fire at the bottom), software and people get riled and tell me the people who work there aren't like that, yes I know. I know people who work there, and the engineer and scientist types are worthy descendants of the steely eyed missile men with pocket protectors. But you can't deny the political games go on at the top -- I know some that work there, or at least have to work around and with them. A treaty-based program would give the politicreatures something to do, which keeps them happy, and after that training and flying can proceed.
This is all based on the assumption that they're not going to develop a hardware program also. Personally I'd like to see them and the rest of the European Space Agency buy capsules from Russia (so training there becomes a foregone conclusion) and fly them on their own boosters. Hell, they could hire the Russians to build a crew capsule in one of their new Automated Transfer Vehicles and send up a whole squad of their own.
One has to wonder, since so many other ESA countries have had their ESA trained astronauts fly on NASA missions, why UK as an ESA nation doesn't also? It's a fair cop, guv. I'm thinking it's not likely Belgium, with 2 astronauts accepted for NASA missions, has its own astronaut training program. If this is the case, UK doesn't need a program of their own, they need to get with their ESA pals and do the same things.
Or do it the hard way, by yourselves for yourselves. The hard way is good. We chose to go to the moon, not because it was easy, but because it was hard. That was our challenge, but we don't own the concept.
I prefer Ghidra, the three-headed monster (aka Monster Zero). I know nothing of this Ghidra of which you speak, or most any other movie monster.* I prefer monsters from Blue Oyster Cult songs.
Besides Godzilla, there is (at least) Black Blade (lyrics, Michael Moorcock, taken after his Elric character) which takes over the user, and Seven Screaming Diz Busters, metallic birds of prey symbiotic with steam locomotives, hence there scarcity today. I made the latter up, but in the absence of explanation from BOC, it serves me fine.
I almost changed my mind to Diana from "V". But she wasn't really so much a monster as she was a sniping full blown bitch. Any monsternous in her pales beside her shoulder-waggling, trouncy-walking, neener neener I'm-better-than-you-are sneering. I can't disagree with TV Guide including her in their "most memorable SF characters" list. Remembering doesn't necessarily imply liking. I can hardly bear to watch it even today because of her.
Warburg got two Nobels (IIRC, 1928 and 1931), in part by studying the role of oxygen in cell metabolism. Cancer cells use an anaerobic mechanism for metabolism. Flooding them with oxygen disrupts this anaerobic activity. This may account for at least some of the glucose effect in TFA. This can be accomplished using hyperbaric oxygen (high O2 content greater than 1 atmosphere's partial pressure).
It can also be done using superoxides (ozone, which produces hydrogen peroxide in the body, or H2O2 itself). Superoxide production is a normal part of the immune system, and cancer cells don't increase their SOD production proportionally with their growth rate. This is because the superoxides work on mitochondria, where metabolism occurs. The main cell is what's cancerous, not the mitochondria.
Another way to increase H2O2 in the body is to inhibit the enzyme that protects cells from high levels of H2O2, superoxide dismutase (SOD), allowing natural or infused levels of the substance to increase. Penicillin is one such SOD inhibitor, and other antibiotics are being tried. The effects are variable but generally positive. This can be facilitated by including manganese, selenium or zinc, around which the SOD builds itself, explaining the role of minerals containing these to be helpful in fighting infections.
Yes, the increased H2O2 levels can be harmful to cells, or else the body wouldn't have a mechanism to keep it in check. This is the role antioxidants play. Excessive H2O2 is an earmark of autoimmune diseases. There is an optimum level for normal cells. But cancer cells are much more sensitive, and a little damage due to superoxides is preferred over a lot of damage due to cancer.
I found some of the above information while researching my dissertation. It was based on inhibiting another oxygen scavenger, monoamine oxidase (MAO). The MAO inhibitor I looked at is trimethyl naphthoquinone (TMN), and this substance can protect the body from at least one autoimmune disease, Parkinson's. It is ironic then that one common source of TMN is in smoking tobacco. An anti-carcinogen effect isn't seen in smoking (though it may in fact occur) because of the other chemicals in smoking which are carcinogenic to an extent orders of magnitude greater than TMN's. Its MAO inhibition plateaus at low doses whereas the carcinogens don't, so getting TMN is better accomplished other ways. This, and other MAO inhibitors might be helpful in fighting cancer. These are not being widely tested, but the little research so far (mostly in other natural products) is showing some anti-carcinogen effect. SOD inhibition is probably much more effective than MAO inhibition, however the MAO inhibitor effect supports the hypothesized role of oxygen via a second if less effective mechanism.
Tagging is wrong. This is not censorship. That's a policy enforced by a group on others trying to publish in venues owned by others. This is simply an editorial policy, perfectly allowable, as the journal's policies cover only their own publication. As owners of the property, the publishers have the right to set policies for their property. An author may indeed submit to Wiki* as is his or her ownership right, but then the journal won't publish it, as is their ownership right. At issue here is called e-rights, as it pertains to publishing derivations in electronic/online venues.
Elrous0 notes that he's never had to turn over copyright when publishing in his field. I don't know how prevalant it is in physics (relating to TFA; or what elrous0's field is), but in mine (neuroscience) it's been quite common with the publications from the larger commercial publishing houses.
