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.
Sunday, December 15, 2013
Simultaneity
This thought requires agreeing that, in an equilateral arrangement of three points, every vertex is able to detect simultaneous events occurring at the other two vertexes, also the following: If you had a tool--let's say, compass and ruler--and you had been able to "square the circle," would you not have shown that it were possible to do so? If you agree, please proceed.
Imagine two points in space A and B. They are any distance apart but stationary with respect to themselves and point C. Each has an identical length of fiber optic cable the ends of which are as close as possible to an event occurring at C. If those cables had an identical shape (both semi-circles, for instance; although a spiral may be more accommodating in most situations where, for instance, A is closer to C than B is), would A and B not be able to detect an event occurring at C regardless of how far apart they (A and B) are to each other and to C? Also, more traditionally, would C not be able to detect if an event occurred simultaneously at A and B?
What if one point were in motion relative to the others? The speed of light is constant and the distance that information has to travel is the same for CA as it is for CB (following the equidistant path of the fiber optic cable and assuming symmetry can be maintained (in at least one dimension?).
Imagine two points in space A and B. They are any distance apart but stationary with respect to themselves and point C. Each has an identical length of fiber optic cable the ends of which are as close as possible to an event occurring at C. If those cables had an identical shape (both semi-circles, for instance; although a spiral may be more accommodating in most situations where, for instance, A is closer to C than B is), would A and B not be able to detect an event occurring at C regardless of how far apart they (A and B) are to each other and to C? Also, more traditionally, would C not be able to detect if an event occurred simultaneously at A and B?
What if one point were in motion relative to the others? The speed of light is constant and the distance that information has to travel is the same for CA as it is for CB (following the equidistant path of the fiber optic cable and assuming symmetry can be maintained (in at least one dimension?).
Friday, September 20, 2013
Mosquito Control
This tells of a serendipitous discovery of an invention that may have applicability as a mosquito control.
I dabble in green tech, and as such I was led to collect rain water in a barrel. Now, knowing that mosquitoes like stagnant water, I placed a screen over the barrel. Miracle of miracles, the mosquitoes continued to lay their eggs right through the screen.
If these traps are placed in heavily infested areas, I can see the female laying eggs only to have their little darlings jailed at the nursery!
The trap may even require zero maintenance especially if the screen is made of nylon or other long-lasting material.
Water, I think, ought not to reach the screen. A drain placed immediately below the screen may suffice in this regard. However, the exact distance to the screen may have to be adjusted for particular mosquito species.
Of course, the height can be much lower than that of a normal barrel--perhaps just inches high.
I dabble in green tech, and as such I was led to collect rain water in a barrel. Now, knowing that mosquitoes like stagnant water, I placed a screen over the barrel. Miracle of miracles, the mosquitoes continued to lay their eggs right through the screen.
If these traps are placed in heavily infested areas, I can see the female laying eggs only to have their little darlings jailed at the nursery!
The trap may even require zero maintenance especially if the screen is made of nylon or other long-lasting material.
Water, I think, ought not to reach the screen. A drain placed immediately below the screen may suffice in this regard. However, the exact distance to the screen may have to be adjusted for particular mosquito species.
Of course, the height can be much lower than that of a normal barrel--perhaps just inches high.
Mothers with son's DNA in their Brains?
In this NYT article, the phenomena of chimeric and mosaic genomes are discussed. Mention was made of autopsy results on the brains of about 60 women where they found that more than half had the Y chromosome in their neurons. The article goes on to say that "They most likely came from the sons they all gave birth to."
I don't see how this is likely b/c immune tolerance during pregnancy is a local temporary phenomenon. In addition, you would have to ask yourself how did a male cell find it's way into its mother's brain and start functioning as a neuron. This is not inconceivable but goes against Occam's Razor more than a chimera created during gestation.
I believe it's more likely that the mother obtained the Y chromosome while she herself was in HER mother's womb, and the source of the DNA was a male fraternal twin that only lived long enough to populate his sibling's embryo/fetus. The foreign DNA would have been tolerated because immunity only kicks in after all differentiated cells have come into being.
I wonder how hard it would have been for researchers to determine double-X in male brains? Did they do it? I can't afford the darn journals to find out.
