This article lends credence to a theory I once had concerning the nature of schizophrenia. I have what I consider to be an uncanny ability to see faces in many textures. I was always able to see the "man in the moon," but one night, while stoned, I spotted a face in a weird table we had that was made up of crushed shells embedded in plastic. I found dozens. The more I looked, the more I found. None then or to date were very human-looking--they were mostly impish. But what if a schizophrenic isn't aware that his mind is picking up on these images. I propose having a clinician take an ordinary image and show the schizophrenic that, "hey, I can spot faces too and they never hurt me." The pictures can be created with a mask that can be superimposed on them to better enable the viewing of the "faces." I would call it a therapeutic Rorschach where the therapist sees things similar to those seen by the patient.
Sunday, November 16, 2014
Monday, November 03, 2014
Kudos to League of Women Voters for Elucidation of NJ Ballot Questions
The sample ballot which we receive in New Jersey does nothing to illumine the issues/controversy surrounding the public questions to be voted on this election cycle.
After reading this unbiased take on the public questions before us, I've gone from two yes votes to two no votes and sticking to them.
The sample ballots, imho, should come with a link to the New Jersey League of Women Voters and their concise and easy to understand explanations on the repercussions of voting one way or the other. I hope they always do this because it is so needed and so refreshing to see two sides laid out in such a way that you know how you should vote. I am putting the LWV on my list of vetting tools.
After reading this unbiased take on the public questions before us, I've gone from two yes votes to two no votes and sticking to them.
The sample ballots, imho, should come with a link to the New Jersey League of Women Voters and their concise and easy to understand explanations on the repercussions of voting one way or the other. I hope they always do this because it is so needed and so refreshing to see two sides laid out in such a way that you know how you should vote. I am putting the LWV on my list of vetting tools.
Wednesday, October 29, 2014
Ebola and Its Travels Among Species
I read a very interesting article in the NYT which touched on the biology of Ebola. Something they said really got me thinking about viruses in general and their raison d'etre. Ebola, it seems, lives a peaceful life in the Fruit Bat; reproducing at such a rate that the bat is unaffected. As we know, when Ebola crosses species, all hell breaks loose. Why is this? Why cause havoc in one species but yet co-exist in another?
To make sense of this, I thought of the first predator. There was one, you know--there had to be a first. Now, whether this "predator" first feasted on other living things or first feasted on inorganic matter--still making it a predator of sorts--and then went on to prey on plants is something we may never know. But what we do know, instinctively, is that life blossomed on this planet as a result of the invention of photosynthesis, and, afterwards, the "first" predator had ample food available.* Fortunately, for us anyway, evolution does not sit still, the predator found itself being attacked by another predator.
Before we go on, we must bring out the violins and feel sorry for predator vis-a-vis the self-sufficient plant. Putting food on the table is the top concern of any organism. The plant has to find a way to get sunshine, water, and air but, for the plant, that's not that hard to do. The plant, of course, has to contend with the predator but not having to worry about food that much, it can utilize its genome to come up with defenses in the form of tough fiber, pointed fiber, and a vast assortment of poisons. But, as with everything, there is a fine line and the plant came to its senses and realized that it could employ the animal to disperse its seeds and provide fertilizer. What wonderful efficiency and frugality. The plant has chosen to give up making its own fertilizer (a few still do) and utilize the freely available animal dung. Can you say win-win?
There is wonderful cooperation between plants and their main predator, the herbivore. Unfortunately for those two bosom buddies (fortunately for us), there soon developed the kind of predator which forms the main focus of this post: the predator of the predator of which we are top banana or so we like to think. Now, the plant has poisons but what does the first predator (the herbivore) have? I submit for your consideration that it has infectious agents just like the Fruit Bat has Ebola. If a second or higher tier predator eats a Fruit Bat, it risks getting a serious infection if it has not developed immunity. I once developed the theory that viruses were a means of population control** but what I now have to add is that it is a means of population control of the 2nd or higher tier predator in order to protect the first tier predator. The first tier predator does not want to be wiped out but what defenses does it have? It is, after all, the staple for a higher-tier predator.
