Overheard at lunch there around 2000 (paraphrase): "We hire the most competitive candidates from the most competitive top three schools and then we wonder why they have trouble cooperating and getting along..."

I hope the policy has changed since... It also seemed like they were passing over a lot of interesting people and thus limiting their cognitive diversity.

See also Scott E. Page book "The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies"
http://www.amazon.com/Differen...

Google probably suffers to a lesser extent from a similar problem as I suggest here:
http://developers.slashdot.org...

https://www.johntaylorgatto.co...
"The official use of common schooling was invented by Plato; after him the idea languished, its single torchbearer the Church. Educational offerings from the Church were intended for, though not completely limited to, those young whose parentage qualified them as a potential Guardian class. You would hardly know this from reading any standard histories of Western schooling intended for the clientele of teacher colleges."

And:
https://www.johntaylorgatto.co...
"An important part of the virulent, sustained attack launched against family life in the United States, starting about 150 years ago, arose from the impulse to escape fleshly reality. Interestingly enough, the overwhelming number of prominent social reformers since Plato have been childless, usually childless men, in a dramatic illustration of escape-discipline employed in a living tableau.
    Beginning about 1840, a group calling itself the Massachusetts School Committee held a series of secret discussions involving many segments of New England political and business leadership.1 Stimulus for these discussions, often led by the politician Horace Mann, was the deterioration of family life that the decline of agriculture was leaving in its wake.2
    A peculiar sort of dependency and weakness caused by mass urbanization was acknowledged by all with alarm. The once idyllic American family situation was giving way to widespread industrial serfdom. Novel forms of degradation and vice were appearing.
    And yet at the same time, a great opportunity was presented. Plato, Augustine, Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Hobbes, Rousseau, and a host of other insightful thinkers, sometimes referred to at the Boston Athenaeum as "The Order of the Quest," all taught that without compulsory universal schooling the idiosyncratic family would never surrender its central hold on society to allow utopia to become reality. Family had to be discouraged from its function as a sentimental haven, pressed into the service of loftier ideals--those of the perfected State."

And:
http://www.johntaylorgatto.com...
http://www.naturalchild.org/gu...
http://www.wesjones.com/gatto1...
"Now, you needn't have studied marketing to know that there are two groups of people who can always be convinced to consume more than they need to: addicts and children. School has done a pretty good job of turning our children into addicts, but it has done a spectacular job of turning our children into children. Again, this is no accident. Theorists from Plato to Rousseau to our own Dr. Inglis knew that if children could be cloistered with other children, stripped of responsibility and independence, encouraged to develop only the trivializing emotions of greed, envy, jealousy, and fear, they would grow older but never truly grow up. In the 1934 edition of his once well-known book Public Education in the United States, Ellwood P. Cubberley detailed and praised the way the strategy of successive school enlargements had extended childhood by two to six years, and forced schooling was at that point still quite new. This same Cubberley - who was dean of Stanford's School of Education, a textbook editor at Houghton Mifflin, and Conant's friend and correspondent at Harvard - had written the following in the 1922 edition of his book Public School Administration: "Our schools are . . . factories in which the raw products (children) are to be shaped and fashioned.. . . And it is the business of the school to build its pupils according to the specifications laid down.""

Also:
http://theanarchistlibrary.org...
"The history of the development of Western schooling is a complex and meandering thing, but I think it is worth looking at in a very abbreviated form here. A little insight into the logics and basis for contemporary compulsory schooling might be useful to social ecologists.
    While young people were grouped together and instructed/trained/initiated into adult life in the very earliest human civilizations, the story of state schooling best begins with Plato (427-347 BC), who really laid much of the philosophical and pedagogical framework for schools as we know them in the West. Plato believed that education and schools were the most important function of the state, and that school spending should equal that of the military.
    Precisely because schools were so important in Plato's conception of the ideal state, he was adamant that education not be left to private interests, who could not be trusted to keep the good of the whole in mind. He was also clear that once the system was in place, no change could occur, schools had to maintain strict ideological continuity:
    Those who keep watch over our common wealth must take the greatest care not to overlook the least infraction of the rule against any innovation upon the established system of education.[1]
    In The Republic Plato asserted that the state should take responsibility for training children from the age of three and that each citizen could be guided by the system towards an ideal conception of justice and into the social class and occupation best suited for him. Education had to be universalized so that all citizens[2] could be effectively screened and placed. In this Plato was emphatic that it was the state's job to support and control schools and to make them compulsory. There was no question in Plato's mind that schools should be designed by the state to support the state."

