FINDINGS

A new study by scientists at UCLA found that when mice eat a high-fat diet, the cells in their small intestines respond the same way they do to a viral infection, turning up production of certain immune molecules and causing inflammation throughout the body. The scientists also found that feeding the mice tomatoes containing a protein similar to that in HDL, or good cholesterol, along with the generic cholesterol drug Ezetimibe, reversed the inflammation.

The results could lead to new types of drugs, targeting the intestinal cells, to reduce peoples risk of heart attacks and strokes, or to treat other conditions linked to inflammation, including cancer and inflammatory bowel disease.

Researchers already knew that prolonged obesity can cause inflammation of the liver and fat tissues, and that this inflammation contributes to the development of diabetes and heart disease. Studies have also shown that higher levels of high-density lipoprotein, or HDL, cholesterol, reduces a persons risk of heart disease.

The UCLA research team, led by Alan Fogelman, chair of the department of medicine at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA,previously developed genetically engineered tomatoes that contained 6F, a protein resembling the main protein in high-density lipoprotein. In early experiments on 6F, they found that the compound was active in the small intestines of mice, and that it reduced inflammation. But exactly how it did this was unclear.

The scientists fed either a standard chow or a high-fat, high-cholesterol Western diet to mice that were especially prone to developing clogged arteries. They also treated some of the mice with either 6F, in the form of a tomato concentrate containing the protein, Ezetimibe, or both. After two weeks, cells from the small intestines of the mice were collected and blood samples were taken. The researchers measured cholesterol levels as well as the levels of inflammatory and immune molecules in both the intestines and throughout the body.

The findings shed light on the molecular details of how high-fat diets cause inflammation in the body, by making the intestines activate the pathway normally triggered by a virus. This suggests that blocking this immune reaction as 6F and Ezetimibe do may treat inflammatory diseases and decrease peoples risk of heart attack and stroke.

The authors of the study are all faculty and researchers at UCLA, affiliated with the Department of Medicine; Department of Molecular and Medical Pharmacology; Department of Human Genetics; Department of Microbiology, Immunology & Molecular Genetics; Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology; Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior; and Department of Molecular, Cell and Developmental Biology. The first author is Pallavi Mukherjee; Fogelman is the senior author.

The studywas published June 7, 2017, in the Journal of Lipid Research.

The study was funded by the United States Public Health Service (2P01 HL-30568) and the Castera, Laubisch, and Milt Grey funds at UCLA.

Alan Fogelman, Mohamad Navab and Srinivasa Reddy are principals in Bruin Pharma, which is working to commercialize apoA-I mimetics, including the 6F peptide studied in this paper; Fogelman is additionally an officer of the company.

Read the rest here:
High-fat diet leads to same intestinal inflammation as a virus - UCLA Newsroom

By Fr. Jerry Pokorsky (bio - articles - email) | Jun 21, 2017

There is no contradiction between faith and reason, faith and science.Both share the same Author.Without contradiction, faith grasps truths that are beyond the reach of science.

There can be no earthly scientific proof of the Resurrection of Jesus, for example, just as there can be no scientific proof of Transubstantiation- the dogma of the Faith that mere bread and wine become the precious Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ at every Mass. Yet the Church infallibly teach these as dogmas of faith.Should we expect scientists- or any group of scientists- to share the same charism of infallibility?

We rightly tend to trust doctors, despite the many uncertainties in the medical profession.Most of us are living longer today because of science. Science can significantly improve the quality of life; but if abused, science can be used to destroy on a massive scale.Furthermore, scientific stud and the use of sciencewill forever remain prone to error, hitting a home run here and there, striking out on other occasions.

Yet many have more faith in science than in Gods revelation, even when experience suggests caution. In the 1960s, as many will recall, we were told that margarine was far healthier than butter.Now butter is said to be much healthier than margarine.Go figure.Newtons theories of physics were updated and somewhat replaced by Einsteins theory of relativity. Now scientists are calling into question some of the details of Einsteins theories.After all, E=mc2 can only go so far in explaining reality.

Darwins theory of evolution remains for many an enduring infallible dogma of science.Does scientific evidence truly support the theory?Genetic DNA configurations are fragile. Genetic mutations are necessary for significant changes in an organism.But the evidence accumulated by some scientists suggests mutations only result in deformation and death, not cross-species evolution.

Did evolution take place in increments?Are some races more human than others?Nazi Germany claimed to represent the master race because the Nazis placed themselves ahead of the curve in the evolutionary process. On the other hand, is there evidence of a widespread evolutionary leap from one species (monkeys, for example)en masseto the human species? If so, what is the scientific evidence?

