I'll give you a list of the 20 craziest experiments ever conducted and you can click the title if you want to read the full article. This article comes up on the net every few months and it always gets some crazy responses. Let me know what you think, leave some comments.
1. Elephants of Acid 2. Obedience 3. Demikhov's two headed dogs 4. The initiation of heterosexual behavior in a homosexual male 5. The isolated head of a dog 6. Human-Ape hybrid 7. The Stanford Prison Experiment 8. Facial expressions while decapitating a rat 9. The Vomit-drinking Doctor 10. Beneficial Brainwashing 11. Monkey head transplant 12. The Remote-controlled Bull 13. The Ape and the Child 14. "My Fingernails taste terribly bitter" 15. The Electrification of Human Corpses 16. Seeing Through Cat's Eyes 17. Stimuli eliciting sexual behavior in turkeys 18. "Would you go to bed with me tonight?" 19. Shock the Puppy 20. Heartbeat at death
Google has now spent more than $20MMin seed and startup endeavors relating to renewable energy. It is rumored that they will invest $100MM in the coming years toward the goal of creating a renewable energy source which can power a city the size of San Fransisco, or about 1 gigawatt. This is what Larry Page had to say about the 1GW milestone:
"There has been tremendous work already on renewable energy. Technologies have been developed that can mature into industries capable of providing electricity cheaper than coal. Solar thermal technology, for example, provides a very plausible path to providing renewable energy cheaper than coal. We are also very interested in further developing other technologies that have potential to be cost-competitive and green. We are aware of several promising technologies, and believe there are many more out there. With talented technologists, great partners and significant investments, we hope to rapidly push forward. Our goal is to produce one gigawatt of renewable energy capacity that is cheaper than coal. We are optimistic this can be done in years, not decades."
Google currently is working with two companies which appear to have scalable technologies.
eSolar Inc., a Pasadena, CA-based company specializing in solar thermal power which replaces the fuel in a traditional power plant with heat produced from solar energy. eSolar's technology has great potential to produce utility-scale power cheaper than coal. For more information, you can visit here.
Makani Power Inc., an Alameda, CA-based company developing high-altitude wind energy extraction technologies aimed at harnessing the most powerful wind resources. High-altitude wind energy has the potential to satisfy a significant portion of current global electricity needs. Check this out more information on Makani Power. For more information on Google's commitment to a clean energy future, see http://www.google.com/renewable-energy
If so try making your woman wear high heels. Researchers out of Italy have discovered that wearing high heels had beneficial effects on subjects sex lives. The Courier Mail picked up on this with a short article about the study.
Its pretty easy to see why high heels would improve women's sex lives. The more toned and elastic the floor pelvic muscles become arousal increases due to improved voluntary spasm control around the most sensitive areas. Having to stand on your toes all day requires a great deal of tonal and coordination ability between the halves of the hips and enforces strong core movements upon walking. Another aspect is the mental association of feeling sexy how that motivation can spur arousal and eventually climax. Heels, to both men and women, are almost universally sexy and the elongation of the legs and torso lead to a more graceful figure which accentuates hips and breasts.
In truth as a future medical provider I would never recommend women wear heels everyday. The effect of prolonged torsion on the bones and tendons in the foot cause musculature problems which eventually lead to deformation of the bones and increased stress on all areas of the back and abdominal support structure. By no means am I advocating the dismissal of high heels as I fall into the trap of male infatuation with high heels and skirts, but by all means ladies, there are better ways to improve your sexual pleasure. Kegels are wonderful excercies (for you too guys) as most all muscles (except those controlling climax) involved in sex are highly skeletal in nature and can be manipulated by the self. Increased muscular dexterity not only leads to a more controlled sexual experience but also a general increase in blood flow to the pubic area associated with muscle building and toning. So if you can't get motivated to work out sit on your couch and do some Kegels, you'll not only be getting in better shape, you'll be improving your sex life.
So the government is looking for some fiscal stimulus and of course they'll turn to spending and tax cuts, two devices that have shown to be very weakly related to the growth sector of the economy. One problem is that tax cuts and spending plans are largely retroactive and by the time they are put in place and concrete work is done the economy has moved onto into a different state. Another reason this doesn't work is when you are working with a 13 trillion dollar economy it takes massive shifts in spending or directional cash flow to really effect the health of the whole system.