Also, I would need to ask if there was a quantitative estimate of the Y chromosome content. This is important because more than one or two cells would indicate an origin during development whereas a few cells would support DNA coming from a gestation where a male was being carried.
I don't see how this is likely b/c immune tolerance during pregnancy is a local temporary phenomenon. In addition, you would have to ask yourself how did a male cell find it's way into its mother's brain and start functioning as a neuron. This is not inconceivable but goes against Occam's Razor more than a chimera created during gestation.
I believe it's more likely that the mother obtained the Y chromosome while she herself was in HER mother's womb, and the source of the DNA was a male fraternal twin that only lived long enough to populate his sibling's embryo/fetus. The foreign DNA would have been tolerated because immunity only kicks in after all differentiated cells have come into being.
I wonder how hard it would have been for researchers to determine double-X in male brains? Did they do it? I can't afford the darn journals to find out.
Also, I would need to ask if there was a quantitative estimate of the Y chromosome content. This is important because more than one or two cells would indicate an origin during development whereas a few cells would support DNA coming from a gestation where a male was being carried.
Monday, April 29, 2013
I'm off Twitter. This time for good. If I'm going to say something, I want to know that I've had an effect. My followers hardly ever commented on anything I said, and for those who know me, for some issues, I like to rock the boat. So, I can only surmise that no one is reading my tweets. But that's OK, Twitter was consuming too much of my time and I have so many more things that I've promised myself to do.
However, Twitter has served me well in other ways. After some 5000 tweets, I found that my spelling and grammar had improved enormously. How did I know this? I wrote a long paper w/o spelling assist, head down typing, and the MS Word spell checker only found one problem--an extra space between two words.
I assure you, spell/grammar checking on that size paper would have taken me at least 20 minutes. I attribute my skills entirely to my twittering. I strongly urge those with poor typing/proofreading skills to crank out those 140 characters grammatically correct and not misspelled.
However, Twitter has served me well in other ways. After some 5000 tweets, I found that my spelling and grammar had improved enormously. How did I know this? I wrote a long paper w/o spelling assist, head down typing, and the MS Word spell checker only found one problem--an extra space between two words.
I assure you, spell/grammar checking on that size paper would have taken me at least 20 minutes. I attribute my skills entirely to my twittering. I strongly urge those with poor typing/proofreading skills to crank out those 140 characters grammatically correct and not misspelled.
Friday, October 05, 2012
The "texualist" Justice Scalia and his convenient blinders
www.news12.com/full_ap_frameB.jsp?news_type=ap_national_worldnews&cat=national_worldnews&articleId=DA1N8R280&position=300®ionId=1®ion_name=LI
This article says that "Scalia calls himself a "textualist" and, as he related to a few hundred people who came to buy his new book and hear him speak in Washington the other day, that means he applies the words in the Constitution as they were understood by the people who wrote and adopted them."
Now, if there was a chance that Scalia would respond to my interpretation of the Federalist Papers, I would write something more scholarly and comprehensive; but he won't, so I'll just attack one recent judgement of the SCOTUS, i.e. the Citizens United ruling calling corporations people.
Justice Scalia himself has said that he holds the Federalist Papers in very high regard, I therefore, refer the reader to No. 57 of the Federalist Papers (No. 57 was written by Madison)--I quote:
"Who are to be the electors of the federal representatives? Not the rich, more than the poor; not the learned, more than the ignorant; not the haughty heirs of distinguished names, more than the humble sons of obscure and unpropitious fortune. The electors are to be the great body of the people of the United States. They are to be the same who exercise the right in every State of electing the corresponding branch of the legislature of the State."
Now, I ask the very opinionated Justice this question, does he not think that corporations--via their coffers--disenfranchise Madison's electors by their inordinate influence and make a mockery of his words? Furthermore, for the sake of our country's future, I strongly suggest that he read the Federalist Papers during each and every god-damned decision that he writes.
This article says that "Scalia calls himself a "textualist" and, as he related to a few hundred people who came to buy his new book and hear him speak in Washington the other day, that means he applies the words in the Constitution as they were understood by the people who wrote and adopted them."
Now, if there was a chance that Scalia would respond to my interpretation of the Federalist Papers, I would write something more scholarly and comprehensive; but he won't, so I'll just attack one recent judgement of the SCOTUS, i.e. the Citizens United ruling calling corporations people.