It used to be common that some fiction authors (at least SF authors that I know of) to be forced to surrender e-rights in their contracts, despite the fact the publishers had no intention of publishing the material electronically themselves. This was done to force the authors to have to be the ones to pursue (or in Harlan Ellison's case, to facilitate) those who post copyright infringing material to the net. If they didn't they could lose their end of the contract, that of royalties. The rationale (or rationalization) was that doing this would impact sales. Only the highest paid authors, who could choose to publish where ever they chose and so dictate contract terms) could get out of this. SFWA helped get that changed (there being no evidence for impact on sales), hence there are now some authors posting free versions of their commercially published works online, as well as at least one publisher (Baen) doing the same. TFA is over precisely this issue. Academic journals are for the most part notoriously slow at everything and so are behind the times. Some have changed (including some in my field), and TFA is just about one more looking at doing the same. Enough are doing it now that those that don't will lose submitters and so lose money.
An attempt to force such changes globally via laws WOULD be censorship, as it would be the government telling publishers they can't publish in their own property unless they meet some criteria. Yes, there are exceptions. Ownership rights are not absolute. But in the case of publishing, ownership rights trump copy rights as long as the owners exert those rights.
The Turing test is a demonstration, not a valid scientific test. It can't approach validity without being made double-blind. As long as the testers know the arrangement, and the testees know what's being tested, as presented it tests human ignorance, not artificial intelligence. When I can give one a WISC-R (I'll be generous and let it take the child's test; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WISC-R) and it can score at a level above that of an artichoke, call me. Just being able to understand the instructions and take the test is a good test in itself.
"Anyplace is walking distance, if you have the time."
Any reactor is disposable, if you have the place.
As for arguments that the design precludes abuse and proliferation, never underestimate those of persistence, regardless of intent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_boy_scout). They tend to take explanations of supposedly difficult things (like http://science.howstuffworks.com/uranium-centrifuge.htm) and hack an easier method, such as using the "centrifuge" part but not the "gaseous diffusion" part. I thought up one just writing this. Any uranium enrichment process might work, if you have the time.
>> I'd especially enjoy it when I found that the majority of "combatants" were somewhere below my own level of expertise, though somewhat higher than script kiddies
> No offense, but it sounds like you're applying for the B squad.
I'm not applying for anything. I put in my time.
> If you remember Titan Rain, you'd know that the Chinese are fielding some high level talent.
Yes, as I said, I put in my time. Some. Fairly high level. There's a lot more talent with generally more experience available. Hence the comment first quoted.
>> -- interesting but not too frustrating.
> Do you ever try playing computer/video games on the 'hard' settings? > Me either, it's frustrating as hell.[/sarcasm]
I don't play games. Feel free to generalize that comment to this discourse. And I'm not being sarcastic. I would consider that beneath me. But I don't consider responding directly to an AC to be beneath me. Weird, huh?
Finally, a/. article for which the mention of golly gee whiz SciFi stuff in the summary isn't a gratuitous insert. Kaku really talks about this stuff. Rationally.
Parts of the book relating to wormholes, time travel and teleportation have been adapted by Kaku himself and published in the March 2008 ("Special Einstein") issue of Discover magazine. You can get an unadulterated taste of the book and a bunch of other nifty stuff about Einstein, relativity and such all in one package.
I think the claim he was an inventor of string theory isn't entirely accurate. However, he was co-author of the first paper on string field theory, which showed the five versions of string theory to be different versions of the same underlying mechanism. I think "rescurer" would be more accurate than "inventor" as well as being worth more credit.
Despite publishing other popular books previously including a best seller, hosting a 4 part BBC special, a 3 part Discovery Channel special and two different weekly radio shows, he's so far managed to dodge the inevitable unwashed masses and supposedly washed whiny insiders who show up to tip the ivory tower of popularizers of science. Last time it was Brian Greene. Even Sagan was so assailed until he forced their forgiveness by dying at them. Let's see how Kaku weathers the storm following the massive attention this new book is getting him. Including one picture of the Stargate and one of a Kirk led landing party being beamed down in the Discover article should help bring them out of the woodwork.
Slashdot Mirror
The uncannily similar ridiculous behavior of RIAA and MediaSentry makes me think that the latter was not hired by the former, but rather formed by and spun off from the former for its own purposes and according to its own operating principles. If so, and that comes out, RIAA could not only be the primary defendant, but also guilty of perjury for claiming otherwise. That'd tear a hole in every case in which MediaSentry generated data was used.
"... the Boston University students ... have brought a new motion to vacate the RIAA's court papers altogether, on the ground that the RIAA's 'evidence' was procured by criminal behavior."
That's all? Just vacate them? If they are in fact violating it, file charges and have the bastards arrested and tried. The RIAA would get sucked in by an "or caused to" clause in the law and/or a suit filed against them by MediaSentry in self-protection. Such a violation would place their balls firmly in the hands of the 'defendants'. They should squeeze.
Then, "nuke 'em from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
I don't think we have anything to worry about. Nothing to see here (and if it happened, nobody to see it) Obviously there is something to see here. Us. Our sun was a member of a galaxy that was absorbed by the Milky Way. The evidence is in the fact that we do not orbit the center of this galaxy in the plane of its arms, but rather perform a wave-like motion alternatively above and below the center plane, passing through the plane in between peaks. A galactic collision could produce the effect noted in TFA, while simultaneously increasing interstellar gas and dust cloud densities, protecting the outer stars from the radiation produced (as well as forcing new star production). So much for "It's not understood what is causing the black holes to become newly active, because in most cases there is no evidence of collisions or mergers." We are the evidence, and our existence is evidence the result need not be as dangerous as stated.