It is pure speculation on my part but I believe that these infectious agents surface as a result of first tier predators succumbing to stresses imposed by higher-tier predators. The zebra that relaxes after a lion has eaten one of its own can no longer do so because lions have overpopulated (a lion somewhere has found the means of outrunning the zebra, for instance) and are a constant non-stop day after day stressor.*** As a result of this stress, the zebra's immunity gets impaired and the zebra is more likely to become host to a virus. The zebra, of course, has to be lucky enough to not be so adversely affected by the virus that it dies from the infection. But the Fruit Bat did it and so, why not the zebra or any other vertebrate whose immune system is disabled from stress.**** Once our hypothetical zebra regains tranquility as a result of fewer lions, its immune system picks up and mounts a great defense against future viral invasion. Is the Fruit Bat under stress? I don't know but wherever man goes, there goes another species' habitat.
The take-away (you can thank me later, PETA) is that we need to become or stay a first tier predator--we need to go vegan (I'm almost there but can't seem to go 100%, and, as such, I live in fear of Mad Cow, liver flukes, trichinosis, bird flu, etc. but not Ebola as I do not eat Fruit Bats or monkeys that eat Fruit Bats. The other take-away is that nothing in biology is as simple as we would like it to be but, nevertheless, there is much food for thought therein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*This freed the organism to plop down nearly anywhere and make itself a home. It was no longer constrained to hot vents on the ocean floor. Previously, it may have enjoyed frolicking in a hot ocean but its inorganic energy source was not readily replenished and, luckily, it found a way to harness the Sun.
**This seems obvious because epidemics surface and are at their worst when population densities increase.
***You'd be very hard-pressed indeed to find an organism that cannot be infected by viruses and that includes plants. However, I do not see how a plant population would eliminate--through viruses--another organism that was encroaching on its "territory" or harming it in some way. For one thing, plant viruses stay within their kingdom. Indeed the vectors that they often need to disseminate a virus usually only infect members of the same species. Viruses vis-a-vis the plant kingdom seem to be just plain old parasites. Let's also remember that plants do not want to harm the main source of their fertilizer. What about a plant encroaching on the territory of some other plant species? Would the one plant get stressed and by then succumbing to a virus cause an invading plant to also get the infection? First, I don't think there is much cross-species contamination and second, would an insect (the primary vector of most plant viruses) find a stressed out plant appetizing?
**** (I'm assuming that the Fruit Bat was stressed out from monkeys trying to eat them--otherwise, it's all just happenstance that Ebola works that way. That is, harms monkeys and humans but not Fruit Bats)
To make sense of this, I thought of the first predator. There was one, you know--there had to be a first. Now, whether this "predator" first feasted on other living things or first feasted on inorganic matter--still making it a predator of sorts--and then went on to prey on plants is something we may never know. But what we do know, instinctively, is that life blossomed on this planet as a result of the invention of photosynthesis, and, afterwards, the "first" predator had ample food available.* Fortunately, for us anyway, evolution does not sit still, the predator found itself being attacked by another predator.
Before we go on, we must bring out the violins and feel sorry for predator vis-a-vis the self-sufficient plant. Putting food on the table is the top concern of any organism. The plant has to find a way to get sunshine, water, and air but, for the plant, that's not that hard to do. The plant, of course, has to contend with the predator but not having to worry about food that much, it can utilize its genome to come up with defenses in the form of tough fiber, pointed fiber, and a vast assortment of poisons. But, as with everything, there is a fine line and the plant came to its senses and realized that it could employ the animal to disperse its seeds and provide fertilizer. What wonderful efficiency and frugality. The plant has chosen to give up making its own fertilizer (a few still do) and utilize the freely available animal dung. Can you say win-win?
There is wonderful cooperation between plants and their main predator, the herbivore. Unfortunately for those two bosom buddies (fortunately for us), there soon developed the kind of predator which forms the main focus of this post: the predator of the predator of which we are top banana or so we like to think. Now, the plant has poisons but what does the first predator (the herbivore) have? I submit for your consideration that it has infectious agents just like the Fruit Bat has Ebola. If a second or higher tier predator eats a Fruit Bat, it risks getting a serious infection if it has not developed immunity. I once developed the theory that viruses were a means of population control** but what I now have to add is that it is a means of population control of the 2nd or higher tier predator in order to protect the first tier predator. The first tier predator does not want to be wiped out but what defenses does it have? It is, after all, the staple for a higher-tier predator.
It is pure speculation on my part but I believe that these infectious agents surface as a result of first tier predators succumbing to stresses imposed by higher-tier predators. The zebra that relaxes after a lion has eaten one of its own can no longer do so because lions have overpopulated (a lion somewhere has found the means of outrunning the zebra, for instance) and are a constant non-stop day after day stressor.*** As a result of this stress, the zebra's immunity gets impaired and the zebra is more likely to become host to a virus. The zebra, of course, has to be lucky enough to not be so adversely affected by the virus that it dies from the infection. But the Fruit Bat did it and so, why not the zebra or any other vertebrate whose immune system is disabled from stress.**** Once our hypothetical zebra regains tranquility as a result of fewer lions, its immune system picks up and mounts a great defense against future viral invasion. Is the Fruit Bat under stress? I don't know but wherever man goes, there goes another species' habitat.