Justice Scalia himself has said that he holds the Federalist Papers in very high regard, I therefore, refer the reader to No. 57 of the Federalist Papers (No. 57 was written by Madison)--I quote:
"Who are to be the electors of the federal representatives? Not the rich, more than the poor; not the learned, more than the ignorant; not the haughty heirs of distinguished names, more than the humble sons of obscure and unpropitious fortune. The electors are to be the great body of the people of the United States. They are to be the same who exercise the right in every State of electing the corresponding branch of the legislature of the State."
Now, I ask the very opinionated Justice this question, does he not think that corporations--via their coffers--disenfranchise Madison's electors by their inordinate influence and make a mockery of his words? Furthermore, for the sake of our country's future, I strongly suggest that he read the Federalist Papers during each and every god-damned decision that he writes.
Thursday, September 13, 2012
The Dismantling of Wall St.
Wall St can be dismantled without loss to investors and our economy would take off and we would reach new heights of prosperity. Here's how to do it:
- Freeze all stock prices. (FP=frozen price)
- Allow only the issuer to buy back the stock (the corporation). If a shareholder needs to liquidate, he can offer to sell back to the corporation for less than the FP but the corporation is not required to buy back.
- A percentage of profits will be set for each corporation to quarterly buy back its stock.
- While this is going on, Wall St facilities will be converted to a public investment house through which the public can invest in any corporation offering--to the investor--a satisfactory ROI.
What does this do? It will:
- Eliminate crashes caused by nervous investors
- Eliminate wealth disparity as there are no big players, sitting on their asses, skimming off the top.
- Stop the Ponzi scheme b/c money earned in Wall St trades comes from those who will lose an amount equal that which is earned.
- Importantly, the CEO of the corporation will no longer have to kowtow to Wall St by doing sometimes unethical things merely to maintain a high stock price.
- Most importantly, money is being invested directly in our corporations and start-ups. Money with no middle men to skim off the top. Stock shares, remember, are invested during the IPO process but you could easily end up with zilch. Not so with my proposal
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
This is an idea to obviate the need for SOPA. (all rights reserved)
Product endorsements should be embedded right into the media. For the initial showing at the movies, a cereal product can be displayed at the kitchen table with the actors actually commenting on how good it was or making a humorous observation about the product.
Later, the media can be GIVEN to a "piracy" site with the original product or with another product replaced via high-tech video modification. The manufacturer can pay fees to the media moguls based on actual download count. It's a win-win
Moving outside the kitchen, there are plenty of billboards that can be modified to sell a certain product and the camera can delay a bit longer there.
Product endorsements should be embedded right into the media. For the initial showing at the movies, a cereal product can be displayed at the kitchen table with the actors actually commenting on how good it was or making a humorous observation about the product.
Later, the media can be GIVEN to a "piracy" site with the original product or with another product replaced via high-tech video modification. The manufacturer can pay fees to the media moguls based on actual download count. It's a win-win
Moving outside the kitchen, there are plenty of billboards that can be modified to sell a certain product and the camera can delay a bit longer there.
Sunday, July 31, 2011
The tax rates for the wealthiest individuals and corporations should be set to an amount determined by how much they have contributed to lowering the unemployment rate. The fewer people they hire, the higher will be the tax rate. This will take care of all those who outsource labor while sucking dry our economy.
For those who hire extensively, there would be a lower rate but the government would still obtain revenues (income taxes) from those that have been hired.
The rate for wealthy individuals--who do not hire directly--would be lowered if they invest in companies that hire more people.
I had originally proposed that government legislate companies into hiring as a portion of their revenue but that is too socialistic for the U.S.
For those who hire extensively, there would be a lower rate but the government would still obtain revenues (income taxes) from those that have been hired.
The rate for wealthy individuals--who do not hire directly--would be lowered if they invest in companies that hire more people.
I had originally proposed that government legislate companies into hiring as a portion of their revenue but that is too socialistic for the U.S.