Our faith teaches us that God created the world and His creation is good.He created the land and the sky and the animals. And my theory is that God created monkeys and many other creatures for our amusement and affection.Animals in so many ways are designed to be metaphors of human behavior and quite charming to behold: think of the comical behavior of monkeys in a zoo and the play of dolphins in the sea.These are subjective, not scientific observations, I realize.But scientific inquiry will never persuade me that the wildly funny beaks of birds have only a functional or evolutionary purpose.Thats my theory, anywayin search of empirical evidence which I recognize would be impossible to find.

As science authentically studies nature, many more mysteries unfold.The fascinating scientific reports from the Mars Exploration Rover, for instance, raise more questions than they resolve.Ultimately, science is the study of ever-expanding and never-ending mysteries. I think every honest scientist would agree.

There are those who say there is no scientific basis for the dogmas of the Catholic faith beyond the little that is supplied by archaeological digs and historical reporting.From the point of view of the empirical scientific method, this is true.But the fact that the mysteries of our faith are not accessible by science, does not mean faith is false or that it is opposed to science.The smile of a child is wonderful and mysterious, no matter how many brain waves and facial muscles are analyzed by science.The mystery of life with God as its Author will never be entirely grasped by our weak human reason.

But with Gods grace and with the eyes of faith we can delight in Gods revelation and more quickly grasp the meaning of the results of scientific inquiry.The study of science is the study of Gods handiwork.

Through faith in God's revelation, we move beyond the limitations of the physical world and with faith, we insist that the Eucharist is the source and summit of our life.On the authority of Jesus Himself, the Word is made flesh at every Mass and Christ feeds us with His sacred Body and Blood. Scientific analysis cannot prove the Divinity of the consecrated bread and wine any more than a scientific analysis can prove the existence of our immortal souls. To believe, we need a competent authority to tell us.And God cannot deceive.

But notice what these facts of faith do for us.The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature. (2 Peter 1-4). "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God." (Saint Athanasius)"The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."(Saint Thomas Aquinas)And best of all, This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever." (John 6:58)

Human reason and science are not obliterated or contradicted; human reason and science are elevated by faith and Gods grace. In believing and loving God, we are better able to love others.In union with Christ, we become more human in virtue, as intended by God.This is why we rejoice in Holy Communion and testify to our belief in the Real Presence.

Our faith in Jesus and His Real Presence gives us the reason for human reason.

Sound Off! CatholicCulture.org supporters weigh in.

All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!

There are no comments yet for this item.

View post:
The Reason for Human Reason - Catholic Culture

This puma (not involved in the study) fed on a single deer for five days. New research suggests these feedings can be interrupted by the pumas fear of humans, requiring them to hunt more often. (Image: Jon Nelson/Flickr)

We typically think of large predatory animals like mountain lions as fearless beasts thatll stop at nothing to procure a mealeven if that meal consists of human flesh. New research suggests that this view is wrong, and that big cats dont like to bump into us any more than we like to bump into them. Problem is, this fear of humans is altering the feeding behavior of big carnivores, and that may not be a good thing.

A study published led by by scientists from UC Santa Cruz and Western University in London, Ontario and published today in Proceedings of the Royal Society B, suggests that mountain lions in the Santa Cruz mountains, sometimes known as pumas or cougars, are spooked by the sound of human voices. These fearful encounters are causing the carnivores to flee their kill sites. Afterwards, some pumasalbeit very slowly and cautiouslywill return to their fallen prey, resulting in a 50 percent reduction in their feeding time on average. To make up for these lost meals, the pumas have to kill more deer, which often requires them to encroach upon human settings. In other words, fear of humans is altering puma behavior, and subsequently, their role in the ecosystem.

Big carnivores are scary, both to humans and the animals they prey upon. But as a new study

Were increasingly learning that large carnivores like pumas and wolves are critical to the health and stability of ecosystems. Last year, similar work by the same team of researchers confirmed a long-held notion that carnivores perform an important role in ecosystems by inducing fear in their prey. The presence of large predatory animals, the study showed, generates a landscape of fear that alters the feeding behavior of prey animals, which subsequently influences their impacts on other species down the food chain.

What this new study shows is that large carnivores like pumas can experience an almost identical situation, living within a landscape of fear generated by human activity that in turn affects the large carnivores relationship with its preyin this case, deer, said study co-author Justin Suraci in an interview with Gizmodo.

To assess a potential fear response in large carnivores, the researchers placed audio equipment at puma kill sites in the Santa Cruz mountains. Whenever a puma came to feed, its movements triggered a device that broadcast recordings of people having conversations at natural volumes. The researchers used recordings of Pacific tree frog vocalizations as a control.

A hidden camera captured images of the animals responses, revealing that pumas almost always run away from human voices, but practically never from the sounds of frogs. Across 20 experiments involving 17 pumas, 83 percent of pumas fled when exposed to human voices, and only one puma ran away when hearing frogs (wow, that must be one nervous puma).