The take-away (you can thank me later, PETA) is that we need to become or stay a first tier predator--we need to go vegan (I'm almost there but can't seem to go 100%, and, as such, I live in fear of Mad Cow, liver flukes, trichinosis, bird flu, etc. but not Ebola as I do not eat Fruit Bats or monkeys that eat Fruit Bats. The other take-away is that nothing in biology is as simple as we would like it to be but, nevertheless, there is much food for thought therein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*This freed the organism to plop down nearly anywhere and make itself a home. It was no longer constrained to hot vents on the ocean floor. Previously, it may have enjoyed frolicking in a hot ocean but its inorganic energy source was not readily replenished and, luckily, it found a way to harness the Sun.
**This seems obvious because epidemics surface and are at their worst when population densities increase.
***You'd be very hard-pressed indeed to find an organism that cannot be infected by viruses and that includes plants. However, I do not see how a plant population would eliminate--through viruses--another organism that was encroaching on its "territory" or harming it in some way. For one thing, plant viruses stay within their kingdom. Indeed the vectors that they often need to disseminate a virus usually only infect members of the same species. Viruses vis-a-vis the plant kingdom seem to be just plain old parasites. Let's also remember that plants do not want to harm the main source of their fertilizer. What about a plant encroaching on the territory of some other plant species? Would the one plant get stressed and by then succumbing to a virus cause an invading plant to also get the infection? First, I don't think there is much cross-species contamination and second, would an insect (the primary vector of most plant viruses) find a stressed out plant appetizing?
**** (I'm assuming that the Fruit Bat was stressed out from monkeys trying to eat them--otherwise, it's all just happenstance that Ebola works that way. That is, harms monkeys and humans but not Fruit Bats)
Thursday, July 24, 2014
Roku 2 | Roku Streaming Player
I have the Roku 2 | Roku Streaming Player but I wasn't happy because the use of the headphone feature ,which I loved, gobbled up batteries like crazy. Two weeks I think I got out of a pair of AA batteries. So, I hooked up a 5V adapter to the battery terminals and now I enjoy Roku without having the sound die on me half way through a show.
Use the two terminals near the bottom of the unit (close to the that dumb Roku cloth tag). Now, please note that the batteries supplied 3 volts. Although my unit is working fine with 5 volts, I wouldn't want your unit to burn. I had originally put in a voltage divider but it still needed batteries to work. Now, it works without batteries of any kind but at 5V instead of 3. I would have put in a 3 volt but it would have meant having to buy one. Years of gadget buying has given me a horde of dozens of adapters which I try to reuse in my maker projects.
One extra benefit was that I got the unit open and removed those damn hot keys for Netflix, Amazon, and the other bullshit. I really didn't need buttons that I accidentally kept pressing during a show. To open the unit, first remove the screw inside the battery compartment, then, use a box-cutter to carefully but into the seam (less than 1/16") while prying apart the two halves. Keep track of the "membrane" type switches. There are three, two of which you will keep and one you'll throw away (the one that switches to Netflix and Amazon and two other services). One last piece of advice. The remote's construction is a bit of a puzzle but just note how the parts fit together before assembling again.
If this trigger happy remote keeps annoying me, I'll make the "back" and "home" buttons flush with the surface so I don't inadvertently press these too.
I wish Roku had consulted with me.
Use the two terminals near the bottom of the unit (close to the that dumb Roku cloth tag). Now, please note that the batteries supplied 3 volts. Although my unit is working fine with 5 volts, I wouldn't want your unit to burn. I had originally put in a voltage divider but it still needed batteries to work. Now, it works without batteries of any kind but at 5V instead of 3. I would have put in a 3 volt but it would have meant having to buy one. Years of gadget buying has given me a horde of dozens of adapters which I try to reuse in my maker projects.
One extra benefit was that I got the unit open and removed those damn hot keys for Netflix, Amazon, and the other bullshit. I really didn't need buttons that I accidentally kept pressing during a show. To open the unit, first remove the screw inside the battery compartment, then, use a box-cutter to carefully but into the seam (less than 1/16") while prying apart the two halves. Keep track of the "membrane" type switches. There are three, two of which you will keep and one you'll throw away (the one that switches to Netflix and Amazon and two other services). One last piece of advice. The remote's construction is a bit of a puzzle but just note how the parts fit together before assembling again.
