Billshurv,
That was what I was thinking, where is the sugar going!? If you eat fruit you are getting both fructose and glucose, eat pasta and you convert the carbs to glucose, eat something like a carrot and I imagine you get some of both types of sugar. Our bodies are made to convert compounds from one form to another, making all kinds of things, glucose being one of those we need to survive. After all of this I say it is still a matter of moderation in how much and what you eat. Whether a vegan, vegetarian or a meat eater we have to watch what and how much of what we eat, not really needed to be a rocket scientist or even a nutritionist really. I give it to those who are vegan or vegetarian who can figure out how to get a truly balanced diet, it isn't all that simple to get everything you need that is so easy from eating some type of animal protein whether red meat or fish. If fish wasn't so damned expensive and so many types so polluted I would just give up the other types of meat and eat a fish instead, those fish have to be killed, they sh*t and p*ss in the ocean and must be stopped!
That was what I was thinking, where is the sugar going!? If you eat fruit you are getting both fructose and glucose, eat pasta and you convert the carbs to glucose, eat something like a carrot and I imagine you get some of both types of sugar. Our bodies are made to convert compounds from one form to another, making all kinds of things, glucose being one of those we need to survive. After all of this I say it is still a matter of moderation in how much and what you eat. Whether a vegan, vegetarian or a meat eater we have to watch what and how much of what we eat, not really needed to be a rocket scientist or even a nutritionist really. I give it to those who are vegan or vegetarian who can figure out how to get a truly balanced diet, it isn't all that simple to get everything you need that is so easy from eating some type of animal protein whether red meat or fish. If fish wasn't so damned expensive and so many types so polluted I would just give up the other types of meat and eat a fish instead, those fish have to be killed, they sh*t and p*ss in the ocean and must be stopped!
Let me qualify that biochemistry isn't my specialty either, simply that I've had to learn a whole bunch along the way and have enough perspective to know when people are just making stuff up that is nonsensical. Still an EE who plays with medical devices and shouldn't overstep that bound.
John, honestly, it's not arrogance. It's being trained that you take little for granted and stick to evidence when you can, with a heaping helpful of Bayesian and underlying mechanics to get you closer to the target. So wild, off the cuff comments that are ideology heavy and would completely rock our understanding of the universe are treated with the utmost in scepticism.
For the record, I'm wrong a lot.
Kindhornman "eat pasta and you convert the carbs to glucose" rigth but isen't a problem becouse are slow process , skip white bread ie raffinate flour like 0 , 00
carrot are not a problem we don't eat 1kg all days 😉 , 2/3 fruit is not a problem too btw you are rigth, moderation is the key !
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9N8hbInjKhA
[url]http://www.nature.com/news/sugar-substitutes-linked-to-obesity-1.15938
[/URL]
carrot are not a problem we don't eat 1kg all days 😉 , 2/3 fruit is not a problem too btw you are rigth, moderation is the key !
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9N8hbInjKhA
[url]http://www.nature.com/news/sugar-substitutes-linked-to-obesity-1.15938
[/URL]
Last edited:
I spent a substantial portion of my childhood in StL and, yes, my dad did work for Monsanto, albeit a polymer group that later spun off into another company.
Do know a seed scientist there though.
The funny thing is natural hybridizing is much more likely to cause allergy effects than specific splicing because you're changing so many things at once versus specific manipulations. But, if you read about some of the newer engineered produce, they're hybrids with the added bonus of careful analysis one expects from GMO's.
Does sound rather kinky, doesn't it.
(Ross 308 chicken, and FPD plus footpad lesions. Still pass)
Last edited:
🙂
Jacco, don't tell anyone, or our IRBs will be revoked, haha.
Explaining in more careful detail what I do is something I wouldn't normally torture people with. (Imagine that's pretty common for most of us)
Jacco, don't tell anyone, or our IRBs will be revoked, haha.
Explaining in more careful detail what I do is something I wouldn't normally torture people with. (Imagine that's pretty common for most of us)
Derf, it is not that you might disagree with some else's opinion, but the way that you demand so much from the person(s) that you might disagree with.
This happens in audio when PhD's, like Dr. Lipshitz, politely ignored my own listening tests, more than 35 years ago(when I was 1/2 my age now) between components, because it did not meet his ABX double-blind criteria. Yet, when I found problems in his testing procedure, I was politely ignored again! This DEMAND for hard proof will not work with audio quality. There is too much that we find useful, yet cannot prove with a hard measurement. Yet, to throw out our listening experience is 'throwing the baby out with with bathwater' and you might just as well take up another topic to discuss.
