| |
| By Ker Than for National Geographic News |
| October 16, 2008 |
| A newly developed bio-computer allows scientists to "program" molecules to carry out "commands" inside cells. Such devices could one day allow humans to manipulate biological systems directly, said the California Institute of Technology's Christina Smolke, who co-authored the study, which will be published tomorrow in the journal Science. Bio-computers might eventually serve as brains for producing biofuels from cells, for example, or to control "smart drugs" that medicate only under certain conditions. For example, a smart drug could sample a cellular environment and trigger a self-destruct sequence if disease is detected, Smolke said. (See a glossary of genetic terms.) Killer Computers The new bio-computer consists of snippets of engineered RNA assembled inside a yeast cell. RNA is a biological molecule similar to DNA, which encodes genetic information, such as how to make various proteins. In engineering terms, the bio-computer's "inputs" are molecules floating around inside the cell. The "output" manifests as changes in protein production. For example, an RNA computer may be able to bind with two different molecules. If both target molecules attach to it, they trigger the device to change shape. The altered bio-computer is now the right shape to bind to DNA, where it can directly affect gene expression and ramp up or slow down the making of desired proteins. Those proteins can affect the cell in various ways, such as killing it if it is cancerous. The team designed the different parts of their RNA computer to be modular, so the pieces can be mixed and matched. "Depending on the combination that we put together, we'll get different [effects]," Smolke said. Nature tends to evolve specialized molecules that perform single functions extremely well. Creating a few interchangeable components to carry out multiple functions is a different, but highly effective, design approach, the researchers say. Not for Wii Most scientists agree that biological computers are unlikely to surpass or even match the power and efficiency of electronic ones. "[They're] not to run Microsoft Windows any faster or run your latest game of Wii," commented Ron Weiss, an electrical engineer and molecular biologist at Princeton University in New Jersey. Rather, the power lies in bio-computers' potential ability to patch into and directly interact with, cellular processes. "It's basically speaking the language of the cells," said Weiss, who was not involved with the study. Weiss said the new finding "pushes the boundary" of what can be done with biological computers. "Previously [RNA computers] weren't quite as complex," Weiss said, adding that Smolke "is expanding the library of things that are available." New Awareness Ehud Shapiro is a computer scientist and biologist at the Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel. He was not involved in the study. Shapiro's team had previously created a bio-computer using DNA that worked inside a test tube and could perform simple calculations, such as determining whether a list of zeros and ones contained an even number of ones. But unlike the new RNA computer, Shapiro's test tube bio-computer was "oblivious" to its surroundings and could not interact with or be affected by its environs in any meaningful way, he said. "The work of Smolke shows a computer that can respond to molecules inside a cell," said Shapiro, who wrote a review of the new study for Science. Shapiro looks forward to a day when RNA computers are replaced by more sophisticated devices made from proteins. "Proteins are the most efficient natural devices we know of," he said. "We know how to evolve RNA to do simple tasks, but do not know yet how to engineer proteins." |
| Supporting what many of us who are not musically talented have often felt, new research reveals that trained musicians really do think differently than the rest of us. Vanderbilt University psychologists have found that professionally trained musicians more effectively use a creative technique called divergent thinking, and also use both the left and the right sides of their frontal cortex more heavily than the average person. |
| The research by Crystal Gibson, Bradley Folley and Sohee Park is currently in press at the journal Brain and Cognition. "We were interested in how individuals who are naturally creative look at problems that are best solved by thinking 'out of the box'," Folley said. "We studied musicians because creative thinking is part of their daily experience, and we found that there were qualitative differences in the types of answers they gave to problems and in their associated brain activity." One possible explanation the researchers offer for the musicians' elevated use of both brain hemispheres is that many musicians must be able to use both hands independently to play their instruments. "Musicians may be particularly good at efficiently accessing and integrating competing information from both hemispheres," Folley said. "Instrumental musicians often integrate different melodic lines with both hands into a single musical piece, and they have to be very good at simultaneously reading the musical symbols, which are like left-hemisphere-based language, and integrating the written music with their own interpretation, which has been linked to the right hemisphere." Previous studies of creativity have focused on divergent thinking, which is the ability to come up with new solutions to open-ended, multifaceted problems. Highly creative individuals often display more divergent thinking than their less creative counterparts. To conduct the study, the researchers recruited 20 classical music students from the Vanderbilt Blair School of Music and 20 non-musicians from a Vanderbilt introductory psychology course. The musicians each had at