Parents hate TV. It encourages their children to lay about and expect passive entertainment. It encourages them to ask for toys that are advertised. Children that are watching TV probably aren't playing outside, doing their homework, or doing whatever else parents want them to be doing.
Discovery News has a new, more damning, report that a diet of all advertised foods is absolutely hideous for your health. I believe I can readily explain why.
A business wants to buy raw ingredients as cheap as possible, sell the finished product for as much as possible, and sell in as great a quantity as possible, as possible. Cheap food is not good for you. Cheap food processed to encourage greater consumption is worse for you still. But that same cheap processed food is the most profitable type to sell. So its advertised the most heavily. Also, considerable research is done into making it pleasing to the eye and taste bud. Unappealing food just doesn't sell.
So vegetables and other health food just kind of loses out. It's not engineered to be more appealing, what little advertising it has is mostly drowned out by ads for cheap processed food, and sits forgotten at the back of the refrigerator.
I think reversing this will require revising farm bills. Subsidizing broccoli and brussel sprouts instead of corn would result in broccoli and brussel sprouts being cheap, and thus incorporated in as many foods as possible.
Monday, June 7, 2010
Sunday, June 6, 2010
Artificial Retina
Biological eyes last for only a limited amount of time. Most people lose the ability to focus their eyes by the time they are 50, requiring bifocal lenses to see either near or far, and at some point their retina clouds over, a condition known medically as a cataract, further robbing the person of their ability to see.
Now, Discovery News is reporting that medical researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have produced artificial retinas for restoring sight in people who are blind due to retinal problems.
Artifical retinas actually already exist, being focusable bags of saline water that restore the existing ability of the eye to see, solving the problem for people with cataracts but not presbyopia. This system is different: It turns the eye into a low-resolution camera that feeds directly to the brain. The camera is good for the user's entire remaining life. It contains a battery that can be recharged inductively, so the user can recharge it with a small electric pad on their face, perhaps while sleeping.
This is encouraging, and I think within my lifetime, someone will invent artificial eyes that can see better than biological ones, and it will become worth it to have ones eyes outright replaced.
Now, Discovery News is reporting that medical researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have produced artificial retinas for restoring sight in people who are blind due to retinal problems.
Artifical retinas actually already exist, being focusable bags of saline water that restore the existing ability of the eye to see, solving the problem for people with cataracts but not presbyopia. This system is different: It turns the eye into a low-resolution camera that feeds directly to the brain. The camera is good for the user's entire remaining life. It contains a battery that can be recharged inductively, so the user can recharge it with a small electric pad on their face, perhaps while sleeping.
This is encouraging, and I think within my lifetime, someone will invent artificial eyes that can see better than biological ones, and it will become worth it to have ones eyes outright replaced.
Saturday, June 5, 2010
Stain Screen
Discovery News is reporting that a new type of touchscreen is in the works, one inspired by ink-printing errors that resemble Coffee stains.
A slightly over-filled coffee cup often spills coffee down its sides, leaving a ring of coffee on the surface. (The center remains unstained because the cup prevented the coffee from entering the area.) This dries into a brown, unsightly ring. Likewise in printing, a drop of ink dries more quickly on its edge, pulling the liquid towards the edges, leaving a gap in the middle. Printers seek to avoid this, as outlined letters are less legible than filled ones.
Touchscreens need a certain density of silver-based molecules to notice where they are being touched, but these molecules also block light, making it useless as a screen. The coffee ring system allows a grid of conductive molecules to form that has gaps that light can be shown through, thus being effective both as a screen and a touch-observing system.
Israeli scientists also observe that the silver particles can absorb ambient light and convert it to electricity, so these coffee-ring touchscreens can recharge the device by being left in direct sunlight. These effects together would make a very excellent portable computer, rechargeable anywhere.
A slightly over-filled coffee cup often spills coffee down its sides, leaving a ring of coffee on the surface. (The center remains unstained because the cup prevented the coffee from entering the area.) This dries into a brown, unsightly ring. Likewise in printing, a drop of ink dries more quickly on its edge, pulling the liquid towards the edges, leaving a gap in the middle. Printers seek to avoid this, as outlined letters are less legible than filled ones.
Touchscreens need a certain density of silver-based molecules to notice where they are being touched, but these molecules also block light, making it useless as a screen. The coffee ring system allows a grid of conductive molecules to form that has gaps that light can be shown through, thus being effective both as a screen and a touch-observing system.