This happens in audio when PhD's, like Dr. Lipshitz, politely ignored my own listening tests, more than 35 years ago(when I was 1/2 my age now) between components, because it did not meet his ABX double-blind criteria. Yet, when I found problems in his testing procedure, I was politely ignored again! This DEMAND for hard proof will not work with audio quality. There is too much that we find useful, yet cannot prove with a hard measurement. Yet, to throw out our listening experience is 'throwing the baby out with with bathwater' and you might just as well take up another topic to discuss.
derf: except on this forum a lot of us would be quite interested in that 🙂
My Sister used to explain how she had been part of the team that measured how fast DNA spins during replication. It's a rapid little thing...
My Sister used to explain how she had been part of the team that measured how fast DNA spins during replication. It's a rapid little thing...
John, we might struggle far more with perception tests, as those are inherently going to be noisier and soft endpoints (what you're measuring isn't terribly precise) just lack the sort of quantification you need to be moderately conclusive. The biggest issue I have with most people's "listening tests" is that they're simply bad experimental design, and then these listening tests are sold as some sort of gold standard. They're not. They're, at best, a good starting point for a new hypothesis. No doubt that doing really good testing is stressful and time/money expensive (as BCarso is good to point out), which makes it difficult for the average (and even most of the exceptional) Joes of the world. At the same time, the very weakness of those "listening tests" should go a LONG ways to tempering one's conclusions.
Immune response, on the other hand, has a plenty of hard endpoints. And the claims made fly in the face of the body of literature. So Sagan's ever-famous quote is relevant here.
None of us is perfect, that's for sure, but making bold claims about absolute truths had better have some serious backup. Or some reevaluation of one's world view is in order.
I like trotting this out whenever I can, so I'll do it again:
http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
It's a good article to read as it sharpens your mind to ways that errors can creep into your problem solving methods (or research, since there's no real distinction).
Immune response, on the other hand, has a plenty of hard endpoints. And the claims made fly in the face of the body of literature. So Sagan's ever-famous quote is relevant here.
None of us is perfect, that's for sure, but making bold claims about absolute truths had better have some serious backup. Or some reevaluation of one's world view is in order.
I like trotting this out whenever I can, so I'll do it again:
http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
It's a good article to read as it sharpens your mind to ways that errors can creep into your problem solving methods (or research, since there's no real distinction).
Last edited:
I have someone arguing with me now on Facebook, who believes that you can't reproduce low frequencies in a small room. He even asserted that the perception of the fundamental was based on the psychoacoustical phenomenon of the brain supplying the missing bass from harmonic distortion components of the fundamental, which of course works (and has been exploited with moderate success by some)---but you have to have the distortion (or generate it in your ears). When I suggested he study acoustics he rejoined that he'd been studying it all his life. I suggested that he then cite scholarly references.
I don't care if the cites are of articles written by PhDs. But this is, or should not be at least, a particularly contentious subject. In a way it is comparable to the problem people have with EM theory for near fields, like Tesla did (and which, among other things, marked his descent into near-quackery, paranoia, and separation from established science).
The problem with advanced degrees is the tendency to slip into believing that one knows everything. I've thought that universities should develop additional and ever-more-advanced degrees so that the process is never complete. But about the closest thing to that are the steps in the classification of professorships, with the requirements being increasingly more in the way of cited publications and more global recognition.
When I dealt with a plethora of PhDs years ago, I came to cherish Andy Young's articles about photometers, in which he states "It is a mistake to believe that a PhD qualifies one to design instruments".
Andy was bright but not very political (I shouldn't speak of him in the past tense but he is probably retired now). When I met him at Table Mountain Observatory, circa 1983, I said how much I'd enjoyed his article in Icarus about the terrible photometry provided by vidicons on the Mariner Mars flyby. He laughed and said Yes! That's the article that got me fired!
I don't care if the cites are of articles written by PhDs. But this is, or should not be at least, a particularly contentious subject. In a way it is comparable to the problem people have with EM theory for near fields, like Tesla did (and which, among other things, marked his descent into near-quackery, paranoia, and separation from established science).
The problem with advanced degrees is the tendency to slip into believing that one knows everything. I've thought that universities should develop additional and ever-more-advanced degrees so that the process is never complete. But about the closest thing to that are the steps in the classification of professorships, with the requirements being increasingly more in the way of cited publications and more global recognition.
When I dealt with a plethora of PhDs years ago, I came to cherish Andy Young's articles about photometers, in which he states "It is a mistake to believe that a PhD qualifies one to design instruments".