least eight years of training. The instruments they played included the piano, woodwind, string and percussion instruments. The groups were matched based on age, gender, education, sex, high school grades and SAT scores. The researchers conducted two experiments to compare the creative thinking processes of the musicians and the control subjects. In the first experiment, the researchers showed the research subjects a variety of household objects and asked them to make up new functions for them, and also gave them a written word association test. The musicians gave more correct responses than non-musicians on the word association test, which the researchers believe may be attributed to enhanced verbal ability among musicians. The musicians also suggested more novel uses for the household objects than their non-musical counterparts. In the second experiment, the two groups again were asked to identify new uses for everyday objects as well as to perform a basic control task while the activity in their prefrontal lobes was monitored using a brain scanning technique called near-infrared spectroscopy, or NIRS. NIRS measures changes in blood oxygenation in the cortex while an individual is performing a cognitive task. "When we measured subjects' prefrontal cortical activity while completing the alternate uses task, we found that trained musicians had greater activity in both sides of their frontal lobes. Because we equated musicians and non-musicians in terms of their performance, this finding was not simply due to the musicians inventing more uses; there seems to be a qualitative difference in how they think about this information," Folley said. The researchers also found that, overall, the musicians had higher IQ scores than the non-musicians, supporting recent studies that intensive musical training is associated with an elevated IQ score. Source: Vanderbilt University |
| This news is brought to you by PhysOrg.com |
You'd be surprised how many people you know aren't registered to vote. Registration deadlines are coming up soon, and we need every single vote we can get to win this election. Tell your friends, family, and neighbors to check out our new one-stop voter registration website. Just forward this message. VoteforChange.com makes it easier than ever to register. Instead of tracking down the right forms, all you need to do is answer a few basic questions and you'll be ready to vote. You can also:
This race is too close and too important to stay home on Election Day. If you take the time to register and vote -- and make sure everyone you know is registered as well -- we'll be able to turn the tide of the past eight years. It's people just like you who will transform this nation. Thanks, Barack | |
Listen Now [3 min 56 sec] add to playlist
All Things Considered, September 13, 2008 · Unemployment is on the rise. The latest data peg the nation's unemployment rate at 6.1 percent. Job loss that was once confined to problem sectors, such as construction and mortgage finance, is now spreading across the labor market.
As we watched Sarah Palin on TV the last couple of days, we kept wondering what on earth John McCain was thinking.
If he seriously thought this first-term governor — with less than two years in office — was qualified to be president, if necessary, at such a dangerous time, it raises profound questions about his judgment. If the choice was, as we suspect, a tactical move, then it was shockingly irresponsible.
It was bad enough that Ms. Palin’s performance in the first televised interviews she has done since she joined the Republican ticket was so visibly scripted and lacking in awareness.
What made it so much worse is the strategy for which the Republicans have made Ms. Palin the frontwoman: win the White House not on ideas, but by denigrating experience, judgment and qualifications.
The idea that Americans want leaders who have none of those things — who are so blindly certain of what Ms. Palin calls “the mission” that they won’t even pause for reflection — shows a contempt for voters and raises frightening questions about how Mr. McCain and Ms. Palin plan to run this country.
One of the many bizarre moments in the questioning by ABC News’s Charles Gibson was when Ms. Palin, the governor of Alaska, excused her lack of international experience by sneering that Americans don’t want “somebody’s big fat résumé maybe that shows decades and decades in that Washington establishment where, yes, they’ve had opportunities to meet heads of state.”
We know we were all supposed to think of Joe Biden. But it sure sounded like a good description of Mr. McCain. Those decades of experience earned the Arizona senator the admiration of people in both parties. They are why he was our preferred candidate in the Republican primaries.
The interviews made clear why Americans should worry about Ms. Palin’s thin résumé and lack of experience. Consider her befuddlement when Mr. Gibson referred to President Bush’s “doctrine” and her remark about having insight into Russia because she can see it from her state.
But that is not what troubled us most about her remarks — and, remember, if they were scripted, that just means that they reflect Mr. McCain’s views all the more closely. Rather, it was the sense that thoughtfulness, knowledge and experience are handicaps for a president in a world populated by Al Qaeda terrorists, a rising China, epidemics of AIDS, poverty and fratricidal war in the developing world and deep economic distress at home.
Ms. Palin talked repeatedly about never blinking. When Mr. McCain asked her to run for vice president? “You have to be wired in a way of being so committed to the mission,” she said, that “you can’t blink.”
Fighting terrorism? “We must do whatever it takes, and we must not blink, Charlie, in making those tough decisions of where we go and even who we target.”
