Recent double-blind experiments in March '04 put doubt on this theory, but had no absolute proof of the "shape" theory either.
To quote:
"We didn't disprove the vibration theory. We just didn't find anything to support it," says assistant professor Leslie B. Vosshall, Ph.D., head of the Laboratory of Neurogenetics and Behavior. "All of our data are consistent with the shape theory, but don't prove the shape theory."
However several recent studies support the vibrational theory through differentiation of isotopes, including work at McGill in Quebec and the Berkeley Olfactory Research Project. At BORP, Noam Sobel and Christina Zelano note 23 of 31 subjects misidentified differences in identical samples.
Perhaps more interesting is work showing dogs, fish, and even insects can identify isotopes. This research is not consistent with shape theory and seems to support a vibrational explanation of smell.
Vibration theory of smell is fascinating, and I highly recommend The Emperor of Scent as a great read even if Turin's theories don't pan out.
There has been some investigation into the predictive capacity of vibration theory. Results were not consistent with Turin's predictions.
"We didn't disprove the vibration theory. We just didn't find anything to support it," says assistant professor Leslie B. Vosshall, Ph.D., head of the Laboratory of Neurogenetics and Behavior. "All of our data are consistent with the shape theory, but don't prove the shape theory."
However the Rockefeller U. worked with a theory of only 347 receptors while the Nobel prize winner work established some 1000 receptors each corresponding to a single odorant receptor gene. Interestingly, the prize winning work was published in 1991 while the investigations into vibration theory was published in 2004.
One thing in the Nobel prize press release that should jump out at anyone who is familiar with Turin is, "most odours are composed of multiple odorant molecules." They do hedge that claim immediately with, "each odorant molecule activates several odorant receptors."
The major mark against traditional explanations of smell is there are just too many smells for each one to correspond to a unique receptor. Certainly receptors working in combination may explains many thousands of unique smells coming from some 1000 receptors. However we know of many thousands of different smells coming from pure molecules. Any theory of smell should consider mixtures, but cannot depend on mixtures to explain the wide range of smells coming from a limited number of receptors.
The press release is light on methodology, and I have not read the original papers, but it seems the winning work is strictly theoretical.
Buck's research group examined the sensitivity of individual olfactory receptor cells to specific odorants. By means of a pipette, they emptied the contents of each cell and showed exactly which odorant receptor gene was expressed in that cell. In this way, they could correlate the response to a specific odorant with the particular type of receptor carried by that cell.
They've only shown (or claim to show) a particular gene is expressed in a particular cell that responds to a particular odorant. What they haven't done is look at a molecule, predict a smell, and stick it under someone's nose to test the theory.
I don't think it's time to dismiss Turin completely, but I don't expect to see him making any acceptance speeches in Stockholm any time soon.
By the way, have you smelled the perfume he developed?
"Interesting to note that a majority of its funding ($20-$30 million) was put up by Microsoft's own, Paul Allen."
In a rare break of Microsoft solidarity, Steve Ballmer says most people flying to space are stowaways and Microsoft will lead the way to space. "There is no way you can get there with NASA. The critical mass has to come from the PC, or a next generation lift-off device."
Roughly what percent of your music collection is authorized files from P2P like futhur, etree, etc.?
I'm surprised how even on/., most people have accepted the notion P2P music downloads == unauthorized sharing. The best most people can come up with to rationalize sharing is 'why should I buy a whole CD for the one song I like' or 'it's not theft, it's just copyright infringement.'
How about, I download music gigs at a time and it's 100% legal and with the musicians blessings.
the U.S. Department of Transportation working on Intelligent Transportation Systems, a long-range plan to build various sorts of intelligence into the national road system
Instead of building it into the road, how about putting some intelligence behind the wheel? What we really need is *HONK* HEY! Watch it buddy! I'm trying to/. here!
While this research does shed some more light onto the issue, language-specific issues wrt to dyslexia are well established. English is one of the hardest written language because of the number of sounds which are represented multiple ways (e.g. f, ph, gh) and the similarities in letters (e.g. p and q, b and d).
Wired ran a story last year on the Read Regular typeface which was designed to make each character more distinctive.
"On a voice vote, the measure passed the House and will now be sent to the U.S. Senate."
A voice vote occurs when Members call out "Aye" or "No" when a question is first put by the Speaker. The Speaker will say, "As many as are in favor [of the question], say `Aye'." Then the Speaker will ask: "As many as are opposed, say `No'."
http://www.house.gov/rules/voting_house.htm
So unless you were there to see your reps. say 'aye' or 'no' you don't know how they voted.
P.S. When did GWB "impede medical advances?" Oh, I see - he refused to DIVERT TAX DOLLARS TO FETAL STEM CELL RESEARCH! So that IMPEDES scientists, who apparently have NO OTHER WAY of obtaining funding! Trust me, if FETAL (as opposed to adult) stem cell research had much potential, the pharmaceutical firms would be pouring MILLIONS into it - because they'd get billions out later.