The USA early on had a different sort of state -- a democratic republic empowered by large numbers of independent small business people, mostly self-reliant farmers, most growing up in big families and part of strong local communities. It took about a century of compulsory schooling starting around the late 1800s to bring it down, including by destroying family life and community life. Now we have mostly forgotten what those people had (see Jane Jacobs on "Dark Times Ahead" and forgetting). Is that really what we want for our children and ourselves? We have iPhones and the web; they had economic self-reliance as well as community. How can we have the best of both worlds? Hint: it is probably not through more compulsory schooling.

Thanks for pointing this out (article submitter here). People make points in other comments about MetaFilter's business strategy, varied content, or grousing about the moderation. Your comment instead emphasizes the positive about how how MetaFIlter is one of the longest running online communities and it is trying to sustain itself. One comment I saw on MetaFilter compared these donations to the end of the movie "It's a Wonderful Life".
http://metatalk.metafilter.com...

I've never been a MetaFilter member. Nor have I paid much attention to it anytime recently other than seeing stories on it now and then found by whatever random process. But a couple months ago I added it to my list of interesting news sites. Every day it has some interesting and generally pleasant (non-trollish) discussions linked to on the main page as the best of the discussions. I can see the value in that and the work that goes into it. As I wrote to someone just before hearing this news, Slashdot is like the discussions I had in college around the computer center and the engineering buildings; MetaFilter is like the more randomly varied discussions I had in the dorm hallways, dining halls, and maybe the social science buildings.

Having recently "discovered" this jewel that reminds me of the better part of what the internet was in the late 1990s, it is sad to see it struggling. Slashdot is a community I have long enjoyed and participated in, and itself may itself be facing some of the same general issues. It's a bit surprising to me to see in some of the comment here a lack of acknowledgement of the parallels. Why do they think "Beta" is being pushed? People may say MetaFilter is not "original" content like a news articles. Nonetheless, I feel discussions about new articles are themselves important content. I read Slashdot not so much for the articles but for the discussions which often point out how the articles are wrong or misleading, or add lots of details to the articles, or put the articles into a broader context. Discussion has its own value, both for participants and for lurkers. I don't know if it is true, but I did find interesting the speculative comment by someone that the fall in traffic could reflect that maybe Google does not want competition with its own Google+?

Another story has a link to a video where Matt Haughey, the founder of Metafilter, explains the size of the site and the moderation infrastructure and its history:
http://newstorystudio.com/why-...
http://vimeo.com/21043675

Matt sounds like someone who really cares about his community, sort of like a town mayor (and a founder who never "sold off" from the early internet days, unlike Slashdot getting sold off to various new owners). Guestimating from their staff size and their revenue loss and member base (on the order of 10,000 active members), it must be take at least US$20K - US$40K a month to keep that community humming along for staffing costs (mostly for moderation I would think)? Or guessing on the order of about US$2 to US$5 per active member per month? Computers and bandwidth for hosting used to cost something significant, but nowadays for a text-mostly site I would not think those matter much?

It seems to me that the financing of all this has been for the past few years mostly that people not in the community (non-posters) drive by via Google and generate ad revenue, and that revenue then supports the community. The people who actively participate in the community must be a much smaller percentage of views. It looks like with MetaFilter, the people who funded the community were not the people who actually inhabited the social process of it.

That reminds me a bit of where I live in the Adirondack Park. Much of the money coming into the community is from summer tourists or summer residents when the population swells 5X or so during the summer. But these tourists and summer residents are not usually people who make up the volunteer firefighters, the emergency ambulance squad, the boards of various non-profits, or the store owners and most of the other workers. These are all groups the summer visitors rely on though. My local community would be a financial basket case fairly soon if, like with MetaFilter, the "summer people" stopped coming. And yet there are various social distinctions and resentments all around related to social class, rich/poor divides, political views, and so on. The two groups eye each other warily because they have different interests and outlooks. (The local social dynamics are even more complex than that, including retirees sometimes moving full-time to the area after being summer residents, so this is a simplification.)