Israeli scientists also observe that the silver particles can absorb ambient light and convert it to electricity, so these coffee-ring touchscreens can recharge the device by being left in direct sunlight. These effects together would make a very excellent portable computer, rechargeable anywhere.
Friday, June 4, 2010
Personal Metro
A man in Russia has done something that would not be possible in America: He built his own private subway system, entirely on his own Soviet-era pension money. Not only that, but he also got all the correct permits and so on, and is legally backed by the Russian government.
Mr. Murlyanchik, the subway builder, has been at this since his retirement in 1984, and has been extending 1 meter per day since then. He has built it so that his neighbors can have stations if they request them, and plans to soon have automated cars capable of carrying 3-4 people patrol the rails that he is now placing in his elaborate network of tunnels. (His tunnels are narrower than commercial subway lines, and therefore of slightly lower utility.)
Also impressively, he has dug under a number of roads that have 60-ton trucks running across them, and his tunnels support that weight easily. This is a man with deep understanding of earth-engineering.
I say that this is not possible in America because here property rights extend from the surface to the center of the earth, and to dig under any other person's plot of land would require their explicit permission. So the subway would have to follow only public roads and lands, and even that would require explicit government permission, of which they are not likely to grant. Also, goods in America are expensive, and the average retiree likely could not afford the thousands of tons of cement that this would require.
I begin to wonder if Mr. Murlyanchik had additional sources of funding, could he reach all the way to Moscow?
Mr. Murlyanchik, the subway builder, has been at this since his retirement in 1984, and has been extending 1 meter per day since then. He has built it so that his neighbors can have stations if they request them, and plans to soon have automated cars capable of carrying 3-4 people patrol the rails that he is now placing in his elaborate network of tunnels. (His tunnels are narrower than commercial subway lines, and therefore of slightly lower utility.)
Also impressively, he has dug under a number of roads that have 60-ton trucks running across them, and his tunnels support that weight easily. This is a man with deep understanding of earth-engineering.
I say that this is not possible in America because here property rights extend from the surface to the center of the earth, and to dig under any other person's plot of land would require their explicit permission. So the subway would have to follow only public roads and lands, and even that would require explicit government permission, of which they are not likely to grant. Also, goods in America are expensive, and the average retiree likely could not afford the thousands of tons of cement that this would require.
I begin to wonder if Mr. Murlyanchik had additional sources of funding, could he reach all the way to Moscow?
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Snails on Meth
Dr. Grumpy, a very interesting neurologist, brings up a tale he found in The Journal of Experimental Biology, in which snails improved their memory by getting whacked out on amphetamines. Wait, what?
Apparently, snails can breathe in two ways. One, in high oxygen environments like air, they can absorb enough oxygen through their skin. Should they have to crawl through a low-oxygen pond, they can also extend breathing tubes to the surface, like a snorkel. This principle was used to get the snails to crawl through a meth-pond, getting the snail totally high. Probably to verify effects in human users of such drugs.
Human users of meth experience distortions of memory, remembering more strongly traumatic things that happened during drug binges, and tend to follow habits obsessively. The scientists were curious as to if this were cultural or biological, and so tried to test it on snails, which have no culture.
Snails in deoxygenated ponds tend to bring up a breathing tube. However, it can "hold its breath" if this proves unwieldy. So they had snails crawl through ponds, and poked the snail in a way that annoyed it every time the snail tried to open a breathing tube. Some of the ponds were just low oxygen, but others were full of meth.
Sure enough, snails that crawled through ordinary ponds didn't remember the previous ones, and got poked. Snails that crawled through meth ponds tended to remember the previous pond, and held their breath.
This may be yet another reason why amphetamines are addictive drugs -- they reinforce existing obsessive-compulsive behaviors, one of which is obtaining and using amphetamines.
Apparently, snails can breathe in two ways. One, in high oxygen environments like air, they can absorb enough oxygen through their skin. Should they have to crawl through a low-oxygen pond, they can also extend breathing tubes to the surface, like a snorkel. This principle was used to get the snails to crawl through a meth-pond, getting the snail totally high. Probably to verify effects in human users of such drugs.
Human users of meth experience distortions of memory, remembering more strongly traumatic things that happened during drug binges, and tend to follow habits obsessively. The scientists were curious as to if this were cultural or biological, and so tried to test it on snails, which have no culture.
Snails in deoxygenated ponds tend to bring up a breathing tube. However, it can "hold its breath" if this proves unwieldy. So they had snails crawl through ponds, and poked the snail in a way that annoyed it every time the snail tried to open a breathing tube. Some of the ponds were just low oxygen, but others were full of meth.