Monday, March 28, 2011
Evolution: Not only the fittest survive
Evolution: Not only the fittest survive This is a no-brainer. Yes, the fittest will survive but the fittest has to pre-exist in order to survive. Since evolution is blind with regard to the state of the future environment, it must allow for and encourage diversity within every population no matter how fit the average member is.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
I was reading this post by an anti-vaccine crusader, Dr. Andrew Wakefield, and he mentions that one of the unexpected consequences of vaccines is that people would get dependent on them. The implications are that,then,there will always be a market for them. Clearly, I thought, this must be Bill Gates' motivation! The bastard intends to make a fortune once populations around the globe become dependent on his vaccination programs. Ask yourself: will the BMGF (Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation) always be around to vaccinate the entire globe for all infectious diseases for EVER and for FREE? If they do, I'll bet you dollars to donuts that they'll be buying the vaccines from companies that they own or have stock in. Once a population becomes dependent on a vaccine, what government is not going to start buying vaccines (at one time supplied by the BMGF) when the people start dying like flies? The reason they'll die en mass is that Bill and Melinda would have destroyed any natural immunity that evolution may have been working on.
However, with people like Obama supporting corporations in all their guises, there is little I can do to fight these trends, and the real reason I was led to post this is that it has dawned on me that viral disease is nothing more than a mechanism to keep populations in check. Therefore, if this is true, the way to get rid of viral infections is to lower the population density.
Who are the ones who get disease? Is it not the people who go out in crowed public places? Who escapes disease? Is it not people like Isaac Newton who escaped the plague by sequestering himself at his country estate? What animals are more prone to disease? Is it not the millions of fowl or hogs crowded together that come down with bird or swine flu?
If the BMGF were an ethical organization they would devote all the resources to lowering the population density of countries or increasing the hygiene (clean water and sewage facilities).
More on evolution: if you have a biosphere without pathogens that are capable of causing lethal or incapacitating epidemics, there will no doubt arise a very successful species; one so successful that it had to power to grow exponentially by eating every individual prey in sight. Nothing would stop it but it would end up extinct when it inevitably exhausted its food source. What could stop it from extinction? How about a virus that only affects a portion of the population?
Reference on overpopulation and disease
However, with people like Obama supporting corporations in all their guises, there is little I can do to fight these trends, and the real reason I was led to post this is that it has dawned on me that viral disease is nothing more than a mechanism to keep populations in check. Therefore, if this is true, the way to get rid of viral infections is to lower the population density.
Who are the ones who get disease? Is it not the people who go out in crowed public places? Who escapes disease? Is it not people like Isaac Newton who escaped the plague by sequestering himself at his country estate? What animals are more prone to disease? Is it not the millions of fowl or hogs crowded together that come down with bird or swine flu?
If the BMGF were an ethical organization they would devote all the resources to lowering the population density of countries or increasing the hygiene (clean water and sewage facilities).
More on evolution: if you have a biosphere without pathogens that are capable of causing lethal or incapacitating epidemics, there will no doubt arise a very successful species; one so successful that it had to power to grow exponentially by eating every individual prey in sight. Nothing would stop it but it would end up extinct when it inevitably exhausted its food source. What could stop it from extinction? How about a virus that only affects a portion of the population?
Reference on overpopulation and disease
Saturday, December 04, 2010
This is what I wrote Mr. Wes Benedict of the Libertarian Party and his cryptic answer follows (I ask anyone who is Libertarian to clarify his response as he obviously can't be bothered to explain his position in language the average American can understand. The issue involves his party's disdain for coverage of pre-existing medical conditions).
Mr. Benedict,
If I have high blood pressure, I should be denied coverage from my next carrier because I had the misfortune of being diagnosed early by a company ordered physical while someone else who postponed his physical and gets diagnosed with HBP, gets covered? This hardly seems fair.
Also, consider the fact that, after all is said and done, the vast majority of medical conditions are pre-existing if you consider the role of genetics.
I know that not standing up to your principles just opens up a can of worms, sir, but life is just too complicated for dogma. If you can just throw in a little ‘but’ here and there, the LP party may one day triumph.
Respectfully,
Angel Jimenez
[response from Mr. Wes who is not even civil enough to address me by my name]
Does your auto insurance company cancel your insurance when your breaks [sic] need maintenance? Why not? Do you even call your insurance company when you need to replace your breaks? Are you aware of the differences between accident insurance, warranties, extended warranties, and regular maintenance?
Government policies have caused the mess we have today and driven up the cost of simple health maintenance to absurd levels--whether you pay for it through your insurance company or you pay for it through the government.
All the work that goes into calculating the value and risk for insurance is a huge dead-weight loss on society that insurance companies and the government have loaded onto us.