While we are well out from the center, we'd be in periods of more danger from the radiation than those stars native to this galaxy, due to our cyclic motion going outside the galactic plane. More danger, yes, but whether the danger is significant and whether other side effects might dampen the effects, are factors not addressed.
In any case, reignition of an active galactic core is due to an increase in infalling matter, and that's obviously not necessarily due to galactic collision. We can't see the details of the matter near the core, so we can't tell whether there's clumps that can fall in en mass, or whether it's relatively smooth and unlikely to cause bursts of activity.
> By watching how different neural circuits light
> up or go dark during the buying process, the
> researchers
can't possible determine whether the circuits involved are firing because they're working or because they're firing randomly in the absence of a function to perform, or whether the "lighting up" is excitatory or inhibitory. For that matter, without a simultaneous test of neural activity, all an fMRI can tell you is that blood is concentrating in these areas for reasons that may have nothing to do with neural functioning. I'm ashamed to say I've had fMRI work published , as have many other researchers, based on this "lighting up = working hard" idea, knowing full well all the time that there are fundamental errors in the assumptions. Sexy science that makes pretty pictures gets published, but does little to further understanding. In this case it inhibits understanding.
I find this sadly typical of the kind of defective fiscal NASA-think that emerged when the engineers running things were replaced by professional administrators (and the political thinking that made that happen). The rovers are the single most successful high profile mission since the Apollo 13 rescue. The good PR generated is worth the budget. Witness the persistence of positive media reports about the success in excess of the intended mission, and compare with the other long term, ongoing mission ISS and the positive reactions of those who see those reports. (Not to compare with long term, punctuated missions, such as the Voyagers' fly-bys with long absence of reporting in between). NASA has people whose job it is to keep people engaged. Were they included in this decision?
In any case, I'd think it more productive to hibernate the two rovers alternately, 20% of the time each. Or even 25% each, to make up for the additional shut-down and start-up costs. Both regions get 75%+ of the exploration and science done with only about half the ground personnel at the consoles and performing analyses. Hopefully some one or more group like The Planetary Society or the Mars Society will collect donations to make up for the cut.
We hatessss adminimonstersssss, don't we my precioussss roverssss?
I don't think I've ever enjoyed dissenting comments as much as this. I'm not disagreeing them them, only expanding on them and explaining why I formed my opinion.
Symes sez:
> but with such a small sample size the researchers would not have been able to adjust for
> exposure, or age in this case....
> age could easily explain this beer/science relationship - younger scientists drink more - as could a whole host of other variables.
A small N should have the same effect on all the variables. Without seeing the author's calculations, or reconstructing them from the original data, I would assume* he took N into account in his variance calculations. But point taken. If the N is too small Fischer's Exact Statistic should be employed.
cvd6262 sez:
> it does not mean that "all other variables" only account for half the variance in
> performance because other variables could "share" the variance associated with beer drinking.
Again, I assume* that the author determined the interactions and found them to be negligible and so used correlation, almost certainly as you said by ANOVA. Since he was looking at how the two variables covary, correlation is the proper stat to report, but that doesn't preclude using ANOVA on the same data to examine the interactions. (For the less familiar, correlation looks at whether things are adequately similar to say they're connected, ANOVA or its minimal derivative Student's T** looks at how different things are. When there's at least two variables and they're looked at in at least two ways, they can interact resulting in an effect not due to any primary comparison alone.) I almost mentioned just this in my first response. I'm glad you did.
* I rarely assume an author (and editors involved) performs adequate tests on their statistics, particularly in social sciences. Many simply know what's most used and use that. But when an author published a correction or a change in conclusion based on secondary analysis, I believe I can trust it. This usually means either they understand the stats adequately, or [have come to] understand the intent of the tests used by their software (SPSS or SAS most often in social sciences), or has obtained expert advice on the stats from a statistician or another from their own field more conversant with stats.
** Ironically, this test was developed by a book keeper for a beer company. He feared the reaction of his employer if they found he was "moonlighting" as a statistician. He had his paper introducing the statistic published with the pseudonym "A. Student" for this reason, hence the name of the test. It is the minimal form of ANOVA (analysis of variance), testing the difference between only two variables without cross testing two others such as different conditions. To employ this or a more complex ANOVA the author would have had to group the data (non-drinkers vs. drinkers for two, non-drinkers vs. drink few beers vs. drink lots of beer for three). He apparently wanted to compare the variables along continuous axes, so correlation was the proper statistic to report.
For those who have Twain's comment "lies, damn lies and statistics" pop into their minds, I say that it applies only to those who don't understand statistics. Those who do might disagree with a particular test in a particular case, but for good reason, and they don't confuse that with a lie.
That was fun. Thanks.
R-squared is the amount of variance accounted for by the variable in question. That means half their productivity is explained by beer drinking, and half on all other variables combined.
As a comparison, 0.3 is pretty much the top end R-squared in personality psychology. that field is built on correlations that account for no more than 10% of the observed variance.