Sure enough, snails that crawled through ordinary ponds didn't remember the previous ones, and got poked. Snails that crawled through meth ponds tended to remember the previous pond, and held their breath.
This may be yet another reason why amphetamines are addictive drugs -- they reinforce existing obsessive-compulsive behaviors, one of which is obtaining and using amphetamines.
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Israel Peace Options
Israel's in the news again. I see three options for peace in the middle east, all of which has both positives and negatives. Which one of these are positive and which are negative depends on who you are. My policy is "fuck the militants" because they're the ones who see all compromise as bad and demand unworkable positions.
As a background: The region is under war between two groups. The Hebrew tribes controlled the region from 3560 BC until 70 AD. Then conflict with the Romans kicked them out. Another group, primarily Arab, moved in. They were conquered a few times, by various powers, ending with the Ottoman Empire. None of these powers evicted the Arab tribes.
When England defeated the Ottoman Empire, they inherited control of the region in the form of the "Mandate of Palestine." They gave the half on the east side of the Jordan river to the Heshemites, forming the Kingdom of Jordan. They had claimants of both the decedents of the Hebrew tribes, the Jewish people, and decedents of the Arab tribes, the Palestinians, and took matters to the UN for adjudication.
The UN suggested dividing the remaining territory. The Arab tribes opposed this and rioted. This spiraled into a war which the Arab tribes lost. Egypt and Jordan (and Syria and Lebanon) joined the war on the Arab side, Egypt grabbing what is now known as the Gaza Strip, and Jordan grabbing what is now known as the West Bank. Neither one assimilated the region into their own country, but allowed displaced Arab tribes to live there. This was 1948. The victorious Jewish groups declared the state of Israel in their territory.
A second war emerged in 1967, in which Israel conquered the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. Egypt and Jordan were again belligerents, which worked out poorly for them. Israel did not incorporate the people living in those regions as citizens, leaving them in a stateless limbo.
Both sides have militants who claim that God himself granted them the right to the entire thing (and most or all of Jordan as well), and rabidly oppose any claims to the contrary.
Accordingly, I now see three possible solution, which I have produced little maps. By taking a tourism map and doodling on top of it.
Option one: Two State Solution
In the two state solution, Israel gives up Gaza and the West Bank (the regions marked in green on the map)to a new nation, Palestine, which will have a "right of return" for the Arab tribes. Presumably there will be a large shuffling in which people move to their preferred side of the border. The two would recognize each other's right to exist.
This solution is preferable to those who want cultural purity, as both sides will now have room for their culture to dominate their particular region. Both sides will retain basic identity, pleasing the nationalists.
Militants would probably remain angry over artifacts on the other side of the border, many of which are claimed by both sides. (Commonly, the site of one religious artifact would have another built on top of it, such as the remains of the temple destroyed by the Romans having a mosque built on top of it.) Militants would also be upset at not receiving the entire region, but it's at best irrational of them to expect this, and at worst, totally stupid.
The new Palestine should work on establishing alliances, and should avoid declaring war on anybody until it's developed considerable economic and military power. (Especially no wars with Israel, who could conquer it in about 3 hours.)
Also, would likely change into the three state solution, because Gaza is almost pure Hamas and the West Bank is almost pure Fatah, creating a Pakistan-Bangladesh-type situation.
EDIT: An anonymous reader proposes an interesting variant in which the west bank is divided into interlocking spirals, and both sides get all their population centers, most of their holy sites, continuous territory, and the advantage of surrounding the other side. Mutually. Sweet plan, anonymous reader.
Option two: One State Solution
Israel would assimilate the stateless people in the West Bank and Gaza, granting them all rights, privileges, and duties of citizenship. Represented in this picture by replacing the white section of the Israeli flag with Arab-style green.
Both sides could now legitimately claim to control the entire territory, as they would now be the same nation. This country would be immensely powerful, have an increased economic base, and be at peace. Naming and control issues would be decided democratically.
Cultural groups would be irritated at the influence the two cultures would inevitably have upon each other from constant contact. Also, the resulting country could no longer claim to be exclusively Jewish, as it would be about 49.5% Arab. Arabic would need to be added to the list of official languages for the sake of govern-ability.
This is the preferred solution of Liberal groups worldwide, and hopefully it would improve relations around the Arab world. (Though I imagine groups would find other grievances to whine about.)