People can say that MetaFilter is just another discussion site, but that misses the point. MetaFilter is another community of people, the same way that small towns that dot the US landscape are communities. There is a lot of value to the people in the community that the community exists for them and that it persists. The community relationships and history are in that sense unique to the people involved. But like my physical community, MetaFilter is in trouble if the "summer people" stop coming -- unless it can figure out a different strategy for funding itself, or getting the basic moderation tasks done by volunteers, or if it scales back services painfully (which it just did, hopefully not to the point where people move to the big cities of Facebook or Google+ though). I've seen several internet communities fade away during the past decade. It generally has been a painful experience for many. Slashdot itself has has struggles with this, and the new controversial push to "Beta" to increase ad revenues is part of that struggle.

Slashdot has a very different model of moderation and "free speech" than MetaFilter, which has its pros and cons. I'd expect it might be cheaper to operate Slashdot than MetaFilter in that sense? To work from the "Five Interwoven Economies: Subsistence, Gift, Exhanged, Planned, Theft" perspective I've written about, it seems that MetaFilter's moderators (paid staff) work in the "exchange" economy, whereas Slashdot's moderators (site members) mostly work in the "gift" economy. That is a big difference in scalability. There are certainly many moderated mailing lists out there, so volunteer moderation is nothing new. But Slashdot came up with a workable system for the web (including meta-moderation) and more importantly got the community to actually use it well. It is not clear if some new community could succeed the same way because Slashdot got its critical mass of people by being in the right place in the right time in the early years of the web.

Still, any large community of humans like a small town tends to have things like taxes (for a "planned" economy enforced ultimately at the Sherrif's gunpoint), elected or affirmed governance who spends those taxes on democratically planned projects, and some paid staff to do routine-but-essential work like road repair & garbage collection & animal control & so on (and for some towns, policing if not done by the county or state). Slashdot has a budget no doubt (not sure what it is or what it goes towards). Both MetaFilter and Slashdot are small towns in that sense (thousands of participants). They are both small towns that have survived for over a decade across big shifts in the internet, which means they are something special as far as being healthy communities (even with problems). It is not unreasonable for such small towns to need to fund themselves somehow. But the question is how? Or, will they just be replaced by something else as no longer being economically viable?

And if so, what will replace such communities? Paul Jones has his #noemail campaign to move to social media. But if not email, as I pointed out to him early on, so many other social media options people actually chose seem to entail moving to big providers like Facebook or Google and a loss of local control and local archives. I suggested we need a decentralized social semantic desktop if we were to move beyond email. His blog on "noemail":
http://ibiblio.org/pjones/blog...

But in any case, communities are not software, nor are they the artifacts of communities (like archived discussion posts). Clay Shirky writes about how hard it is to write software for communities here:
http://www.shirky.com/writings...
"Writing social software is hard. And, as I said, the act of writing social software is more like the work of an economist or a political scientist. And the act of hosting social software, the relationship of someone who hosts it is more like a relationship of landlords to tenants than owners to boxes in a warehouse."

My wife has worked towards some other FOSS social software (Rakontu), and I have my ideas about a FOSS "Pointrel/Twirlip Social Semantic Desktop & Public Intelligence Platform". So, I've been thinking about what it takes nowadays to make an economic success of such ventures. Discussion about MetaFilter and the web has been illuminating in that regard. I'm glad to see the MetaFilter community trying to sustain itself somehow. I can hope the Slashdot community could do the same if it had to.

Because what is the alternative to essentially voluntary communities with some degree of self-determination with control over their own software and content? There was a time in the USA when there were lots of small corner stores like cafes and bookstores and barber shops and five-and-dime stores which acted as community centers as well as what they sold. Then came shopping malls (Facebook and Google+?) and these small stores mostly went under or at least lost so much traffic their community value diminished. But the big malls full of national chains (or now Walmart everywhere) do not fulfill the same extra social functions the small stores did (including just running into neighbors going into or out of local stores and chatting with them).