Her answers about why she had told her church that President Bush’s failed policy in Iraq was “God’s plan” did nothing to dispel our concerns about her confusion between faith and policy. Her claim that she was quoting a completely unrelated comment by Lincoln was absurd.
This nation has suffered through eight years of an ill-prepared and unblinkingly obstinate president. One who didn’t pause to think before he started a disastrous war of choice in Iraq. One who blithely looked the other way as the Taliban and Al Qaeda regrouped in Afghanistan. One who obstinately cut taxes and undercut all efforts at regulation, unleashing today’s profound economic crisis.
In a dangerous world, Americans need a president who knows that real strength requires serious thought and preparation.
Wal-Mart Stores Inc. is mobilizing U.S. store managers to lobby against Democrats in November's presidential election, fearing they will make it easier for workers to unionize, The Wall Street Journal reported on Friday.
In recent weeks, thousands of Wal-Mart managers and department heads have been summoned to mandatory meetings at which the retailer stresses the downside for workers if store workers unionize, the paper said.
About a dozen employees who attended meetings in seven states said executives argued employees would have to pay hefty union dues and get nothing in return, and might have to go on strike without compensation. They also warned that unionization could force the company to cut jobs as labor costs rise, the Journal reported.
| RAW STORY Published: Thursday April 17, 2008  |  | ||||
| Print This Email This | ||||
Text of Thursday's press release, from Rep. Frank's Congressional website, follows.
####
Congressman, 4th District, Massachusetts 2252 Rayburn Building · Washington, D.C. 20515 · (202) 225-5931FRANK INTRODUCES LEGISLATION TO REMOVE FEDERAL PENALTIES ON PERSONAL MARIJUANA USE
Congressman Also Files Bill Permitting Medical Use of Marijuana in States that Choose to Allow it with Doctor’s Recommendation
Congressman Barney Frank today introduced bi-partisan legislation aimed at removing federal restrictions on the individual use of marijuana. One bill would remove federal penalties
Congressman Frank released the following statement explaining the legislation.
“I think it is poor law enforcement to keep on the books legislation that establishes as a crime something which in fact society does not seriously wish to prosecute. In my view, having federal law enforcement agents engaged in the prosecution of people who are personally using marijuana is a waste of scarce resources better used
"When doctors recommend the use of marijuana
To those who say that the government should not be encouraging the smoking of marijuana, my response is that I completely agree. But it is a great mistake to divide all human activity into two categories: those that are criminally prohibited, and those that are encouraged. In a free society, there must be a very considerable zone of activity between those two poles in which people are allowed to make their own choices as long as they are not impinging on the rights, freedom, or property of others. I believe it is important with regard to tobacco, marijuana and alcohol, among other things, that we strictly regulate the age at which people may use these substances. And, enforcement of age restrictions should be firm. But, criminalizing choices that adults make because we think they are unwise ones, when the choices involved have no negative effect on the rights of others, is not appropriate in a free society.”
“If the laws I am proposing pass, states will still be free to treat marijuana as they wish. But I do not believe that the federal government should treat adults who choose to smoke marijuana as criminals. Federal law enforcement is a serious business, and we should be concentrating our efforts in this regard on measures that truly protect the public.”
June 25, 2008 | 5:08:32 Pm The Senate is debating a bill Wednesday that would dismiss lawsuits against telecoms that helped the government warrantlessly spy on Americans and drastically expand blanket surveillance operations based in telecom facilities inside the United States.
However, the bill may not pass as quickly as presumed due to legislative deadlock ahead of the Independence Day break.
Senators Russ Feingold and Christopher Dodd, the bill's most outspoken opponents, are attempting to slow the bill's progress, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says the bill may not get a full vote due to logjams over housing and Medicare bills.
In a replay of his almost-filibuster in December, Connecticut Democrat Dodd took to the Senate floor last night for an impassioned speech against the bill, which he said "goes against everything I stand for and everything I think this body ought to stand for."
Dodd described the telecom amnesty provision, which would require a judge to toss lawsuits against telecoms if the administration shows that it gave a written request to the companies for help over the five-year run of the president's warrantless, wiretapping program.
The question is not whether these companies received a "document" from the White House. The question is, "were their actions legal?" It’s rather straightforward—surprisingly uncomplicated.
Either the companies were presented with a warrant, or they weren’t. Either the companies and the President acted outside of the rule of law, or they followed it. Either the underlying program was legal or it wasn’t.
Because of this legislation, none of the questions will be answered.
But California Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein countered that it was necessary to update the nation's surveillance laws because more international communications flow through switches inside the United States than when Congress created the current spying framework in 1978.