Alrighty then. What's your stand on the war in Iraq? Sure, Saddam was a bad guy...with all those WMDs...I mean, with all those ties to al Qaeda...I mean, he tried to hurt GWB's daddy!
Anyway, why divert tax dollars to take care of Saddam? If it's such a good idea, the private sector will just pick it up, right?
And what's with a department of homeland security and this tax money we're spending on intelligence? If there's really a terrorist threat, private security firms would be pouring MILLIONS into it.
And on the issue of EMBRYONIC stem cell research, GWB did not stop all federal funding. There is continuing funding for research with existing cell lines. If this is really such a dead end with no potential for practical applications, why continue funding? If an embryo really is a little person, why does GWB thing we should continue to experiment on them?
It's a bad idea to fund new cell lines, but a good idea to fund existing cell lines? Talk about a flip-flop. If GWB had been the first beat cop to Jeffrey Dahmer's apartment he would have stopped the killing, but let Dahmer finish eating the people already in the fridge.
Kerry is a lying bastard - either he's Catholic, and believes what the Church teaches, or he's not.
But trying to pretend he is Catholic while voting for so-called "abortion rights" is a travestry.
On the one hand Kerry says he is personally against abortion. On the other hand Kerry has support Roe v. Wade and keeping abortion legal.
Some people insist there is some contradiction in these two positions. These people see the world as black and white and like simple slogans such as, "you're either with us or against us."
Kerry has a personal, possibly religious, opinion on an issue. Why is it a sign of weakness or deception if he doesn't insist everyone in the US of A (or the world) adhere to that same viewpoint? The church says it's a sin to eat meat on Friday. Is it a travesty Kerry doesn't insist on that law as well? Opps, apparently that's not a sin anymore. Guess the pope likes to flip-flop on the issues.
Anyway, those who like to insist someone's political stands must conform to their religious beliefs should remember, the government operates by force. Laws are enforced at gun point, whether by police or armies. I know the US of A is not under martial law, I don't see tanks rolling down the street, so it's easy to forget.
Almost all the people work well in the construct of society almost all the time without the physical manifestation on the government's powers. But every law, every regulation, is backed with that final threat of enforcement. So when you take matters of faith and institute that into law, you are trying to ensure faith by force.
I'm not saying politicians should equivocate and play both sides of an issue without reproach. I'm saying we should expect a politician's personal actions to support what they are saying are their political and personal beliefs. Kerry's record supports what he says is his political stand. As to his personal actions and his religious beliefs--how he would council a family who was considering an abortion--I do not know. How does that make him a lying bastard?
Holding a religious belief makes you a person of faith. Using force, or the threat of force, to make everyone else conform to your religious belief makes you a wakko nut job. These are the people who shoot doctors, kill children, fly planes into buildings, and in general ruin the game for the rest of us.
WHAT. $5 not only won't cover popcorn and a soda anymore, but THE PRICE OF THE TICKET WON'T EITHER. That's right, popcorn and soda now cost more than seeing the movie itself. Of course it's summertime, so I can't get away with wearing my coat and bringing in whatever I want...it's just wrong.
Aren't there some kids on your lawn you need to go yell at?
Although it sounds like a good idea to use ones self to clog the courts, have you considered what being a convicted criminal may mean?
Certainly disfranchisement is a serious concern. Voting in the US of A is regulated by the states (http://www.righttovote.org/state.asp), so that is something to consider before getting into a situation where a felony conviction is a possibility.
There are currently 6 states where all people convicted of felonies are permanently disfranchised: Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, Mississippi, Nebraska, and Virginia.
Most actions usually considered civil disobedience do not result in felony convictions. At that level, either what you're doing isn't civil anymore, or you're on the right track and making the right enemies.
Of course many convicted criminals go onto to be very successful despite a checkered past. The stigma of a criminal record just ain't what it used to be. Even the Republicans will hire a convicted murderer.
"The government" didn't fire on those students - the guardsmen did. And it wasn't all students who attacked the guardsmen without provocation - it was just the Kent State students.
That's not an accurate description of the events of May 4, 1970 and not fair to any of those involved.
The troops sent to Kent State came from union picket lines. They had been controlling crowds that were armed and were violent. These were young men on edge, high in adrenaline and short sleep. They should never have been sent to a college campus. Would you take troops fresh from Iraq and station them inside a mall to control crowds the day after Thanksgiving? (In the USA, the day after Thanksgiving in November is a quasi-official start to the winter (Christmas, Chanukah, Tet, etc.) holiday shopping season. Stores have big sales, give-aways, open early. Chain stores often have severely limited bargains, like a 46 inch plasma TV for $5, but only 1 per store. Crowds queue up hours ahead of time to fight for the best deals. Not the prettiest side of our society, but mostly harmless. Not a situation calling for battle-minded troops, but a chaotic situation likely to result in violence if you add armed troops to the mix.)