And further, the big stores, being large zones of private property, became protest-free areas, because being surrounded by big parking lots they were very different than small stores with public sidewalks in front of them. Several comments to this article are by people who are afraid to put various content on their web sites for fear of losing Adsense accounts and related revenue or who felt they had to take down such content in response to email from Google. What would they do if the complaints from Google Adsense became about political content on their site or links to political sites? If we want a "free" web, paradoxically do we have to pay for it (either in money or volunteer time or perhaps even in taxes)?

Show me some citations for your accusations? Fuhrman's main book "Eat to Live" is one of the most scientifically-grounded books on nutrition, with thousands of references to substantiate his points with evidence. That said, I don't agree 100% with everything he recommends (see below) in part because of the nature of the limits of what you can find in the scientific literature, as well as the difficulty of making sense of conflicting studies. There is also the fact that most nutritional studies start with a fundamentally sick and detoxified Western population (however good their basic vitals are) and so it may be hard to draw broad conclusions about what would be best for people eating very diferently to begin with. The future is individualized medicine based on genetics and the intestinal microbiome and also lifestyle and history, but we are not there yet. So, it is possible to question some broad recommendations he makes -- which is also shows the limit of writing books on a complex topic like human health for a general audience.

For examples of where I disagree some with Furhman, for many people (although not those at strong risk of hemorrhagic stroke), Fuhrman's advice on severely limiting salt intake may be questionable IMHO (versus just mainly avoiding processed foods and their salt load which makes them palatable). We need salt for brain function and stomach acid. While too much salt will create problems especially for some specific people, it is hard to know what the acceptable limit is in individual people, which also depends on how much potassium they eat and other aspects of their health. Most people probably should eat less salt, but how much less is an area of contention and there are some conflicting studies.

Furhman may also be a bit low on his vitamin D recommendations. He did base his recommendation on a scientific study related to vitamin D and mortality, but I feel there are other aspects to that beyond what he cited.

Maybe my biggest concern is that Furhman may not clearly enough state the importance of iodine and his recommendations are based on the US RDA for that which may be 10X too low (see Brownstein). The problem is that if you follow Fuhrman's advice to eliminate dairy (a good source of iodine since cows concentrate it from grass) without also adding sea vegetables or an iodine supplement to your diet (or iodized salt, see above), it seems to me you may become iodine deficient. This is especially true if you eat foods from one part of the world given many agricultural lands especially in Europe are iodine deficient. It is also true because we are exposed to so much bromine in Western countries which is an iodine antagonist, suggesting we need more iodine to compensate for that. The issue of iodine is one of emphasis about getting enough iodine given his other advice would reduce it and he suggests a low target to begin with. For example, here he does suggest iodine supplements, but not to emphasizing it to the degree he should IMHO given all the other aspects of his approach:
http://www.drfuhrman.com/libra...

In general, Fuhrman's advice to eat a lot more fruits and vegetables is also difficult to follow for most people living in a Western culture including due to cost of vegetables and fruits given US agricultural subsidies for grains and animal products. Also, eating such things out-of-season poses environmental and social costs for transport and supporting big farms in foreign countries which may not be well-regulated or engage in fair-trade.

Less-demanding (but less rewarding) whole-grain-heavy advice by John McDougall or Andrew Weil may be easier to follow and in the end thus achieve better overall results in our society for many who have trouble following Fuhrman's approach. Fuhrman originally trained as a world-class athlete (figure skating), so he seems to expect a lot of self-motivation and self-control in others -- as well as perhaps the financial resources to afford the best health.

But those are mostly relatively minor quibbles compared to the big picture Fuhrman outlines of "health being equal to micronutrients divided by calories". If someone want to heal from an injury, including a brain injury, you need the right nutritional building blocks to do so (mainly found in whole foods), and you need to avoid the wrong building blocks (like many food additives).