Any economic stimulus plan that I will support will meet three criteria: 1) the budget deficit will not increase, 2) taxpayers funds will not be wasted, and 3) the plan increases the incentive to produce output. So what do we do? how about this...
The IRS knows how much income each taxpayer reported last year. Why don't we cut everyone's marginal tax rate based on last year's income. So lets say Shivas made $61,500 last year and his tax bracket was 25%. Shivas' tax schedule this year will be exactly the same as last year but for every dollar he makes over $61,500 the tax rate drops to 15%. Every taxpayer will have their own tax schedule and everyone will have a decreasing marginal tax rate above their average income for last year (or the past 3 years, or the past 3 years plus 3% growth credit).
This plan increases the incentive to work and at the same time does not increase the deficit. This in fact will increase tax revenues. The key is a marginal tax cut with a different margin for every taxpayer based upon last year's return. It won't work permanently as it can be gamed, but in special situations it is a smarter way to return money to the economy. rant over.
The fact that I give a good portion of my paycheck to welfare and medicaid/medicare. Now I have no problem contributing to these causes as the health of the nation is really dependent on how well we take care of poor and elderly. But it really grinds my gears that to receive my paycheck I have to submit to a random drug testing program and a pre-employment drug screen whereas if I wanted to just quit this job and pick up welfare the thought of drug testing wouldn't even be an issue. Its completely unfair that the providers of this system are subject to invasion of personal privacy and that the recipients are not held to the same level of accountability.
Now this has been tried before and in 1993 the Supreme Court decided that Michigan's drug testing program was illegal if the disbursement of welfare was dependent on a clean drug screen. And I know that although this sounds like a decent idea the real problems lies in the fact that if drug screening for welfare was put into place there would be a lot of hungry children. It would also create an air of suspicion and cause people to avoid the help and look to other ways to support themselves (and what do you think the next industry a drug user is going to try?).
Here' s a pretty good chart summing up all of candidates stance on green issues. Most stances on these subjects are hard to come by (read my ScienceDebate 2008 post) but this site has it pretty organized. The democrats are at the top of the and republicans located at the bottom, so you shouldn't have to scroll down to see your favorite candidate's stance.
PZ Myers has again set out to protect the essence of science and peer review. I will say the article is a bit crazy and some of the reviewers should seriously be questioned, along with the editors who allowed this article to go through.
So by popular request I'm adding a running article to the site. I encourage anyone to help contribute to this as there is probably an infinite list of things that grind our gears. I you don't get the reference in the title I'll leave a video clip to refresh the memory. Tomorrow I'll start up with the first in what I hope is a many part article about what grinds my gears.
For the first time, researchers have confirmed that aggression and the powerful neurotransmitter dopamine are linked. Physorg has a review of the article detailing the basic procedures. I'll leave out the boring mess that interests me but if you want to check it out here is the source article found in the journal of Psychopharmacology (need journal rights to access).
One problem I have with the authors and the review article is they make baseless conclusions as to the how and why of this mechanism without any data supporting it. It may be true that the aggression complex in the mind is indefinitely linked with a powerful positive reinforcer through the action of dopamine but does this mean that all aggression elicits a euphoric response?
Dr. Kennedy, the PI on the project states:
"We learned from these experiments that an individual will intentionally seek out an aggressive encounter solely because they experience a rewarding sensation from it," Kennedy said. "This shows for the first time that aggression, on its own, is motivating, and that the well-known positive reinforcer dopamine plays a critical role."
I have a real problem with this statement because it is a crux of Science: What is the data saying and what do I want my data to say? Dr. Kennedy may have fallen into this trap as most researchers have after making a breakthrough on previously undiscovered work. Is an aggressive encounter a rewarding sensation and is it motivating on its own? I would like to offer a counter point that the outcome of the aggressive encounter may offer more feedback than the action of aggression.
