Diet can have a profound effect on brain health. One example of this is epilepsy. It turns out that fasting can reduce epileptic seizures- in fact this was originally documented by the Greek physician Hippocrates, in the 5th century BC- but obviously that's not a viable long-term treatment, since eventually you have to eat or you starve. However, it's possible to mimic the state of fasting if you cut your carbohydrate consumption- the body burns fat, instead of sugar, just as it does in a fast. Using low carbohydrate diets- either a fat-heavy ketogenic diet or the induction phase of the Atkins diet- it's possible to reduce seizure frequency in most people with epilepsy. Often it's effective where drugs fail, and a small percentage of people- around 15% actually see seizures eliminated, sometimes permanently, even after they discontinue the diet. In other words, in a small number of patients, diet can actually cure a severe neurological disease like epilepsy.
A few years ago some psychiatrists speculated that it might work for bipolar disorder as well. The thing is, drugs that work for epilepsy also work for bipolar, suggesting they are somehow related. This was purely speculation at the time, but there are now a couple of documented cases of people suffering from bipolar who have been successfully treated with low-carbohydrate diets- and they claim it works better than the drugs.
The implications are profound. Some psychiatric and neurological disorders may in fact be metabolic disorders, perhaps in part caused by diet. There's been a big push in the past few decades to focus on DNA as the answer to everything, but there's a huge environmental component to these disorders. Twin studies show that if one twin has epilepsy, the odds of the other getting it are only around 50%. So even with identical DNA, and being raised in a similar environment, they only have about a fifty-fifty chance of getting the disorder... clearly genetics aren't destiny. What we really need is a better understanding of the environmental effects that cause one person to get a neurological disease, while the another stays healthy. Throwing drugs with severe side effects at people after they get sick is a good business model for pharmaceutical manufacturers, but what we really need to do is prevent people from getting these disorders in the first place.
Last, the observation that low-carbohydrate diets can be effective in treating severe neurological and psyhicatric diseases... well, it has disturbing implications for modern, high-carbohydrate diets.
The logistics involved here aren't impossible, obviously islands like Hawaii, Iceland, Great Britain or Ireland can survive by shipping in food, fuel, and goods from elsewhere. But the Ukraine can shut off the flow of supplies into Crimea, and it will hurt. If they have to truck everything to a port and then ship it over- all the food they can't grow locally, all consumer goods, all fuel- it's going to cause severe disruptions to supplies and hurt the local economy. It's not impossible for Russia to hold onto the Crimea -the Alies managed to hold onto West Berlin even though it was isolated in the middle of East Germany- but it's going to be more difficult for Russia to supply and defend.
The situation in the Ukraine just confirms that Obama f***ed up on Syria. Obama explicitly warned Assad against using chemical weapons, saying that this was a "red line" that wouldn't be crossed without serious consequences. And Assad crossed that line, and crossed it again, and finally crossed it in a massive way, gassing 1400 unarmed men, women and children in a coordinated assault on civilian populations.
The consequence? Obama dithers, says he'll ask congress for permission to act, and finally brokers a deal (with Putin's help) to hand over the chemical weapons.
The correct response would have been to launch the goddamn Tomahawks. Hit Assad hard: bomb his runways, destroy his artillery, blow up his communications centers and headquarters. Obama's response, or lack of a response, showed weakness. Imagine if a teacher tells the school bully to stop beating kids up, and then the bully goes and beats a kid up with a baseball bat and puts him in the hospital... and the only consequence is that the baseball bat is taken away. Would you have even the slightest amount of respect for that teacher? Obama's response showed weakness. It showed that he was more afraid of congress, more afraid of Assad's ally- Putin- than he was committed to America's values. This is the consequence of that.
I'm not saying that American power should be used recklessly; the Iraq invasion was a massive mistake. But failing to exert that power can also be a mistake.
> Narrowing what the Federal Circuit thinks is patentable, yes. Narrowing what the Supreme Court thinks is patentable, no.
The Supreme Court rarely narrows what it thinks. They look for ways to judge each case in a way that (they can claim) is consistent with prior rulings.
The Supreme Court had never ruled on the subject matter of Mayo or Myriad before. Until they rule on something, the patents are "valid" if the PTO grants them and if the courts uphold them. In those two cases, the Supreme Court's ruling means the PTO has to stop granting a certain category of patents, and the lower courts have to stop upholding them against product developers. That means patentable subject matter got narrowed.
> we can see pretty well which way they're leaning, based on Bilski and other cases.
If you check, you'll find that the last three subject matter cases taken by the Supreme Court have resulted in *narrowing* what is patentable.