Personally, I have no connection to Fuhrman beyond having benefited from his writings and having bought some of his products. As above, I question a few things about his advice. I even complained to his related company about some organic bean pasta he sells which is sourced in China because I question the integrity of foods from China even when organic, and his site did not label the origin. I threw a pack of them out the day I got them and saw they were from China. I liked some other of his products I tried though, like the flavored vinegars, the salad dressings, the soups, and the date-nut popums (all fairly expensive though, so I'm not a recurrent purchaser). I like what he is trying to do with his vitamin supplements (like avoiding folic acid in them) which are designed for people eating more vegetables and fruits and such (and do have iodine, if perhaps too little). I feel it can be a fair criticism of Fuhrman that his increasing commercial activities in selling products create a conflict-of-interest; but remember that he seems to have started selling all these products only after writing his first books in the area, and the products are aligned with his previous advice. Still, it would probably be fair to say that at this point in his career, Fuhrman is invested in a perspective and set of advice and related products, and it would be hard for him to change with new information. I still hope he emphasizes iodine more in the future though.

But the fact that some of Furhman's advice (or some of his products) can reasonably be criticized in specific situations is far different than being a "quack". Perhaps the biggest issue is that many real "quacks" have MDs after their names and pull in tons of money per year while ignoring alternatives; as Furhman says (which no doubt upsets many who make money from such things):
https://www.drfuhrman.com/libr...
"Interventional cardiology and cardiovascular surgery is basically a scam based on a misunderstanding of the nature of heart disease. Searching for and treating obstructive plaque does not address the areas of the coronary vascular tree most likely to rupture and cause heart attacks. ... The sad thing is surgical interventions and medications are the foundation of modern cardiology and both are relatively ineffective compared to nutritional excellence. My patients routinely reverse their heart disease, and no longer have vulnerable plaque or high blood pressure, so they do not need medical care, hospitals or cardiologists anymore. The problem is that in the real world cardiac patients are not even informed that heart disease is predictably reversed with nutritional excellence. They are not given the opportunity to choose and just corralled into these surgical interventions."

I have seen that "coralling" happen to multiple people I know. It even just happened with President Bush (just to show how difficult it is to get good advice)"
http://www.drfuhrman.com/libra...
"The controversy surrounding the proper treatment of stable heart disease was highlighted by former President George W. Bushâ(TM)s decision to have a stent placed, even though he had not had a heart attack and was not experiencing angina (chest pain caused by restricted blood flow to the heart). During an annual exam, his stress test showed an abnormality; then an angiography showed a blockage, and President Bush and his physicians decided to proceed with stenting. Of course, we donâ(TM)t know all the details of President Bushâ(TM)s condition, but the situation brings to light an important issue in healthcare in the U.S.: having a stent placed in the absence of symptoms is common in the U.S., but is it good medicine or malpractice?"

My own father died of a heart attack about six months after having a stent placed. I now know thanks to Fuhrman and others that stents don't fix the underlying process of arteries getting obstructed by plaque. The clogging will just happen again to the stented arteries. And stents in the heart also won't prevent other arteries getting clogged like in the brain and leading to ischemic stroke, plus overall poorer health due to less oxygen getting into the body's cells (including in the brain) due to thick arterial walls. If we had now of Furhman's advice instead back then, my father might still be alive today a dozen years later. Instead some heart doctors made a bunch of money off of my father's heart condition, caused him to suffer a needless operation and then gave him a false sense of security. A similar thing happened to a sister a couple years later -- expensive painful heart surgery which did not address the underlying nutritional cause, followed somewhat afterwards by death. If you want to talk "quackery", isn't that what most cardiologists do these days?

The cancer industry has similar problems where no alternatives are discussed to expensive invasive treatments. These are treatments where the doctor recommending them (or any "second opinion" doctor in the same industry) has a big financial stake in the patient obtaining the prescribed treatment. And where the results are very uncertain and not worth it for many patients compared to alternatives. And where patients are not informed clearly of nutritional alternatives. Cancer though is a bit different because it is best avoided by good nutrition and good lifestyle; it is iffy to cure it by any means once it is widely established, although there are alternatives one can explore which are focused on boosting the immune system.
http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