Take for example a male mouse placed in a cage and trained to press a button to expose a treat. Once this conditioning has been ingrained he is placed with a harem of females. The treat is replaced with a male mouse much larger than our subject and once the button is pushed the mice have a decision to make. Whether to tolerate the presence or confront each other. Invariably the first encounter will be a fight. During Kennedy's research the original male mouse would force the other mouse away from the group, but what happens if our subject mouse comes out the loser in the fight? How many times will he hit the button now? How long will he wait until hitting the button again? Will he intentionally hit the button to fight and lose again? These are all questions that can undermine Dr. Kennedy's statements.
Dr. Kennedy has no doubt shown that aggression (possibly coupled with the outcome) is definitely rewarding as his test subject continued to hit the button and confront his intruder and did so more frequently with time. After being exposed to dopamine blockers the action stopped, possibly indicating that without the reward function the aggression was no longer a motivating factor. But just how rewarding would it be if he lost the fight everytime?
This real world is full of examples of how aggression can be just like a drug in that to satisfy the urge the level of input has to rise, which is very clear now that dopamine has been linked to the motivation of aggresstion. Bullying seems to be a very good example of this correlating to the escalating quantity and mode of aggression the longer a child exhibits bullying behavior.
The role of dopamine in the aggression pathway does illuminate how important being aggressive was in our past. Dopamine is an extremely powerful neurotransmitter with the ability to shade the reality of people who are hooked on its effects (read: drug abusers) and also be a great motivator. This indicates that a strong positive reinforcement loop (most likely predicated on consequence) was needed early in human brain development. The keeping of a mate, warding off of outsiders, protecting young, and the fight for scarce resources or suitable living locations all require great amounts of aggressive intent for a single person.
In today's society these same elements are looked at as detrimental and outward aggression is very rarely socially positively reinforced (organized sport being an exception). This could create a problem within the mind as the biological framework rewards an action that the social nuclei of the brain most likely offers negative reinforcement for.
Cheers to Dr. Kennedy for his groundbreaking research and hopefully with time he can clarify this pathway of the brain to offer a better insight into the impetus and management of aggression.
If you're like me and like all that information gathered into a neat visual you'll love this site detailing the race to the 2008 Presidential election. Thanks to Dean for sharing this site.
And, as of today, Science Debate 2008 can add a few more to the list:
February 4 -- The National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine are joining the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Carnegie Institution, the Council on Competitiveness, and several other organizations and universities in an effort to co-sponsor a presidential candidate debate on science, technology, health, and the economy. "This would provide a nonpartisan setting to educate voters on the candidates' positions on key science, technology, and health challenges facing the next administration, while giving the candidates an opportunity to discuss issues that are often overlooked in presidential candidate debates but that are critical to U.S. competitiveness," the presidents of the NAS, NAE, and IOM said in a statement.
"A discussion focused on such issues as how to spur innovation, improve science and math education, confront climate change, and guide advances in biotechnology would do much to inform the American electorate," the statement adds. The NAS, NAE, and IOM are independent, nonprofit organizations that provide advice on policy issues to the government and public under an 1863 congressional charter.
Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum of The Intersection have been working hard to build support across the internet for Science Debate 2008, and it looks like it just might happen. I'll certainly be looking forward to it if it does!
Or at least it better hope it does, cause it has nowhere else to go. I can't believe I live in a state where better than 20% of the population has less than a freshmen high school equivalency.
I come from a town where my high school was over 97% hispanic and a large number of the students would only attend class on a seasonal basis because there family would migrate based on the crop rotation. Many families survive on this type of work and continue to rely on their kiddos to help bring home the bacon during work season. Its sad that many of the kids can't get through school and drop out once they reach high school (or the fuzzy age between legally and illegally skipping school) because they are helping their families out.
Time and time again education has shown to be the great equalizer regardless of skin color, origin, or accent possessed. I know (personally) that many of the parents of these kids would love to send their kids through high school so they could qualify for a different job, but economic realities are something that doesn't favor sacrifice for the long run. So if the trend continues it looks like the south may find itself in dire need intellectual acumen in the next 20 years. Think how many doctors, lawyers, teachers, counselors, and scientists are being squashed without a chance.
Posts
1 comments:
Post a Comment