To combine the two, it's far more likely that TFA didn't actually measure beer drinking, but rather how much beer those scientists who drank beer would admit to drinking. Those who'll drink it are probably more likely to relax, which will make them more productive, and those who will admit it are less likely to fall prey to negative opinions of others, a major source of which is reviewers' comments on papers submitted for publication. Such comments are often undeservedly harsh, and in many cases coming from someone who doesn't know as much as the author about the topic. That can turn away those who place great store in the opinions of others, especially perceived authorities.
Next, on to Russia and WOTKA!
Yet one more time again, a company's policy over its own property is not censorship. It is an exercise of property rights. Renting said property does not give the renter the right to use it in a manner they disapprove of. He and we can disapprove of their policy, but that's all.
Censorship is a policy enforced against the information carrier from outside, forcing them not to carry something. While not censorship, forcing a one to carry content they deem unsuitable is just as much a violation of their rights of ownership.
The film maker has no "right" to use any given carrier. Where ever one finds the "right" to free speech on the net, it is either because one owns the carrier themselves, or is only the illusion of the right in the form of permission of the carrier to present one's material through their property. If the Dutch government tried to force its removal, THAT would be censorship. The Dutch government is one of the least likely to do so. Instead, they have "distanced themselves".
That said, NetSol is a lousy carrier in several respects. There are far better hosts. Using Wikileak's host or even piggy backing on Wikileaks itself is more likely to be successful. If he wants his stuff or material about his stuff seen, finding a suitable carrier will be more productive than trying to force NetSol to carry it.
If you were to replace mention of Apple with 'the Apple II', much the same things could be said about its users, prior to Apple dropping it in favor of the Mac. There is one important difference: the title of TFA is "Why Apple Users Hate Tech Reporters". Apple II users held just the opposite view. We understood the tech because the lid came off (literally and figuratively) Woz's machine. Even after decades the Mac line is far less open than the Apple II ever was. Mac users have to be rabid to make up for the lack of depth of technical understanding. They're much more savvy than early adopters of Mac or Mac II, but they're still behind where we were when we could read every bit of ROM and had documented for us exactly what it did, or see the entire wiring schematic in a SAMS Photofact and a book on TTL logic chips describing their gates. Some modern Mac users can make use of what they can learn and push the machine to its limits, but in terms of running available software including the OS rather than running the machine itself by modifying the software, OS and even the wiring. Apple II users learned how to make that machine do things for which it was never intended. For this we relied in part of tech reporters, who had to be extremely well versed with the machine's innards, which then meant they were one of us. Jobs' legacy of a closed box lives on, and TFA illustrates just another manifestation. Mac users aren't wrong in their intense dedication, they just can tell you why down to bare metal. And since they can't see that far down, they can't logically argue against a tech reporter who these days aren't necessarily one of them. On the other hand, tech reporters of the Apple II not only had to be one of us, they had to get their work past the editors of the magazines of the day, and any magazine worth reading also had editors who were some of us. The tech writers had to be very good if they were going to say something negative, and if they did so they'd back it with hard evidence we could understand. Sometimes they did so, and no matter how much we didn't like it we had to admit they were right. But at least we were allowed to learn enough to be able to do so. Mac users are right in the same way Einstein was right though not showing technically why in his reply to the question asked of him regarding Eddington's search for stellar image displacement: "What if the data fail to show the effect?" "Then God help the data. The theory is correct." He, and they "know" it. They're right, they just can't prove it, and so they replace objective certainty with a prima facia stance of certainty. This makes it somewhat of a faith, which is what Apple intended when they promoted the idea of Mac 'evangelism'. Jobs' tendency to act somewhat like a cult leader supports that. A cult leader isn't necessarily wrong, but they're frequently far more "right" than they need to be, and that rubs off on the followers.
The temperature/heat problem is easily solved by simply making the device compatible with current light fixtures. Build the device into a bulb of similar size and shape to incandescents and/or compact fluourescents. You have to build them into the same screw-in fitting, so doing the whole job is simply including both parts (bulb envelope and screw-in fitting) of the existing process. The vacuum in the bulb (between the bulb envelope and the device) would help the device maintain its operating temperature, a necessary part of its operation. This too is part of the existing process. The device will never replaced LED in closed spaces, such as instrument panels, but replacing light bulbs and compact fluourescents is very doable safely with existing manufacturing processes.
Bob sez (among other enjoyably coherent and appreciated things):
> Ok I'll one-up you: I attended a lecture this week, on this particular paper, at CERN.
>> why pull an unknown particle rabbit out of the quantum hat?
> Because in addition to the expected effects, TFA claims NEW effects not explainable by
> the standard theory. So, we need a new rabbit. The original theory is NOT sufficient
> if their claims are not due to statistical fluctuations.
The B/anti-down vs. -B/down asymmetry as theorized was also not explainable by the standard model. The rabbit in TFA is then not necessarily new, but may be a different color than the one of 10 years ago. I'd still like to know if the experiment in TFA can differentiate between their hypothesized particle and that of the previous theory on the same effect.
> FYI, it's generally a bad assumption that some piece of science you read about in the press
> has a simple explanation, and the scientists are idiots.