Regarding the original comment on recovery from brain injury and nutrition, a big problem with the western diet especially for brain development is that the ratio of Omega 3 to Omega 6 fatty acids is so different from what we are adapted to consume in the past. See for example:
"The importance of the ratio of omega-6/omega-3 essential fatty acids."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...
"Several sources of information suggest that human beings evolved on a diet with a ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 essential fatty acids (EFA) of approximately 1 whereas in Western diets the ratio is 15/1-16.7/1. Western diets are deficient in omega-3 fatty acids, and have excessive amounts of omega-6 fatty acids compared with the diet on which human beings evolved and their genetic patterns were established. Excessive amounts of omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) and a very high omega-6/omega-3 ratio, as is found in today's Western diets, promote the pathogenesis of many diseases, including cardiovascular disease, cancer, and inflammatory and autoimmune diseases, whereas increased levels of omega-3 PUFA (a low omega-6/omega-3 ratio) exert suppressive effects. In the secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease, a ratio of 4/1 was associated with a 70% decrease in total mortality. A ratio of 2.5/1 reduced rectal cell proliferation in patients with colorectal cancer, whereas a ratio of 4/1 with the same amount of omega-3 PUFA had no effect. The lower omega-6/omega-3 ratio in women with breast cancer was associated with decreased risk. A ratio of 2-3/1 suppressed inflammation in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, and a ratio of 5/1 had a beneficial effect on patients with asthma, whereas a ratio of 10/1 had adverse consequences. These studies indicate that the optimal ratio may vary with the disease under consideration. This is consistent with the fact that chronic diseases are multigenic and multifactorial. Therefore, it is quite possible that the therapeutic dose of omega-3 fatty acids will depend on the degree of severity of disease resulting from the genetic predisposition. A lower ratio of omega-6/omega-3 fatty acids is more desirable in reducing the risk of many of the chronic diseases of high prevalence in Western societies, as well as in the developing countries, that are being exported to the rest of the world."

So, they probably don't see snakes often except on TV watching Crocodile Dundee: :-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...

Wow, what an inspirational story about your MiL!

Looks like a fascinating movie too, assuming this is the one:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt12...
""Spiritual Revolution" is a look at Eastern Spirituality in the Western world, with particular emphasis on its points of convergence with Western science and psychotherapy."

Your point of playing media is a reminder it might be good to play her favorite music if she wants. And cuddling with her infant son and hearing his voice might also contribute to her healing and her desire to communicate and move and get well.

Yes, good points about the importance of good nutrition for recovery (although now might not be the best time to focus on cleaning out sequestered toxins, although a good long-term goal). Most mainstream medicine pays at best lip service to nutrition. Omega 3 fatty acids might help rebuild the brain, given the brain is mostly fat. Eggs have some as you say, but there are probably better choices. This is worthy of lot of further research to learn all that is needed. Don't count on a typical MD including even a brain specialist to know much about this.

Bear in mind there are different kinds of strokes which might need somewhat different nutrition depending on the causes and other complications. Specifically, clogged arteries causing one kind of stroke probably need a somewhat different approach than rebuilding damaged arteries that caused a different kind of bleeding stroke, since there is a balance of processes going on to strengthen or tear down the walls of arteries. But in either case, the body can't do the right thing without the needed building blocks and the control of inflammation caused by poor nutrition.

Places to start from my searching just now, but do a lot of research yourself (a long path for most US Americans to learn about eating healthy despite all the misinformaiton out there...):
http://my.clevelandclinic.org/...
(Different stroke type, but maybe some overlap:) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...
http://www.stroke.org/site/Doc...
http://www.strokeassociation.o...

Other things can help too to reduce inflammation and then physical therapy: http://healyourbrain.wordpress...

Check her vitamin D level regularly as that is involved with inflammation management. Here is a good standard to work towards:
http://www.grassrootshealth.ne...

I've posted lots of other general nutrition links in the past, especially by Dr. Fuhrman. But again do your own research on what is best since a lot of his general diet advice is more for people with clogged arteries and at risk of ischemic stroke than for those with weakened arteries as he focuses on salt-restriction instead to minimize the risk of hemorrhagic stroke. There are processes in the body that both tear down and build up arteries, and they probably must be kept in balance to avoid both kinds of strokes, even though most US Americans are far more at risk of strokes from clogged arteries of the building up process going too far (from both inflammation and bad fats). Links about stroke from him though:
http://www.drfuhrman.com/disea...
http://www.diseaseproof.com/ar...
http://www.diseaseproof.com/ar...

I see a whole bunch of books on Amazon on "Stroke Recovery". Probably all sorts of good stuff there.

I agree with Richo's comment here that it is too soon to focus on fancy communications gear and you need to focus on just the basics (like yes. no, pain, thirsty, etc.):
http://ask.slashdot.org/commen...