I prefer a free market alternative to the current situation. If I had my way, I'd allow you to join a Canadian-style system, with the caveat that those who adopt the Canadian-style system have to pay for it, those who don't adopt it, don't have to pay for it and get their health maintenance from a competitive marketplace.
Would you forgo your favorite "but" for a world of freedom, peace, and significantly more overall prosperity?
(That was a rhetorical question. I've got to go. Out of time. Please don't send a response. Best wishes to you.)
Wes Benedict, Executive Director
Libertarian National Committee, Inc.
2600 Virginia Ave. N.W., Suite 200
Washington, D.C. 20037
(202) 333-0008 ext. 222
(202) 333-0072 (fax)
wes.benedict@lp.org
Join the Libertarian Party at: http://lp.org/membership
What Mr. Benedict fails to grasp is that high costs come about from the not so free medical enterprises. Insurance companies, although they could charge less, take in about 3% of the total cost of medical care. If Mr. Benedict thinks for one moment that his insurance costs will be less with his free enterprise system, he is being delusional. The lavish lifestyles of those in the medical profession account for the high costs. What Mr. Benedict will get when he opts for the cheap MD and cheap hospital is merely a shortened lifespan.
One last note, I now understand the barbarian response of Ron Paul's son, Rand Paul to the news that one of his supporters had stepped on the head of a non-libertarian protester. Some Libertarians are no more than anarchists and I disavow myself of all connection to the Libertarian Party and will post any non-sequitur I may find coming from them. A party not open to civil discourse is fascist and has no role to play in our American society.
Mr. Benedict,
If I have high blood pressure, I should be denied coverage from my next carrier because I had the misfortune of being diagnosed early by a company ordered physical while someone else who postponed his physical and gets diagnosed with HBP, gets covered? This hardly seems fair.
Also, consider the fact that, after all is said and done, the vast majority of medical conditions are pre-existing if you consider the role of genetics.
I know that not standing up to your principles just opens up a can of worms, sir, but life is just too complicated for dogma. If you can just throw in a little ‘but’ here and there, the LP party may one day triumph.
Respectfully,
Angel Jimenez
[response from Mr. Wes who is not even civil enough to address me by my name]
Does your auto insurance company cancel your insurance when your breaks [sic] need maintenance? Why not? Do you even call your insurance company when you need to replace your breaks? Are you aware of the differences between accident insurance, warranties, extended warranties, and regular maintenance?
Government policies have caused the mess we have today and driven up the cost of simple health maintenance to absurd levels--whether you pay for it through your insurance company or you pay for it through the government.
All the work that goes into calculating the value and risk for insurance is a huge dead-weight loss on society that insurance companies and the government have loaded onto us.
I prefer a free market alternative to the current situation. If I had my way, I'd allow you to join a Canadian-style system, with the caveat that those who adopt the Canadian-style system have to pay for it, those who don't adopt it, don't have to pay for it and get their health maintenance from a competitive marketplace.
Would you forgo your favorite "but" for a world of freedom, peace, and significantly more overall prosperity?
(That was a rhetorical question. I've got to go. Out of time. Please don't send a response. Best wishes to you.)
Wes Benedict, Executive Director
Libertarian National Committee, Inc.
2600 Virginia Ave. N.W., Suite 200
Washington, D.C. 20037
(202) 333-0008 ext. 222
(202) 333-0072 (fax)
wes.benedict@lp.org
Join the Libertarian Party at: http://lp.org/membership
What Mr. Benedict fails to grasp is that high costs come about from the not so free medical enterprises. Insurance companies, although they could charge less, take in about 3% of the total cost of medical care. If Mr. Benedict thinks for one moment that his insurance costs will be less with his free enterprise system, he is being delusional. The lavish lifestyles of those in the medical profession account for the high costs. What Mr. Benedict will get when he opts for the cheap MD and cheap hospital is merely a shortened lifespan.
One last note, I now understand the barbarian response of Ron Paul's son, Rand Paul to the news that one of his supporters had stepped on the head of a non-libertarian protester. Some Libertarians are no more than anarchists and I disavow myself of all connection to the Libertarian Party and will post any non-sequitur I may find coming from them. A party not open to civil discourse is fascist and has no role to play in our American society.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
