Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:They did not pass "aversion" to their grandkids (Score 1) 118

by belphegore (#45579817) Attached to: Scientists Find Olfactory "Memory" Passed Between Generations In Mice

Yes, for the initial test group. But two things (quotes from blog not TFP):

1. "startle" is not necessarily aversion

For example, the researchers didn’t do a control experiment where the F0 animals are exposed to the fruity odor without the shock. So it’s unclear whether the “memory” they’re transmitting to their offspring is a fear memory, per se, or rather an increased sensitivity to an odor.

and 2. not for the group where they used IVF to create the offspring to eliminate some possible biases:

To control for these possibilities, the researchers performed an in vitro fertilization (IVF) experiment in which they trained male animals to fear acetophenone and then 10 days later harvested the animals’ sperm. They sent the sperm to another lab across campus where it was used to artificially inseminate female mice. Then the researchers looked at the brains of the offspring. They had larger M71 glomeruli, just as before. (The researchers couldn’t perform behavioral tests on these animals because of laboratory regulations about animal quarantine.)

Comment: They did not pass "aversion" to their grandkids (Score 5, Informative) 118

by belphegore (#45578265) Attached to: Scientists Find Olfactory "Memory" Passed Between Generations In Mice

The grandkids had enhanced receptors for that particular smell. They specifically did not test for, and point out in the paper that they do not claim that the AVERSION was passed on, only that F1 and F2 had structures in the brain that are enlarged compared to control, and that are associated with the sense of smell for the chemical that was used to prime the F0 generation.

Much better science-savvy writeup by my cousin on the Nat Geo blog:

http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/12/01/mice-inherit-specific-memories-because-epigenetics/

Comment: Re:Too bad (Score 2) 216

It's not totally missing. Max legal wifi xmit power is 100mW at the source. Conversion at the receiver is ~37% efficient. So if you're directly on top of the xmitter, capturing ALL the (generally omni-radiated) energy, you'd get 37mW of power. USB on newer devices is like ~10W.

And of course if you're not capturing 100% of the signal in all directions, and if you're away from the source (remember friends: inverse square power dropoff), then you'll be lucky to get even a mW.

Comment: Meanwhile, THEIR code is sketchy (Score 3, Funny) 470

by belphegore (#45275207) Attached to: How Your Compiler Can Compromise Application Security

Checked out their git repo and did a build. They have a couple sketchy-looking warnings in their own code. A reference to an undefined variable; storing a 35-bit value in a 32-bit variable...

lglib.c:6896:7: warning: variable 'res' is used uninitialized whenever 'if' condition is true [-Wsometimes-uninitialized]
lglib.c:6967:10: note: uninitialized use occurs here
plingeling.c:456:17: warning: signed shift result (0x300000000) requires 35 bits to represent, but 'int' only has 32 bits [-Wshift-overflow]

An Ada exception is when a routine gets in trouble and says 'Beam me up, Scotty'.

Working...