That said, here is what Hawking uses:
http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-...

Also other tools discussed previously on Slashdot may be helpful in the long term:
http://ask.slashdot.org/story/...

But we can hope she recovers a lot of functionality to move beyond those. The brain has a remarkable ability to substitute functionality and like the internet route around damaged areas (up to a point, the brain stem being a weak link as a bottleneck perhaps). It really is too soon to tell. Several comments here point that out.

.. if I had known MakerBot would start doing questionable patent stuff like this instead of the openness they seemed to promise back then.

http://news.slashdot.org/comme...

Well done: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

See also my related comment about how to us the free market to deal with Global Warming (GW) issues and also Fracking:
http://news.slashdot.org/comme...

Amazing so many slashdotters ignore it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...
"Deutsche Bank says, that in January 2014 already more than 19 countries are under grid parity for solar power and sees starting a second gold rush for solar power..."

Of course, had we been paying the true cost of fossil fuels up front (pollution costs, health costs, defense costs, democratic costs of centralized wealth, other risks) as well as for nuclear (no insurance company will touch it), then renewables and energy efficiency (including passive solar) would have crowded out everything else in the market in the 1980s. Instead we got the Reagan years.

President Carter was wrong about a lot of things regarding energy policy. He should have focused more on appropriately pricing fossil fuel and nuclear externalities into the market, with any related taxes distributed generally as a basic income. Hard for him to do that with nukes as a previous nuclear engineer perhaps. But he was right when he said:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americ...
"We are at a turning point in our history. There are two paths to choose. One is a path I've warned about tonight, the path that leads to fragmentation and self-interest. Down that road lies a mistaken idea of freedom, the right to grasp for ourselves some advantage over others. That path would be one of constant conflict between narrow interests ending in chaos and immobility. It is a certain route to failure.
    All the traditions of our past, all the lessons of our heritage, all the promises of our future point to another path, the path of common purpose and the restoration of American values. That path leads to true freedom for our nation and ourselves. We can take the first steps down that path as we begin to solve our energy problem.
    Energy will be the immediate test of our ability to unite this nation, and it can also be the standard around which we rally. On the battlefield of energy we can win for our nation a new confidence, and we can seize control again of our common destiny."

We took the wrong path to fragmentation and self-interest under Reagan and have gone down that road in the USA for about thirty years. So many have suffered, including in the most recent financial crisis. It is a long hard walk back to community and public interest but we have to do it.

Pope Francis has been writing about this like in his book "The Joy of the Gospel: Evangelii Gaudium" which I just got to see what he had to say on the topic of economics and social justice as informed by ethics.

Fortunately, many people have worked at solutions anyway despite this thirty years of widespread pervasive market failure to account for externalities or distribute purchasing power equitably. Thanks to the hard work of engineers, scientists, and entrepreneurs along with consumers who purchased expensive products anyway for environmental and practical reasons, now renewables and efficiency are cheaper than fossil fuels in many situation despite the unaccounted for externalities. This is a huge tremendous success but you would not know it reading most of the slashdot comments on this story. Part of the issue is that until grid parity is reached, people still deny it will happen and most do nothing. After grid parity is reached and surpassed, then it is foolish economically to use anything but renewables. Just like humanity did not leave the stone age because we ran out of rocks (but we still use rock for building sometimes), and humanity did not stop using whale oil because we ran out of it, so too we will not stop using fossil fuels because we run out of them (not will we likely stop using liquid chemical carriers for energy, but they may be made by renewables and likely someday fusion).

Granted, we in theory know how to make much safer nuclear plants too. In theory, somehtign like Thorium-based power run by responsible people could be more environmentally conscious than a lot of solar. But as long as nuclear within our current short-term-oriented social framework remains so centralized and big scale (even with 30-year town-sized nuclear "batteries" like Hyperion and such produced by big industry), beyond the political risks to democracy of such a concentration of political power, it is hard to expect to stop operating suddenly the same political and social processes that covered up and then failed to acknowledge past nuclear disasters. Most recently Fukushima is a prime example of denial and human suffering of dislocation, bu it is only one of several. Sadly, as far as short-term thinking, in California, if you want to know where the nuclear power plants are, just follow the seismic fault lines. :-( The good news there is that after those melt down after earthquakes, the Monterey area ecosystem will be much better protected from further "development" as in "paving paradise and putting in more parking lots", same as wildlife is recovering in the Chernobyl human exclusion zone. It will be unpleasant for most humans of California though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...