If this trigger happy remote keeps annoying me, I'll make the "back" and "home" buttons flush with the surface so I don't inadvertently press these too.
I wish Roku had consulted with me.
Friday, June 27, 2014
Free Will? Perhaps It Is Still There
We've been hearing that we don't have any free will because the subconscious brain seems to respond well before the conscious brain issues a motor command like, "move finger."
I'd like to address this issue from the perspective of a systems analyst. First, we have three pertinent modules: conscious, subconscious, motor. The information conveyed back and forth between these modules consists of commands like delay, move, start. etc., and feedback information like completed, movement detected, etc.
The investigator informs the subject that he (his conscious mind) is to issue a command to the fingers to move after a period of time to be determined by the conscious mind. [The conscious mind cannot measure time objectively but via the subconscious, in the form of possibly the cerebellum, it can count periods of time.]
So, here's how I think it plays out. The conscious mind issues a series of "delay" commands to the subconscious mind and the latter dutifully obliges and informs the conscious mind that the requested delay has completed. Fine, so far.
The conscious mind now decides to move and simultaneously it informs the subconscious not to count up any more delay periods and to implement the finger move. [although we can voluntarily move our skeletal muscle, we do not do it alone. We must use the subconscious to connect to the motor neurons. Let us recall that the motor neurons were connected to the subconscious way before the cortex came along.]
Motor neuron autonomous activation by the subconscious is suppressed and relegated mostly to the conscious mind when the conscious mind is awake; otherwise, we may be engaging in some really odd behavior when awake [this exact scenario may take place only when the action is novel before it has been entrenched in the subconscious.]
Let's get to the nitty-gritty, the conscious mind issues the command to move but it has to go through the subconscious. It is at this point that the researchers picks up a signal to move coming from the subconscious but the conscious mind is not conscious of the movement starting to occur until much later. It thinks that it has commanded the fingers to move and the fingers have obeyed but it actually took place earlier as a result of the command by the conscious mind to the subconscious mind. The conscious mind may actually have to wait for feedback from the fingers in order to determine that it has exercised its "free will." And this adds to the delay in free will being recorded by the researchers.
To recap, I believe the discrepancy occurs in this manner because a) the conscious mind has to utilize the subconscious to access the motor neurons b) the delay in implementing the conscious mind's free will is picked up by researchers as an artifact of the process/protocol of conscious motor control.
I'd like to address this issue from the perspective of a systems analyst. First, we have three pertinent modules: conscious, subconscious, motor. The information conveyed back and forth between these modules consists of commands like delay, move, start. etc., and feedback information like completed, movement detected, etc.
The investigator informs the subject that he (his conscious mind) is to issue a command to the fingers to move after a period of time to be determined by the conscious mind. [The conscious mind cannot measure time objectively but via the subconscious, in the form of possibly the cerebellum, it can count periods of time.]
So, here's how I think it plays out. The conscious mind issues a series of "delay" commands to the subconscious mind and the latter dutifully obliges and informs the conscious mind that the requested delay has completed. Fine, so far.
The conscious mind now decides to move and simultaneously it informs the subconscious not to count up any more delay periods and to implement the finger move. [although we can voluntarily move our skeletal muscle, we do not do it alone. We must use the subconscious to connect to the motor neurons. Let us recall that the motor neurons were connected to the subconscious way before the cortex came along.]
Motor neuron autonomous activation by the subconscious is suppressed and relegated mostly to the conscious mind when the conscious mind is awake; otherwise, we may be engaging in some really odd behavior when awake [this exact scenario may take place only when the action is novel before it has been entrenched in the subconscious.]
Let's get to the nitty-gritty, the conscious mind issues the command to move but it has to go through the subconscious. It is at this point that the researchers picks up a signal to move coming from the subconscious but the conscious mind is not conscious of the movement starting to occur until much later. It thinks that it has commanded the fingers to move and the fingers have obeyed but it actually took place earlier as a result of the command by the conscious mind to the subconscious mind. The conscious mind may actually have to wait for feedback from the fingers in order to determine that it has exercised its "free will." And this adds to the delay in free will being recorded by the researchers.
To recap, I believe the discrepancy occurs in this manner because a) the conscious mind has to utilize the subconscious to access the motor neurons b) the delay in implementing the conscious mind's free will is picked up by researchers as an artifact of the process/protocol of conscious motor control.