I'm painfully aware of the problems associated with having one's science reported in the popular press -- it's happened to me. I hold forth on the subject regularly, and very recently in an article here on just this. I do not assume that scientists are idiots, and can usually differentiate between what they're trying to do from what a supposedly science reporter writes, even without reading the original paper. In particular I do not assume the group in TFA are idiots and did not imply that. Questioning why they came up with an unknown as opposed to a known explanation for the same violation of the standard theory is not such an accusation of idiocy, but is an accusation of failure to cover the background adequately if they didn't address the previous hypothesis. This failure, if it occurred, and the circular dark matter/dark energy theories, make them wrong in principle and possibly in fact, but not idiots.
I do, however, find that scientists can be idiots just as often as non-scientists, typically (but not always) for the same non-science reasons. And as a scientist, I reserve the right to be an idiot myself and recommend others do the same.
I attended a lecture on the CP violation in B and anti-B meson decay at Virginia Tech in 1998. The theory and maths pointed to asymmetry in the binding force of the (respectively) anti-down and down quarks involved. The amount of asymmetry was calculated to be a few parts in a billion. It hadn't then been seen, but the exact nature of the experimental set-up had been worked out (that was the nature of the lecture). Now it has been seen. Now that it has, why pull an unknown particle rabbit out of the quantum hat? What happened to a perfectly good hypothesis derived from known factors which predicted exactly this?
Astronomers noticed an anomaly. They dreamed up dark matter to explain it. Actually, they dredged it up -- the concept had been applied to other phenomena and always found not to be involved if it even existed. Then they set about looking for other signs that matched the theory, and in a fit of circular reasoning claimed it supported the hypothesized existence of the dream-stuff. Now that they're getting away with it so well that The Teaching Company even has a 12 hour lecture series on it for sale, it's encouraging others to invent all manner of invisible widgetons to blame it on, because hey, anyone can do science, but how many people get to dream up something imaginary and get taken seriously? Dream-stuff is sexy even if it doesn't exist. It gets you noticed. It gets you published, and if the publication is more a question than an answer, well, it's invisible or massless or some other quality which makes it unseen by everyone except you and your imagination.
I'm not buying until I see how they dismiss the previous workable theory based on entirely known quanta that predates this supposed discovery by 10 years.
TFA: [re: Ken Miller] There are few people better placed to discuss the often-messy intersection between science and religious faith.
There is no intersection, messy or otherwise. They are orthagonal -- entirely independent. It is only as vocal few of the religious that want to force their world view as acceptable as science, or worse, to supplant science. Miller, an author of both science and theology (his own Catholic thinking anyway), falls prey to the thinking they are not independent and should be somehow reconciled. There are plenty of people who both understand science and have religious leanings who have no problem with either and who manage to keep them separate. Science writers should thus focus on the science, not blur the view by trying to be inclusive of two entirely different ways of looking at the world.
Writers for popular media are especially prone to convolve the two because of the "controversy" which exists in part because they insist it does in their writing, thereby helping create (or at best, exacerbate) the "controversy" because it makes good copy. As science writers, if they feel the need to include both, should do so in historical terms. Sagan does so in "Cosmos", reporting the facts that religious extremists in (among others) Ionian Greece, Alexandria and Italy imposed their world view onto science and scientific thinking, forcing them into exile. If they did this, they'd make themselves more aware of the danger of not keeping them separate, a danger which they make more likely to come to pass whether in their ignorance or in their attempts to sell ad space.
Ironically, it is the Catholic church that is one of the few religious groups who now hold that the two ways of thinking are separate. The Jesuits, and often the Vatican also, tackle scientific issues on their own terms, stating that they "intersect" only at the object of their scrutiny, the mysteries of the universe. They hold that doing so illustrates the beauty of creation, honoring a creator. Einstein held a personal world view not very different. But in keeping the two otherwise separate they allow people to accept this reason for doing science, or to appreciate those mysteries for their own sake. For example, the Vatican held a conference on scientific cosmology, noting in particular Stephen Hawking's contribution. They are comfortable with thinking such as:
Judeao-Christrian cosmology: In the beginning... God said "Let there be light" and there was light.
Modern scientific cosmology: In the beginning [the Big Bang happened; why?, and ] there was light.
Same universe, same phenomenon, and the result is allowed to have one or the other causation applied, not forced to overlap, nor to have one supersede the other. They make no denials that the hope the latter leads people to consider the former, and possibly become comfortable with it or even embrace it, but they do not require this.
All this is very different from the present "controversy", which centers primarily around attempts by power hungry extremists using religion for their own purposes, as has often happened throughout history. They attempt to force their belief system to be accepted as equal to, if not superior to, scientific thinking on the same subject. They do not attempt to allow the two to coexist, as their intent is not to promote religion but to force their world view on others. This unjustly gives religion a bad name, as does journalism that fails to keep them separate. In this sense, religious writers who promote the open mindedness of their religions have it more right than the science writers who (usually unwittingly) actually promote the problem by insisting there's a "controversy".
Science does not insist that religion is an invalid world view, only that (as a set of presumptions or preconditions) it is not to be used in science. Religious belief does not require one to accept the tenets of a religion at the expense of science. Anyone coming from either viewpoint who tries to reconcile them is at best making a mi
The DSM makes no differentiation, nor does it attempt to, about the causation of a disorder. So, in fact, the DSM does NOT "describes those with real, biologically based dysfunctions in one of more brain processes involved in attentional processing." The DSM doesn't care where a disorder comes from, it only provides behavioral checklists for clinicians to reliably (or not so reliably) diagnose the same symptoms across different people. D'Oh! I knew that. I've been away from teaching too long. The other APA (* Psychological *) does the manuscript format book. The other APA is in fact over half clinicians, and also pushes for diagnoses in the biased manner I suggest. I'll widen my net to accuse both groups.