Andy was bright but not very political (I shouldn't speak of him in the past tense but he is probably retired now). When I met him at Table Mountain Observatory, circa 1983, I said how much I'd enjoyed his article in Icarus about the terrible photometry provided by vidicons on the Mariner Mars flyby. He laughed and said Yes! That's the article that got me fired!
BTW the topic that started the discussion was the benefits (or absence of them) of subwoofers.
Forget the fructose guys, this just in from a reputable source:-
Planet 9 could destroy the earth as soon as this month
http://www.msn.com/en-gb/video/topvideos/planet-9-could-destroy-earth-as-soon-as-this-month/vi-BBrwQ
Planet 9 could destroy the earth as soon as this month
http://www.msn.com/en-gb/video/topvideos/planet-9-could-destroy-earth-as-soon-as-this-month/vi-BBrwQ
Dan say it aint so, false positives, corollary findings by multiple teams and experimental bias, how can it be! I know the world is flat, everyone can see it, I have plenty of people who agree. 🙄
I would add that most others who posted in the FB thread supported my criticisms. This stuff is well-understood now, although the optimization of multiple sub placements for uniform coverage in a given room is complex. But it sure helps when it is done well.
Toole worked with some others to get the subs right in his medium-sized listening room, and it paid off nicely. He's upgrading the main speakers again, this time to some newer Revels, and I anticipate it will improve things further, as I've never found the existing Infinity columnar ones all that beguiling. But the bass is excellent, and one comes to take it for granted in a hurry. You realize later with other systems not so well-executed that it is unusually good, particularly the near-independence of level versus location in the room.
Toole worked with some others to get the subs right in his medium-sized listening room, and it paid off nicely. He's upgrading the main speakers again, this time to some newer Revels, and I anticipate it will improve things further, as I've never found the existing Infinity columnar ones all that beguiling. But the bass is excellent, and one comes to take it for granted in a hurry. You realize later with other systems not so well-executed that it is unusually good, particularly the near-independence of level versus location in the room.
Haha, here goes.
The quick form of it is that I design devices that take advantage of the dielectric properties of cells versus free-floating cellular fragments* and other extra-cellular signalling/expression particles (e.g. exosomes) to isolate out these smaller particles/fragments for further processing/analysis. It's a sample preparation technique that *hopefully* allows us to go from a biological sample (blood, urine, cerebrospinal fluid, etc) to a buffered isolate without a number of intermediate steps. A search for "dielectrophoresis" will give you the basics of the physics, but, unexpectedly 😀, the details are where things get ugly. My work is ultimately very multidisciplinary, because I have to tie in that biology understanding with enough EM and materials science to make it all happen.
One of the applications which people are really excited about (what would be downstream of my isolation technique) is for doing blood biopsies for cancer diagnostics, as tumors tend to turn over cells pretty quickly and are dumping a lot of signalling particles as well; and we're finding that there's usually enough tumor-specific DNA floating around to identify the mutations. At least in higher stages and some cancers tend to express more than others, but we're obviously trying to push the SNR up to see smaller and more diffuse tumors. (I'm being general since I don't know much more than that!) All of which gives this diagnostic modality a number of advantages over imaging and tumor biopsies, albeit also one with numerous limitations and subject to lead time bias. Much of the research is looking into using circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA in literature) as a companion diagnostic to understand how a treatment is working and to watch for evolution in the cancer over time (remission).
* When cells die, they generally go through 2 processes: apoptosis where the cell expresses a number of enzymes which digest the contents of the cell, thus releasing very small cell fragments into the bloodstream to be picked up by spleen/liver/? (Again, I'm out of my depth here) to be reused/sent to the waste bin; and necrosis where the cell degrades unnaturally and essentially "pops" and dumps all kinds of cell fragments of wide-ranging levels of decay into the bloodstream. I will note here that while apoptosis is *normally* the healthy way cells die, you can have cell signalling which causes uncontrolled mass-apoptosis. That is not good.
Hopefully that gives a bit of an snapshot. Sorry, Bonsai, for pulling this discussion even further away from anything remotely close to audio. On the upside, reading about your guys' low noise preamp stuff is helpful for me to have a better grasp on the electronics side of my work, so we can be thankful for that. 😀
This is exactly why I like Scott Wurcer's signature quote so much. Let content reign, not titles. (One *does* hope one learns a bit during one's Ph.D, however, but at least for me, I've learned far, far, FAR more about how little I really know/understand, even though that makes me evidently come across as a know-it-all.)
- Status
- Not open for further replies.