The Mayo and Myriad cases narrowed subject matter very explicitly, and while I originally read Bilski was neutral, it did actually cause the CAFC to start rejecting certain types of previously-accepted patents, and Bilski is also the reason we're seeing this case today.
> You can patent a new method for ranking relevant web pages in search results.
Well, no. That's only the patent office's point of view. We don't know what the Supreme Court thinks about this, and that's what this case is going to decide.
Thanks for being here and answering our questions. Given your experience working as a "line" TSA screener, how would you propose that we fix airport security, making it more effective, yet less intrusive for travelers? Clearly, the TSA isn't going away, and they will be the agency that regulates airport security for the foreseeable future. However, would you (for example) suggest empowering agents with additional flexibility? Perhaps implement policies more in-line with real security and risk management strategies, eschewing the current models of "security theater" and reactions to past threats? Maybe eschewing use of TSA's screeners, and having private firms provide security (again, under TSA regulations)? Something else altogether?
> I'd say that's pretty much the definition of generally accepted
Wearing Google Glass isn't common. I've never seen anyone wearing it. If I saw someone wearing it in a bar, I think I'd ask the barman to ask them to put it away or leave.
P.S. In that last sentence I meant "person" in the general sense, not specifically the person mentioned in this particular article. What I'm criticising is that the article portrays the behaviour of filming people without their consent as being perfectly fine, and that people who object just "don't understand". (Don't understand what??)
I wouldn't be aggressive, but I also think it's unacceptable that people film me constantly when I'm trying to relax. Especially in bars and similar places where I have high expectations of being away from the scrutiny of everyone but the people I've chosen to socialise with.
Pointing cameras at people (and optionally saying "I swear it's not recording"), in the form of phones or Glass or whatever, is simply a really anti-social thing to do.
So is aggression and theft, but one wrong doesn't mean we should turn the other person into a white knight as this article tries to do.
Personally, I think any TSA employee in charge of TSA procedures needs to go through said procedure/screening every day before work.
Actually, they need to be fired and replaced by people with proper risk management training, as opposed to risk avoidance.
Risk Avoidance: Do everything in your power to prevent some risk, no matter the cost Risk Management: Assess the risk, consider the liklihood of the risk, the damage it will cost if it happens, then look at mitigations, how likely they are to work, how much they'll cost, etc... And make the cheapest decision. IE if on average the mitigation will prevent more loss than it costs, you impliment it. Otherwise you just accept the risk.
I agree with you in principle, however, this ignores how politics have played into the equation. What made me realize this was when the TSA proposed a change to the rules to allow small knives (up to 2.36") on planes again. At the time, this seemed like an exercise in proper risk management to me. However, there was an uproar among citizens and flight attendants. For (what appears to be) strictly political reasons, these proposed changes were cancelled.
It seems that the public suffers from a strange dichotomy where many of us are critical of security theater, but we still want security theater. Many want to believe that the government offers a great big security blanket that will never let anything bad happen to us. I'm sure that you and I know that there is no such thing, and the cost of this illusion is extremely high (both financial and to that of liberty).
You nailed it, DPRK is very much dependent on China for support. I don't fully understand why China wants to keep DPRK in power either, but I can shed a bit of light on the issue. You mentioned China's desire for a buffer between their borders and a westernized and America-friendly South Korea, this is a major issue. Another huge issue is that if the North Korean regime fails, China will have millions of refugees crossing its eastern border into areas that are already less stable than they would like. These areas have not developed at a rate consistent with the larger Chinese cities, and millions of Korean refugees would be a huge burden on those areas, threatening the regional stability - which is a hot-button issue for China.
I can't say that any country is immune from supporting regimes where atrocities exist when it supports their interests...but it doesn't stop me from being frustrated with China for supporting a failed regime like DPRK.
Yes it is about Snowden. And who is helping him both in the country and out of the country. And what his agenda is, because it wasn't brought up in any election debate outside of Ron Paul's camp. And it was a fringe position there at the time.
This story has been played out and the vast majority of the people care a lot more about the weather, Olympics, jobs, their financial outlook or a bunch of other things that are more important than this. Foreigners care and are more than happy to see our power get taken down by our own traitor.
Agenda? He has made that clear. He's no Assange, he's not in this for the publicity. Have you bothered to watch the interview or read the articles?
American power taken down? That is an absolutely ridiculous statement. This is a government being is embarrassed by its own actions. Traitor? That's also bogus language - traitor to a government or its people? Which is more important, the nation and what our people find acceptable or protecting a government? I think the former - especially when the government is breaking its own rules, and circumventing the intended legal oversight. That's why it's not about Snowden...it's about what our federal government is doing - more inside its borders than outside of its borders; but if it takes an international embarrassment to begin an actual discussion of what we find acceptable as a society, so be it.