The behavioral checklists don't differentiate behaviors from disorders. That gives them the ability to diagnose things in the absence of dysfunction. Inclusion of the clause "causes significant life problems" doesn't specify that those be determined by the affected person. They can't make this a requirement, because it'd preclude diagnosing those for whom denial of the behaviors is part of the problem, as well as those unable to rationally describe their experiences. And they should. This is especially true in the case of psychiatrists since their treatment is now days pretty much confined to application of various chemicals that alter brain function. If they're going to treat in this context their diagnoses should be at least verifiable in that context, or in another more objective manner known to be associated. In the case of AD(H)D, if they're going to treat with dopaminergic drugs like amphetamines, they should look at relative levels of dopamine and its metabolites and the enzymes that break it down (MAO-A and -B), and compare with the levels of neurotransmitters derived from dopamine (epinephrine and norepinephrine; broken down by MAO-A) versus serotonin, deactivated by MAO-B. They can also do some simple EEG testing using an attentional task, such as was pioneered by Joel Lubar while developing neurofeedback for AD(H)D diagnosis and treatment. These together can differentiate between, say those with real dysfunction in one of the hypothesized seven subprocesses involved in attention from say, thrill seekers whose attention tends to lag due to lack of excitement and who seek out things that pump them up. The latter show some, but not all, of the differences in chemical signatures, but are easily differentiated using exciting and non-exciting attentional tasks with EEG. Thrill seekers might have a tendency to engage in games more than others. So might people with OCD (with its own chemical and EEG evidence criteria) who happen to involve gaming in their 'rituals'. These two different (experimentally, not necessarily clinically certified; neurofeedback is so certified) verifiable disorders as they are known now can be the cause of this supposed addiction, and treating the wrong one can be worse than ineffective, it can be counterproductive and even harmful. But, going by behaviors, they convolve the possible origins, and the diagnosis criteria give them justification (I'd say rationalization) to do just that. Giving a more specific diagnosis than the already fallacious behavioral criteria compounds that mistake and widens their erroneous net.
Clinicians should treat disorders, not behaviors or complaints by the person or others around them. We have the ability to determine whether there's disorder based on independently verifiable physical conditions. That verification can differentiate workable from unworkable treatment options, making the present practice of essentially experimenting on a patient with various chemicals until a helpful one is found, to be unnecessary.
The recommendation in TFA is similar to the American Psychological Association's. The APA writes the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) which defines what's a disorder and what is not, and the criteria that must be fit in order to determine whether there's a clinical diagnosis. In both cases there is biased based on the fact that the people making the recommendation (the APA being just over half clinical psychologists) stand to make money (whether individually or collectively as a field) treating people for what they're trying to push as a disorder. This bias can end up labeling people as defective when in fact they may just be different.
An example is in Attention Deficit Disorder (With or Without Hyperactivity). The DSM definition describes those with real, biologically based dysfunctions in one of more brain processes involved in attentional processing. However, they can also fit farm more people who happen to have an attentional system which differs from "normal". While it fits the criteria, those criteria do not take into account the fact that the condition may also provide them with other functions which are an improvement over "normal". For instance, those with this "disorder" often also show a tendency to take in a problem, file it away in a non-conscious area, and later have an answer pop out without having to actively and consciously think about it. This ability, using problem solving processes while simultaneously conducting living business as usual, can make them appear to have less attentional ability based on the fact that resources are going into the non-conscious process, taking some away from the conscious process.
To expand on the concept of bias in the definition of AD(H)D, read Diane McGuiness's "When Children Don't Learn", chapters 9 and 10. Her work got her a rare invitation from the APA to provide a dissenting opinion piece in their research material on this "disorder". To their credit, APA has previously used such dissenting opinion to negate a previous condition as a diagnosable disorder deserving of treatment, that of homosexuality (removing it from the DSM in the revision from the second to third volume).
While it is possible that people with obsessive-compulsive disorder may in fact get hooked on gaming, this doesn't mean that people who play games in an obsessive or compulsive manner have OCD. The definition should not be used if it fits only one set of circumstances, just as AD(H)D should not be applied to kids who are fidgety in class and don't listen to the teacher well, but can sit for hours and play a video game that requires focused attention over a long time frame. Using a contradiction here that comes from material similar to the article was done on purpose. It uses that same activity in a manner which negates another diagnosis, making it if not functional then at least non-clinical. It has in fact been observed in testing those diagnosed with AD(H)D to show the diagnosis as a disorder is fallacious.
I've seen that one minute per five hours. It sucks. It's usually so dumbed down that even when it's right it's so bad that it might was well be wrong.
Put science news on the science and other educational channels. Science channel(s), Discovery, History channel(s), National Geographic, NASA channel -- it's not like there's a complete lack of sources. If people want it, they'll go looking. If they can't handle it, they won't watch it and don't need it.
And don't give me any "the kids" nonsense. If kids need science, they need something better than news channels present. They need education, which means keeping them engaged, which means decent production. They're not prepared for science news yet. They're still in the stage where half hour shows with a few interesting longer stories are better for them. Besides, they don't need everything on TV. There's plenty of sources of science news that they can read. They're supposed to be doing that too.