Militants would whine about the presence of the other group in their country, but would sound like Nazis for doing so, so to hell with them.
Option Three: Evil
Israel's military power exceeds Palestine's enough to blow them away. Genocide like this tends to piss off everyone on Earth, and Israel would be from that day forward a pariah state. Arab states would almost certainly declare war. Only Christian or Jewish fundamentalists would want to help Israel, and they are not a majority in any country. Other powers might or might not declare war. Israel almost certainly wouldn't survive, and if it somehow did, it would be greatly diminished and despised for centuries.
It would make every insult ever lobbed in Israel's direction true.
Thankfully, very few people in Israel are anything but opposed to this, so I'm sure it won't happen.
In order of viability, I see it like this: Two state, One State, Status Quo, Evil.
As a background: The region is under war between two groups. The Hebrew tribes controlled the region from 3560 BC until 70 AD. Then conflict with the Romans kicked them out. Another group, primarily Arab, moved in. They were conquered a few times, by various powers, ending with the Ottoman Empire. None of these powers evicted the Arab tribes.
When England defeated the Ottoman Empire, they inherited control of the region in the form of the "Mandate of Palestine." They gave the half on the east side of the Jordan river to the Heshemites, forming the Kingdom of Jordan. They had claimants of both the decedents of the Hebrew tribes, the Jewish people, and decedents of the Arab tribes, the Palestinians, and took matters to the UN for adjudication.
The UN suggested dividing the remaining territory. The Arab tribes opposed this and rioted. This spiraled into a war which the Arab tribes lost. Egypt and Jordan (and Syria and Lebanon) joined the war on the Arab side, Egypt grabbing what is now known as the Gaza Strip, and Jordan grabbing what is now known as the West Bank. Neither one assimilated the region into their own country, but allowed displaced Arab tribes to live there. This was 1948. The victorious Jewish groups declared the state of Israel in their territory.
A second war emerged in 1967, in which Israel conquered the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. Egypt and Jordan were again belligerents, which worked out poorly for them. Israel did not incorporate the people living in those regions as citizens, leaving them in a stateless limbo.
Both sides have militants who claim that God himself granted them the right to the entire thing (and most or all of Jordan as well), and rabidly oppose any claims to the contrary.
Accordingly, I now see three possible solution, which I have produced little maps. By taking a tourism map and doodling on top of it.
Option one: Two State Solution
In the two state solution, Israel gives up Gaza and the West Bank (the regions marked in green on the map)to a new nation, Palestine, which will have a "right of return" for the Arab tribes. Presumably there will be a large shuffling in which people move to their preferred side of the border. The two would recognize each other's right to exist.
This solution is preferable to those who want cultural purity, as both sides will now have room for their culture to dominate their particular region. Both sides will retain basic identity, pleasing the nationalists.
Militants would probably remain angry over artifacts on the other side of the border, many of which are claimed by both sides. (Commonly, the site of one religious artifact would have another built on top of it, such as the remains of the temple destroyed by the Romans having a mosque built on top of it.) Militants would also be upset at not receiving the entire region, but it's at best irrational of them to expect this, and at worst, totally stupid.
The new Palestine should work on establishing alliances, and should avoid declaring war on anybody until it's developed considerable economic and military power. (Especially no wars with Israel, who could conquer it in about 3 hours.)
Also, would likely change into the three state solution, because Gaza is almost pure Hamas and the West Bank is almost pure Fatah, creating a Pakistan-Bangladesh-type situation.
EDIT: An anonymous reader proposes an interesting variant in which the west bank is divided into interlocking spirals, and both sides get all their population centers, most of their holy sites, continuous territory, and the advantage of surrounding the other side. Mutually. Sweet plan, anonymous reader.
Option two: One State Solution
Israel would assimilate the stateless people in the West Bank and Gaza, granting them all rights, privileges, and duties of citizenship. Represented in this picture by replacing the white section of the Israeli flag with Arab-style green.
Both sides could now legitimately claim to control the entire territory, as they would now be the same nation. This country would be immensely powerful, have an increased economic base, and be at peace. Naming and control issues would be decided democratically.
Cultural groups would be irritated at the influence the two cultures would inevitably have upon each other from constant contact. Also, the resulting country could no longer claim to be exclusively Jewish, as it would be about 49.5% Arab. Arabic would need to be added to the list of official languages for the sake of govern-ability.
This is the preferred solution of Liberal groups worldwide, and hopefully it would improve relations around the Arab world. (Though I imagine groups would find other grievances to whine about.)