"Taking no action means we will be opeing our self, in my view, to the possibly of a massive attack," Feinstein said on the Senate floor Wednesday.
Feinstein cited improvements in the bill, including a first-ever provision that would require the government to get a warrant from a court to target an American overseas. Under the current Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the government can wiretap outside the United States without any court oversight, though a presidential order requires that a targeted wiretap of an American overseas must be approved by a high level government agent.
However, Wisconsin's Russ Feingold -- the only senator to vote against the Patriot Act -- was no fan of the expanded domestic surveillance authority or amnesty. He suggested simply extending the temporary powers for blanket surveillance conducted inside the U.S. against communications that include one foreigner, saying that there was no need to pass this in the middle of a presidential campaign.
"This is a tragic retreat," Feingold said. "It needlessly sacrifices the privacy of innocent American and it is an abdication of this body's duty to stand up for the rule of law."
Republican Senator Saxby Chambliss (Georgia) countered that failing to dismiss the lawsuits against the telecoms would backfire on the country in the future.
"If we don't tell the private sector that you won't suffer any loss for stepping up after 9/11 to protect Americans, then should we expect the private sector to step up next time whatever the crisis might be?" Chambliss asked.
Utah Republican Orrin Hatch defended the President's warrantless wiretapping program, arguing that the program was similar to warrantless, physical searches in airports and at the border. The Supreme Court says those legal since they were reasonable and targeted.
"Right not there are people waiting for warrantless searches at the National Archives, people being warrantless searched before seeing the Fourth Amendment," Hatch said.
The debate is continuing on into the late afternoon in D.C., in anticipation of a vote to close debate on the bill, though Dodd and Feingold are working to forestall that vote.
If cloture is invoked, Feingold and Dodd, along with Vermont Democrat Patrick Leahy, will push for an amendment to strip immunity from the bill.
A federal judge is awarding Tanya Andersen, who defeated the Recording Industry Association of America's file sharing lawsuit, $108,000 in legal fees to compensate for defending herself against the RIAA.
The award, made public Wedesday by U.S. District Judge James A. Redden of Oregon, marks the second time that a target of the RIAA who beat a lawsuit was awarded attorney's fees. In August, a federal judge ordered the RIAA to pay $68,685 in litigation costs to two Oklahoma women whose case was dismissed.
Whether RIAA defendants who successfully defend such suits are automatically entitled to legal fees is on appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. The dispute is whether judges must award fees to a prevailing party under the Copyright Act.
Judge Redden ruled (.pdf) that RIAA's arguments against legal fees were "misplaced."
"An award of attorney's fees to the prevailing party are 'the rule rather than the exception' under the Copyright Act, and 'should be awarded routinely,'" Redden wrote.
The RIAA dropped the case against Andersen last year after concluding her hard drive didn't contain purloined music tracks. The RIAA initially claimed a Kazaa shared directory that linked to her internet-protocol address was unlawfully distributing thousands of songs.
In response to the lawsuit against her, Andersen has countersued the RIAA in a case seeking class-action status to represent what her attorneys say is thousands of persons wrongly sued by the RIAA. That case has been dismissed three times, and its fourth try is pending.
Andersen attorney Lory Lybeck requested $300,000 and the RIAA suggested $30,000 was more appropriate. The award is upwards of $190 a hour.
The RIAA has sued more than 20,000 people for copyright infringement.
CHICAGO (Reuters) - The gun carried by a US Airways pilot accidentally went off on a flight from Denver to Charlotte on Saturday, causing the plane to be pulled from service, the airline said on Monday.
No one was injured by the shot, and the aircraft landed safely in Charlotte. Flight 1536 had 124 passengers, two pilots and three flight attendants aboard, US Airways said.
The pilot was a Federal Flight Deck Officer, permissioned by the U.S. Transportation Security Administration to carry a firearm.
© Reuters 2008 All rights reserved
Former attorney general John D. Ashcroft today strenuously defended a government-sanctioned contract that could earn his consulting firm more than $50 million, saying there is no conflict of interest in the appointment made by one of his former U.S. attorneys.
Ashcroft has come under scrutiny from Democratic lawmakers since he accepted a no-bid contract to oversee the operations of an Indiana medical equipment company which is accused of giving kickbacks to doctors. He was chosen by U.S. Attorney Christopher Christie of New Jersey, a Republican who once worked for Ashcroft.
"There is not a conflict," Ashcroft said. "There is not an appearance of conflict."
Ashcroft's testimony to the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law marked his first appearance before Congress since he left his post as head of the Justice Department in late 2004, officials said.