Could people build safe nuclear plants even in active seismic zones? Perhaps. But as with Fukushima and its underwater generators and raised storage ponds, in practice, we have not because of short-term thinking, group think, and similar dysfunctional social processes.

So, we still need to fix the free market to address the fact that unfettered capitalism socializes costs and privatizes gains while the rich buy laws increasing in their favor. That might involve:
* ensuring every citizen has purchasing power via a basic income (given most paid jobs are probably going away soon with robots and AI and cheap energy from renewables and probably soon hot and cold fusion) like Alaska does with the Permanent fund
* using the power of government to ensure goods have an up-front cost that more accurately reflect their true costs to society (don't ban big sodas in NYC, just raise their prices via taxes to account for health costs including long-term care), which includes ensuring all energy is priced up-front with a consideration of all the external costs (good and bad) like pollution, defense, war risk, systemic risks, political power concentration risks, health risks and so on.

Without those two broad changes, we will still see outright folly like burning "cheap" coal in the Midwest which causes acid rain and mercury pollution in the North East so people can't eat their local fish for subsistence living and need to pay billions in health care costs for cancer and asthma and such. Destroying the natural beauty of California for a few months of global energy supply with probably most of the profits going to a few well-positioned individuals is a similar bad bargain for the general public.

Of course, there are other ways to arrange human affairs that a free market (subsistence, gift, and planning) and the USA has aspects of them and they used to be stronger in the past. But if we are sticking with the free market as a major force, we should at least make it work in a humane and prudent way.

In the case of "Fracking", that means pricing in risks and costs for:
* polluting groundwater (probably the biggest risk)
* unknown risks like for corporate secrecy of what is in fracking liquids
* polluting around work sites
* climate change (another big risk)
* earthquakes cause by the process of extraction
* visual pollution of the landscape
* complex violations of property rights by nearby underground activities
* the fact that much of the fracking product is just exported now into a global energy market and so does not help US energy security
* the fact that we might want those resources later perhaps
* the effects of a short-term cheap energy source delaying the development of better longer term solutions
* probably others

Of course, solar has its own externalities too. Long-term, fusion energy will probably be better. But is hard to beat energy efficiency too -- including by lifestyle changes related to getting back to the basics of human health (community, simpler home cooked foods, walking, gardening in the sunshine, etc.).

And then we need to discuss how any benefits of the process would be distributed equitably -- like for example through something like the Alaska Permanent fund rather than sweatheart deals for what was once US government land and previously (and in some ways perhaps still) native land...

http://www.phibetaiota.net/201...
"This essay discusses how the USA's security clearance process (mainly related to ensuring secrecy) may have a counter-productive negative effect on the USA's national security by reducing "cognitive diversity" among security professionals."

This pot smoking issue is just one more way...

And I wrote the virtual machine you three are simulated on. :-)

Dang that time travel bug again; I thought I had fixed that...

From a new campaign I just saw yesterday on the immune boosting theme: http://www.standup2cancer.org/...
---
The battle against cancer is hard fought and hard won, and often treatments are as debilitating as the disease itself. But inside each of us is the power to fight cancer: our immune system.
Stand Up To Cancer and the Cancer Research Institute have joined forces in one of the most promising new research areas, using the science of immunology to get our bodies' own natural defenses to fight the disease. Immunotherapy has the potential to significantly change the treatment of cancer as we know it. Stand Up with us. Together, we can impact millions of lives.
        Immunotherapy is a new class of cancer treatment that works to harness the innate powers of the immune system to fight cancer.
        From the preventive vaccine for cervical cancer to the first therapy ever proven to extend the lives of patients with metastatic melanoma, immunology has already led to major treatment breakthroughs for a number of cancers.
        Because of the immune system's unique properties, these therapies may hold greater potential than current treatment approaches to fight cancer more powerfully, to offer longer-term protection against the disease, to come with fewer side effects, and to benefit more patients with more cancer types.