Yes, individuals firing at unarmed students should be held accountable. However, a soldier at the command of a politician is as much a weapon as a gun in the hand of a soldier. Politicians firing on unarmed students should be held accountable.
As for students "who attacked the guardsmen without provocation" is there any evidence of this? In addition to general unrest in protest to the bombing of Cambodia, National Guard troops were sent in response to arson to the ROTC building. Evidence suggests it is just as likely as not this was done by agents provocateur sent by the FBI. I'd call that provocation. I'd also call an army in full riot gear and gas masks showing up on a college campus provocation. And the worst thing any student did that day was throw tear gas canisters back at the guard. How is throwing the enemy's missiles back at them attack without provocation?
Slashdot Mirror
In 2014, the car drives you.
To quote:
However several recent studies support the vibrational theory through differentiation of isotopes, including work at McGill in Quebec and the Berkeley Olfactory Research Project. At BORP, Noam Sobel and Christina Zelano note 23 of 31 subjects misidentified differences in identical samples.Perhaps more interesting is work showing dogs, fish, and even insects can identify isotopes. This research is not consistent with shape theory and seems to support a vibrational explanation of smell.
There has been some investigation into the predictive capacity of vibration theory. Results were not consistent with Turin's predictions.
However the Rockefeller U. worked with a theory of only 347 receptors while the Nobel prize winner work established some 1000 receptors each corresponding to a single odorant receptor gene. Interestingly, the prize winning work was published in 1991 while the investigations into vibration theory was published in 2004.One thing in the Nobel prize press release that should jump out at anyone who is familiar with Turin is, "most odours are composed of multiple odorant molecules." They do hedge that claim immediately with, "each odorant molecule activates several odorant receptors."
The major mark against traditional explanations of smell is there are just too many smells for each one to correspond to a unique receptor. Certainly receptors working in combination may explains many thousands of unique smells coming from some 1000 receptors. However we know of many thousands of different smells coming from pure molecules. Any theory of smell should consider mixtures, but cannot depend on mixtures to explain the wide range of smells coming from a limited number of receptors.
The press release is light on methodology, and I have not read the original papers, but it seems the winning work is strictly theoretical.
They've only shown (or claim to show) a particular gene is expressed in a particular cell that responds to a particular odorant. What they haven't done is look at a molecule, predict a smell, and stick it under someone's nose to test the theory.I don't think it's time to dismiss Turin completely, but I don't expect to see him making any acceptance speeches in Stockholm any time soon.
By the way, have you smelled the perfume he developed?
Yes. (But they put up with us anyway. ;)
In a rare break of Microsoft solidarity, Steve Ballmer says most people flying to space are stowaways and Microsoft will lead the way to space. "There is no way you can get there with NASA. The critical mass has to come from the PC, or a next generation lift-off device."
Roughly what percent of your music collection is authorized files from P2P like futhur, etree, etc.?
I'm surprised how even on /., most people have accepted the notion P2P music downloads == unauthorized sharing. The best most people can come up with to rationalize sharing is 'why should I buy a whole CD for the one song I like' or 'it's not theft, it's just copyright infringement.'
How about, I download music gigs at a time and it's 100% legal and with the musicians blessings.
I see what you're saying. Unfortunately the zipper analogy is wasted on people that have trouble working Velcro(tm).
I'd say you're not cynical enough. They can sync up the stop lights in your city. Why do you think you get stopped at every damn light?
If you think that is a nuisance, wait til the interstate BSODs at 5 pm on a Friday before a holiday weekend.
Instead of building it into the road, how about putting some intelligence behind the wheel? What we really need is *HONK* HEY! Watch it buddy! I'm trying to /. here!
What was I saying?
80% of Drivers think they are Above Average
Wired ran a story last year on the Read Regular typeface which was designed to make each character more distinctive.
Full bill details with summary and status info: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:H.R.4 077:
Alrighty then. What's your stand on the war in Iraq? Sure, Saddam was a bad guy...with all those WMDs...I mean, with all those ties to al Qaeda...I mean, he tried to hurt GWB's daddy!
Anyway, why divert tax dollars to take care of Saddam? If it's such a good idea, the private sector will just pick it up, right?
And what's with a department of homeland security and this tax money we're spending on intelligence? If there's really a terrorist threat, private security firms would be pouring MILLIONS into it.
And on the issue of EMBRYONIC stem cell research, GWB did not stop all federal funding. There is continuing funding for research with existing cell lines. If this is really such a dead end with no potential for practical applications, why continue funding? If an embryo really is a little person, why does GWB thing we should continue to experiment on them?