In addition to defending his current work, Ashcroft used the occasion to herald some of his accomplishments as attorney general, including generally declining crime rates and aggressive anti-terrorism programs.
Ashcroft is now a lobbyist who runs his own Washington consulting firm, The Ashcroft Group, which was awarded a contract last fall to oversee the operations of Zimmer Holdings of Warsaw, Ind. Zimmer avoided criminal prosecution for allegedly paying doctors to use its products, according to the settlement.
The deal is expected to earn Ashcroft's firm between $28 million and $52 million over 18 months, according to financial filings.
The subcommittee's chairwoman, Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.), said today that the deal "appeared to be a backroom, sweetheart deal," because Ashcroft was chosen by Christie without competition.
Sanchez also said that, until this week, "the parties to these agreements were operating in a Wild West environment with no laws and no Justice Department guidelines."
The Justice Department on Monday imposed new restrictions on such monitoring agreements, requiring U.S. attorneys to obtain approval from Justice headquarters for such agreements and to form special committees to review potential applicants for the assignments.
Ashcroft said that outside monitors, which have been used increasingly in corporate fraud cases in recent years, save taxpayers money by avoiding costly prosecutions and forcing companies to follow the law.
"This hearing cost far more in tax dollars than my monitorship will cost, because it did not cost taxpayers one thin dime," Ashcroft testified. Under the arrangements, the cost of the monitoring is borne by the company, which agrees to pay to avoid criminal prosecution.
The practice has become more popular since the 2002 indictment of accounting firm Arthur Andersen LLP, which folded after being convicted of obstructing justice and put most of its employees out of work. Prosecutors view deferred prosecutions, with monitor arrangements, as a way to avoid closing a company altogether while ensuring compliance with the law.
Typically, U.S. attorneys defer the threat of prosecution as a way of maintaining some leverage over the companies' future conduct. Such deferred prosecutions have mostly been used for nonviolent juvenile and drug offenders, rather than for large corporations suspected of criminal wrongdoing.
Staff writer Carrie Johnson contributed to this report.
| US Middle East Commander to Retire | |
| Pentagon 11 March 2008 |
The senior U.S. military officer responsible managing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and U.S. military engagement throughout the Middle East, Central Asia and East Africa, has decided to retire this month after a magazine article said he opposed administration policy toward Iran. VOA's Al Pessin reports from the Pentagon.
 |
| Adm. William Fallon testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington, 4 Mar 2008 |
In a statement issued Tuesday, the admiral says he does not believe there have ever been any differences about policy objectives in his area of responsibility. But he says the perception of differences makes it difficult for him to effectively serve U.S. interests in the area.
Announcing Admiral Fallon's departure, Secretary Gates said he granted the retirement request "with reluctance and regret." He said there is no policy difference, only the perception of a difference. But in the end that was enough.
"Part of the problem here, and I think it's finally manifested in Admiral Fallon's decision that he communicated to me this morning is that we have tried between us to put this misperception behind us over a period of months, and frankly just have not been successful in doing so," said Robert Gates.
Secretary Gates said the decision was not based on any one article, but the Esquire profile of the admiral caused some stir in Washington. It called Fallon "the man between war and peace" and said he had defied the president by opposing war with Iran. The article, which did not attribute most of its assertions, also claimed Admiral Fallon might soon be fired, and that if that happened it could signal a move toward war.
Secretary Gates dismissed that claim.
"The notion that this decision portends anything in terms of a change in Iran policy is, to quote myself, ridiculous," he said.
Secretary Gates has called Admiral Fallon one of the best strategic thinkers in the U.S. military, and he said Tuesday the admiral's departure will leave a "hole' in his team. But Gates said the admiral's views on Iraq will be reflected in a report his command will submit later this month as part of an Iraq policy review.
The admiral's retirement takes effect at the end of the month, and will mark the end of his nearly 42 years of service. He had been expected to remain at Central Command at least until the end of the year. In that position, he is one of the top 10 operational commanders in the U.S. military. He is one of very few officers to hold four four-star commands during his career, and also one of few remaining in the U.S. military who served in Vietnam.
Secretary Gates said he led with "conviction, strategic vision, integrity and courage." President Bush said the admiral served "with great distinction," and gave him credit for what he called recent progress in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Admiral Fallon will be replaced temporarily by his deputy, Lieutenant General Martin Dempsey.
On Feb 14 Wikileaks was unconstitutionally censored!
Take action! Help Wikileaks fight to get the truth out and change the world for the better.