Friday, June 13, 2014
I Don't Love Corporate Types but Elon Musk is something else.
We know Mr. Musk is waging war in the fight for clean air and renewables in the personal transportation arena, and he is doing it in a unique way that he hopes will benefit his agenda. If he has any ulterior motives for his paradigm shift, I do not fault them and I sincerely hope it will only serve to catapult Mr. Musk to the top of the transportation game while simultaneously helping to destroy the idiotic, moronic, of-benefit-only-to-lawyers-and-government patent system.
The deal is for anyone to freely use the Tesla electric car patents while promising to allow Tesla to use any patents developed by anyone taking advantage of Tesla's "generosity." I put it in quotes for obvious reasons and because I tend heavily towards skepticism; but, to my way of thinking, we desperately need a different system.
While I commend Senators Leahy and Smith and their 2011 congressional act to cut fees by 42%, it is still too high for what the inventor gets. I would rather see it under $100 for 12 years and issued automatically. What you are getting is certification that you submitted the patent on a certain date. If you encounter an infringing party, you can then do what you would normally have done--you sue them in court.
This idea of Mr. Musk could turn out to be a real game changer. It's brilliantly simple. You use my patents and I get to use yours. It remains to be seen what will happen when the lawyers get involved in the game, though. They no doubt already are and further involvement guarantees that a simple idea gets perverted into something even more complex than what we have now.
I call upon Mr. Musk to also pursue my plan as it complements his plan very well.
Tesla Motors offers all its patents for good faith use - CNET
Monday, June 09, 2014
RightsLink to what? Lower costs? Big Effen Deal!
Above, you see what the American Association for Cancer Research is now attempting to do--charge for access. Admittedly, it is a small price compared to what these greedy people normally try to get away with but, if they have their way, you'll end up paying hundreds of dollars to them over a year's course for the privilege of accessing what most likely is taxpayer-funded research.
So, what is my idea for this post? I'd like to see our government ask all researchers who benefit from our tax dollars to post their DRAFT manuscript on NIH or university website for anyone to see. There is no need for them to wait for their manuscript to be accepted by a journal.
This is a win-win because the greedy publisher still can do its capitalist thing and the taxpayer can have access for free. Now, the original draft may not have been proofread thoroughly but I'll bet the researcher worth his salt will submit a nearly perfect manuscript. Also, it may not have the perfect font or the perfect formatting but the entire text will be there along with any pictures submitted to the journal.
It is also a win for the researcher because he/she gets to publish way before the journal gets around to doing it and, market forces being what they are, the greedy publishers will have to add-on a ton of value to the manuscript to make it that much more appealing than the free draft version. Let them capitalize all they want--greedy monopolistic bastards.
Oh, and AACR, don't bother telling me that it was all a mistake by some webmaster you just hired--I'll not buy it!
Friday, May 23, 2014
Was Jill Abramson fired for her bra-less feminism?
My wife doesn't understand why I make such a fuss over her choice of clothing. But I tell her that this style as far as seduction or ogling is concerned, is a whole new ballgame.
I don't know what went on at the New York Times, but if I had had a role in the continued employment of Jill Abramson, her choice of apparel would not have been an endearing attribute. I personally think that cleavage (with bra) is far more acceptable in today's society (Steinem not withstanding) than is Ms. Abramson's bra-less stand.
If you leave nothing to the imagination, you are no different than at best, a National Geographic picture of a primitive native woman, or, at worst, a harridan who can't be bothered with a bra. But that's me, a Cuban who grew up accepting of drugs and peaceniks but never of demarcated breasts. Will we come to a point of universal acceptance of one's choice of apparel? I don't know. But I'll say this much, I can't hear the female's voice if my eyes are glued to her chest in seduction or disbelief.
I wish Ms. Abramson all the best. Certainly, helping to garner 4 Pulitzer prizes for her reporters in 2 and half years is a testament to her skill as an editor.
Monday, January 13, 2014
How to stop spamming once and for all.
First, those who ask us for our email will also display a "permission" field. The content for the permission field is generated automatically by a browser program that also stores it locally. When email is received, any sender who is not already on the approved list of senders, will have to provide the permission field. If a match is found, the email is displayed. If no match is found then the email gets sent to a spammer collecting server for possible punitive action. Whether to implement the checking process is, of course, optionally implemented on the email client.
No action is required on our part and no spam gets by.
No action is required on our part and no spam gets by.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