It's a bad idea to fund new cell lines, but a good idea to fund existing cell lines? Talk about a flip-flop. If GWB had been the first beat cop to Jeffrey Dahmer's apartment he would have stopped the killing, but let Dahmer finish eating the people already in the fridge.
The condom isn't exactly a medical advance, but it sure does help contain the spread of STDs such as AIDS.
Too bad condoms don't jibe with GWBs personal view of the world. You're either with him or against him.
PPPS. There is no evil in the world, and it certainly does not find its way into the hearts of people.
It starts there and finds its way out.
Remember, only a human can be inhuman.
PPS. There is no such thing as fetal stem cell research.
You probably mean embryonic stem cell research.
Frankly, the fact that Kerry only had two daughters means he was breaking this one.
First you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women.
I presume you are refering to Barock
On the one hand Kerry says he is personally against abortion. On the other hand Kerry has support Roe v. Wade and keeping abortion legal.
Some people insist there is some contradiction in these two positions. These people see the world as black and white and like simple slogans such as, "you're either with us or against us."
Kerry has a personal, possibly religious, opinion on an issue. Why is it a sign of weakness or deception if he doesn't insist everyone in the US of A (or the world) adhere to that same viewpoint? The church says it's a sin to eat meat on Friday. Is it a travesty Kerry doesn't insist on that law as well? Opps, apparently that's not a sin anymore. Guess the pope likes to flip-flop on the issues.
Anyway, those who like to insist someone's political stands must conform to their religious beliefs should remember, the government operates by force. Laws are enforced at gun point, whether by police or armies. I know the US of A is not under martial law, I don't see tanks rolling down the street, so it's easy to forget.
Almost all the people work well in the construct of society almost all the time without the physical manifestation on the government's powers. But every law, every regulation, is backed with that final threat of enforcement. So when you take matters of faith and institute that into law, you are trying to ensure faith by force.
I'm not saying politicians should equivocate and play both sides of an issue without reproach. I'm saying we should expect a politician's personal actions to support what they are saying are their political and personal beliefs. Kerry's record supports what he says is his political stand. As to his personal actions and his religious beliefs--how he would council a family who was considering an abortion--I do not know. How does that make him a lying bastard?
Holding a religious belief makes you a person of faith. Using force, or the threat of force, to make everyone else conform to your religious belief makes you a wakko nut job. These are the people who shoot doctors, kill children, fly planes into buildings, and in general ruin the game for the rest of us.
Um...didn't Harvey Keitel come into Pulp Fiction to hide the bodies and help the gangsters get away with the loot?
Aren't there some kids on your lawn you need to go yell at?
Certainly disfranchisement is a serious concern. Voting in the US of A is regulated by the states (http://www.righttovote.org/state.asp), so that is something to consider before getting into a situation where a felony conviction is a possibility.
There are currently 6 states where all people convicted of felonies are permanently disfranchised: Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, Mississippi, Nebraska, and Virginia.
Most actions usually considered civil disobedience do not result in felony convictions. At that level, either what you're doing isn't civil anymore, or you're on the right track and making the right enemies.
Of course many convicted criminals go onto to be very successful despite a checkered past. The stigma of a criminal record just ain't what it used to be. Even the Republicans will hire a convicted murderer.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=%22t urd+lag%22
Those aren't "internment camps". They're "free speech zones".
We have always been at war with Eurasia.
That's not an accurate description of the events of May 4, 1970 and not fair to any of those involved.
The troops sent to Kent State came from union picket lines. They had been controlling crowds that were armed and were violent. These were young men on edge, high in adrenaline and short sleep. They should never have been sent to a college campus. Would you take troops fresh from Iraq and station them inside a mall to control crowds the day after Thanksgiving? (In the USA, the day after Thanksgiving in November is a quasi-official start to the winter (Christmas, Chanukah, Tet, etc.) holiday shopping season. Stores have big sales, give-aways, open early. Chain stores often have severely limited bargains, like a 46 inch plasma TV for $5, but only 1 per store. Crowds queue up hours ahead of time to fight for the best deals. Not the prettiest side of our society, but mostly harmless. Not a situation calling for battle-minded troops, but a chaotic situation likely to result in violence if you add armed troops to the mix.)
Yes, individuals firing at unarmed students should be held accountable. However, a soldier at the command of a politician is as much a weapon as a gun in the hand of a soldier. Politicians firing on unarmed students should be held accountable.
As for students "who attacked the guardsmen without provocation" is there any evidence of this? In addition to general unrest in protest to the bombing of Cambodia, National Guard troops were sent in response to arson to the ROTC building. Evidence suggests it is just as likely as not this was done by agents provocateur sent by the FBI. I'd call that provocation. I'd also call an army in full riot gear and gas masks showing up on a college campus provocation. And the worst thing any student did that day was throw tear gas canisters back at the guard. How is throwing the enemy's missiles back at them attack without provocation?