... of the US just changed the citizenship requirement specification for astronaut candidates. Where is says "Applicants for the Astronaut Candidate Program must be citizens of the United States" add "or of those countries which are allies in space exploration." and have a treaty drawn up that these ally countries can sign so their people can train and fly from here while retaining citizenship. NASA gets more candidates in its pool, UK (probably, eventually) gets some astronauts to brag about.
They could build their own training facility and equipment and staff it, or send them to Baikonur for 5 megapounds each. The former will require they finish training at the site of their choice (or by selection), US or Russia, to be able to fly one one of their missions, the latter gets them fully trained, but to fly on Russian missions only. Doing it themselves would cost a great deal more, because they have to train the trainers; not having a program of their own yet, they don't have anyone qualified to teach it to others. Even if they did, to fly on US missions they'd still be required to train here after initial qualification. In light of this, it seems patently absurd to require they get basic qualification at home when they have to come here for mission training.
I suppose they could send their people to one of the more reasonable countries who have their own training and are willing to take Brits in. But NASA administration has become so politicized that those people probably wouldn't be selected for mission training. When NASA says "you can't" they tend to mean something like "you can't, unless you ask real nice, and you can't a whole lot more if it's with someone else."
And before those who work for or contract to NASA, hacking hardware (including the kind that makes fire at the bottom), software and people get riled and tell me the people who work there aren't like that, yes I know. I know people who work there, and the engineer and scientist types are worthy descendants of the steely eyed missile men with pocket protectors. But you can't deny the political games go on at the top -- I know some that work there, or at least have to work around and with them. A treaty-based program would give the politicreatures something to do, which keeps them happy, and after that training and flying can proceed.
This is all based on the assumption that they're not going to develop a hardware program also. Personally I'd like to see them and the rest of the European Space Agency buy capsules from Russia (so training there becomes a foregone conclusion) and fly them on their own boosters. Hell, they could hire the Russians to build a crew capsule in one of their new Automated Transfer Vehicles and send up a whole squad of their own.
One has to wonder, since so many other ESA countries have had their ESA trained astronauts fly on NASA missions, why UK as an ESA nation doesn't also? It's a fair cop, guv. I'm thinking it's not likely Belgium, with 2 astronauts accepted for NASA missions, has its own astronaut training program. If this is the case, UK doesn't need a program of their own, they need to get with their ESA pals and do the same things.
Or do it the hard way, by yourselves for yourselves. The hard way is good. We chose to go to the moon, not because it was easy, but because it was hard. That was our challenge, but we don't own the concept.
Besides Godzilla, there is (at least) Black Blade (lyrics, Michael Moorcock, taken after his Elric character) which takes over the user, and Seven Screaming Diz Busters, metallic birds of prey symbiotic with steam locomotives, hence there scarcity today. I made the latter up, but in the absence of explanation from BOC, it serves me fine.
I almost changed my mind to Diana from "V". But she wasn't really so much a monster as she was a sniping full blown bitch. Any monsternous in her pales beside her shoulder-waggling, trouncy-walking, neener neener I'm-better-than-you-are sneering. I can't disagree with TV Guide including her in their "most memorable SF characters" list. Remembering doesn't necessarily imply liking. I can hardly bear to watch it even today because of her.
... there goes Tokyo.
Go go Godzilla!
Warburg got two Nobels (IIRC, 1928 and 1931), in part by studying the role of oxygen in cell metabolism. Cancer cells use an anaerobic mechanism for metabolism. Flooding them with oxygen disrupts this anaerobic activity. This may account for at least some of the glucose effect in TFA. This can be accomplished using hyperbaric oxygen (high O2 content greater than 1 atmosphere's partial pressure).
It can also be done using superoxides (ozone, which produces hydrogen peroxide in the body, or H2O2 itself). Superoxide production is a normal part of the immune system, and cancer cells don't increase their SOD production proportionally with their growth rate. This is because the superoxides work on mitochondria, where metabolism occurs. The main cell is what's cancerous, not the mitochondria.
Another way to increase H2O2 in the body is to inhibit the enzyme that protects cells from high levels of H2O2, superoxide dismutase (SOD), allowing natural or infused levels of the substance to increase. Penicillin is one such SOD inhibitor, and other antibiotics are being tried. The effects are variable but generally positive. This can be facilitated by including manganese, selenium or zinc, around which the SOD builds itself, explaining the role of minerals containing these to be helpful in fighting infections.
Yes, the increased H2O2 levels can be harmful to cells, or else the body wouldn't have a mechanism to keep it in check. This is the role antioxidants play. Excessive H2O2 is an earmark of autoimmune diseases. There is an optimum level for normal cells. But cancer cells are much more sensitive, and a little damage due to superoxides is preferred over a lot of damage due to cancer.