Militants would whine about the presence of the other group in their country, but would sound like Nazis for doing so, so to hell with them.
Option Three: Evil
Israel's military power exceeds Palestine's enough to blow them away. Genocide like this tends to piss off everyone on Earth, and Israel would be from that day forward a pariah state. Arab states would almost certainly declare war. Only Christian or Jewish fundamentalists would want to help Israel, and they are not a majority in any country. Other powers might or might not declare war. Israel almost certainly wouldn't survive, and if it somehow did, it would be greatly diminished and despised for centuries.
It would make every insult ever lobbed in Israel's direction true.
Thankfully, very few people in Israel are anything but opposed to this, so I'm sure it won't happen.
In order of viability, I see it like this: Two state, One State, Status Quo, Evil.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Fear
We're afraid of a lot of stuff these days. We're afraid that our children will act like morons. We're afraid that natural disasters will kill us. We're afraid of being poisoned or harmed by chemicals, injured by our fellow people in both organized ways (like governments) and unorganized (crime).
Our animal ancestors developed fear to urge them towards self preservation. When predators attacked, those that did not escape would die to be eaten. Natural hazards like falling or sharp rocks would also end lives in a rather fast fashion as well. Animals might not comprehend that they will die, but they know scary when they see it.
Unfortunately, as we humans are intelligent, we are also imaginative, and this turns against us. We can conceive of scary situations that have yet to happen, and can plan ahead to avoid negative outcomes. Normally a good thing -- until it runs away on you and you endlessly worry about things that probably won't happen.
Fear is also used politically in the form of terrorism. Scare people enough and you can get them to agree to things just to make it stop. The current military doctrine of the United States is "Shock and Awe," combining the previous Superior Firepower doctrine with mobility to produce armies that rapidly dominate everything around them, terrifying all opposition into running away, or at least quitting the fight. Fear, representing the desire not to die in the face of a dangerous situation, is turned into yet another weapon.
Fear can be pathological. People who are traumatized by situations can develop phobias, in which they are cripplingly afraid of things that imperiled them in the past. A person with a spider-phobia (Arachnophobia) will recoil in horror from even harmless spiders. They will avoid places where they believe even might have spiders, which can easily branch into new phobias. (Arachnophobia leading to a fear of enclosed places, as they may contain spiders.) Psychological help may be required.
Fear has economic consequences too. Depressions worsen as everyone involved attempts to avoid negative consequences, and the economy slows further from lack of spending. A negative cycle develops for quite a while until necessity eventually ends it. In the past, this has generally been a war. Governments must spend bucket-loads of money to win a war, and enough people can receive this spending to begin to buy their favorite goods again, and the depression ends.
Is there a better remedy for fear than psychological counseling?
Our animal ancestors developed fear to urge them towards self preservation. When predators attacked, those that did not escape would die to be eaten. Natural hazards like falling or sharp rocks would also end lives in a rather fast fashion as well. Animals might not comprehend that they will die, but they know scary when they see it.
Unfortunately, as we humans are intelligent, we are also imaginative, and this turns against us. We can conceive of scary situations that have yet to happen, and can plan ahead to avoid negative outcomes. Normally a good thing -- until it runs away on you and you endlessly worry about things that probably won't happen.
Fear is also used politically in the form of terrorism. Scare people enough and you can get them to agree to things just to make it stop. The current military doctrine of the United States is "Shock and Awe," combining the previous Superior Firepower doctrine with mobility to produce armies that rapidly dominate everything around them, terrifying all opposition into running away, or at least quitting the fight. Fear, representing the desire not to die in the face of a dangerous situation, is turned into yet another weapon.
Fear can be pathological. People who are traumatized by situations can develop phobias, in which they are cripplingly afraid of things that imperiled them in the past. A person with a spider-phobia (Arachnophobia) will recoil in horror from even harmless spiders. They will avoid places where they believe even might have spiders, which can easily branch into new phobias. (Arachnophobia leading to a fear of enclosed places, as they may contain spiders.) Psychological help may be required.
Fear has economic consequences too. Depressions worsen as everyone involved attempts to avoid negative consequences, and the economy slows further from lack of spending. A negative cycle develops for quite a while until necessity eventually ends it. In the past, this has generally been a war. Governments must spend bucket-loads of money to win a war, and enough people can receive this spending to begin to buy their favorite goods again, and the depression ends.
Is there a better remedy for fear than psychological counseling?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