I found some of the above information while researching my dissertation. It was based on inhibiting another oxygen scavenger, monoamine oxidase (MAO). The MAO inhibitor I looked at is trimethyl naphthoquinone (TMN), and this substance can protect the body from at least one autoimmune disease, Parkinson's. It is ironic then that one common source of TMN is in smoking tobacco. An anti-carcinogen effect isn't seen in smoking (though it may in fact occur) because of the other chemicals in smoking which are carcinogenic to an extent orders of magnitude greater than TMN's. Its MAO inhibition plateaus at low doses whereas the carcinogens don't, so getting TMN is better accomplished other ways. This, and other MAO inhibitors might be helpful in fighting cancer. These are not being widely tested, but the little research so far (mostly in other natural products) is showing some anti-carcinogen effect. SOD inhibition is probably much more effective than MAO inhibition, however the MAO inhibitor effect supports the hypothesized role of oxygen via a second if less effective mechanism.
Tagging is wrong. This is not censorship. That's a policy enforced by a group on others trying to publish in venues owned by others. This is simply an editorial policy, perfectly allowable, as the journal's policies cover only their own publication. As owners of the property, the publishers have the right to set policies for their property. An author may indeed submit to Wiki* as is his or her ownership right, but then the journal won't publish it, as is their ownership right. At issue here is called e-rights, as it pertains to publishing derivations in electronic/online venues.
Elrous0 notes that he's never had to turn over copyright when publishing in his field. I don't know how prevalant it is in physics (relating to TFA; or what elrous0's field is), but in mine (neuroscience) it's been quite common with the publications from the larger commercial publishing houses.
It used to be common that some fiction authors (at least SF authors that I know of) to be forced to surrender e-rights in their contracts, despite the fact the publishers had no intention of publishing the material electronically themselves. This was done to force the authors to have to be the ones to pursue (or in Harlan Ellison's case, to facilitate) those who post copyright infringing material to the net. If they didn't they could lose their end of the contract, that of royalties. The rationale (or rationalization) was that doing this would impact sales. Only the highest paid authors, who could choose to publish where ever they chose and so dictate contract terms) could get out of this. SFWA helped get that changed (there being no evidence for impact on sales), hence there are now some authors posting free versions of their commercially published works online, as well as at least one publisher (Baen) doing the same. TFA is over precisely this issue. Academic journals are for the most part notoriously slow at everything and so are behind the times. Some have changed (including some in my field), and TFA is just about one more looking at doing the same. Enough are doing it now that those that don't will lose submitters and so lose money.
An attempt to force such changes globally via laws WOULD be censorship, as it would be the government telling publishers they can't publish in their own property unless they meet some criteria. Yes, there are exceptions. Ownership rights are not absolute. But in the case of publishing, ownership rights trump copy rights as long as the owners exert those rights.
The Turing test is a demonstration, not a valid scientific test. It can't approach validity without being made double-blind. As long as the testers know the arrangement, and the testees know what's being tested, as presented it tests human ignorance, not artificial intelligence. When I can give one a WISC-R (I'll be generous and let it take the child's test; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WISC-R) and it can score at a level above that of an artichoke, call me. Just being able to understand the instructions and take the test is a good test in itself.
"Anyplace is walking distance, if you have the time."
Any reactor is disposable, if you have the place.
As for arguments that the design precludes abuse and proliferation, never underestimate those of persistence, regardless of intent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_boy_scout). They tend to take explanations of supposedly difficult things (like http://science.howstuffworks.com/uranium-centrifuge.htm) and hack an easier method, such as using the "centrifuge" part but not the "gaseous diffusion" part. I thought up one just writing this. Any uranium enrichment process might work, if you have the time.
AC sez:
>> I'd especially enjoy it when I found that the majority of "combatants" were somewhere below my own level of expertise, though somewhat higher than script kiddies
> No offense, but it sounds like you're applying for the B squad.
I'm not applying for anything. I put in my time.
> If you remember Titan Rain, you'd know that the Chinese are fielding some high level talent.
Yes, as I said, I put in my time. Some. Fairly high level. There's a lot more talent with generally more experience available. Hence the comment first quoted.
>> -- interesting but not too frustrating.
> Do you ever try playing computer/video games on the 'hard' settings?
> Me either, it's frustrating as hell.[/sarcasm]
I don't play games. Feel free to generalize that comment to this discourse. And I'm not being sarcastic. I would consider that beneath me. But I don't consider responding directly to an AC to be beneath me. Weird, huh?
Finally, a /. article for which the mention of golly gee whiz SciFi stuff in the summary isn't a gratuitous insert. Kaku really talks about this stuff. Rationally.
Parts of the book relating to wormholes, time travel and teleportation have been adapted by Kaku himself and published in the March 2008 ("Special Einstein") issue of Discover magazine. You can get an unadulterated taste of the book and a bunch of other nifty stuff about Einstein, relativity and such all in one package.
I think the claim he was an inventor of string theory isn't entirely accurate. However, he was co-author of the first paper on string field theory, which showed the five versions of string theory to be different versions of the same underlying mechanism. I think "rescurer" would be more accurate than "inventor" as well as being worth more credit.
Despite publishing other popular books previously including a best seller, hosting a 4 part BBC special, a 3 part Discovery Channel special and two different weekly radio shows, he's so far managed to dodge the inevitable unwashed masses and supposedly washed whiny insiders who show up to tip the ivory tower of popularizers of science. Last time it was Brian Greene. Even Sagan was so assailed until he forced their forgiveness by dying at them. Let's see how Kaku weathers the storm following the massive attention this new book is getting him. Including one picture of the Stargate and one of a Kirk led landing party being beamed down in the Discover article should help bring them out of the woodwork.