Revealingly, pumas took longer to return to their kills after hearing human voices, reducing their feeding on these kills by half. Previous work from these scientists revealed higher kill rates of deer in more urbanized settings, and this finding is finally offering a plausible explanation as to why. Unable to eat the entire carcass in peace, the pumas are forced to kill more deer, which ironically often leads them into contact with more humans. More dead deer may seem trivial, perhaps even potentially beneficial, but the change in hunting habits could be altering the ecosystem in unexpected ways. There are often downstream effects to considerbut future work will have to suss this out.

To our knowledge this is the first direct experimental test of whether large carnivores respond fearfully to human presence, and whether this response has measurable ecological consequences, write the researchers in their study.

That mountain lions fear humans may come as a surprise to some, but theres good reason for this behavior.

For many large carnivore populations (including the pumas in our study area), humans are a primary source of mortality, and this is nothing new, said Suraci. People have been persecuting big, scary predators for thousands of years because of perceived threats to human life and livelihoods (e.g., shared prey such as big game or livestock), and pumas have been almost completely wiped out across much of North America over the past couple of centuries. Indeed several states offered bounties to kill pumas well into the 1960s. So there is plenty of cause for pumas to fear humans.

As to how pumas learn this behavior, Suraci says thats a much trickier question. All of the pumas in their study had some form of human habitation or development within their home range, and were likely to have experienced interactionssome of them potentially negativewith people. Suraci says it may also be the case that puma kittens, who spend up to a year with their mom, learn appropriate human avoidance behavior from her.

But in short, we really dont know exactly how they develop their fear of humans, he said. That they do behave fearfully towards humans, however, may be beneficial for both pumas and people, as pumas may actively try to avoid interactions with humans, reducing the likelihood of human-wildlife conflict.

It may seem counterintuitive and even dangerous to maintain populations of large carnivorous animals, but Suraci says theyre important for maintaining balanced ecosystems, preventing outbreaks of smaller predators (e.g. raccoons and coyotes) and large herbivores (e.g., deer) that act as pests to humans and can devastate biodiversity when unchecked.

What our study shows is that just having the large carnivores present may not be sufficient to allow them to fulfill this important role, if the fear of humans is changing the way they interact with their prey, he said. We need to consider how our own activities affect not just species abundance but also behavior if we want to maintain healthy ecosystems.

[Proceedings of the Royal Society B]

See the original post here:
Mountain Lions Are Terrified of Humansand That's a Problem - Gizmodo

This article first appeared on the Just Security site.

Last week, amid speculation that Acting Attorney General Rod Rosenstein may be forced to recuse himself from the expanding Russia investigation unless he gets fired first attention focused on the next in line: Associate Attorney General Rachel Brand.

Brand, it should be noted, has had a more obviously partisan career than Rosenstein, and the burning question seems to be whether she has the gumption or the will to stand up to the President if he tries to derail the investigation, for example by trying to fire Special Counsel Robert Mueller. (This is not to say Trump has the authority to fire Mueller Marty Lederman argues that he doesnt.)

Daily Emails and Alerts- Get the best of Newsweek delivered to your inbox

Does Brand have what it takes? Jack Goldsmith and Ben Wittes, both of whom know her well, affirm that she does and describe her as intelligent, fair, independent, and tough-minded.

My own answer to the question Who is Rachel Brand? is: it doesnt much matter. Its simply a mistake to focus on individual personality to predict how someone will act. Social psychologists have a long-standing name for this mistake: they call it the fundamental attribution error. Thats the error of explaining human behavior by individual character and personality traits.

The situation in which we find ourselves matters crucially, often invisibly, and to a far greater degree than common sense would suggest. This is a lesson we might apply not only to Brand, but also to Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster and other souls in this administration.

Rachel Brand, Associate Attorney General, testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington March 7, 2017. Aaron P. Bernstein/reuters

A bit of background:

In a classic 1972 experiment, a person coming out of a phone booth sees a woman spill her folder full of papers on the shopping mall floor a few feet away. (She is part of the experimental team, and she spills them on purpose.)

Will subjects help her pick up the papers?

Among one group of subjects, the answer was overwhelmingly yes: fourteen people helped and only two did not. In a second group, it was overwhelmingly no. Only one subject helped; the other 24 walked away.

What explains the difference? Something amazingly small: Those in the first group had found a dime in the telephones coin return, which apparently put them in a benevolent mood.

Those in the second group found no dime, and they stepped around the spilled papers and went their not-so-merry way. A trivial and nearly invisible manipulation of the situation led to a dramatic change in outcomes.

According to the situationist school of psychology, this experiment (along with many others, including the famous Milgram obedience experiment and the Stanford Prison Experiment) shows that we deceive ourselves when we think character is the crucial determinant of how we behave.

In the Stanford experiment, one subject who described himself as a non-violent person and pacifist transformed into a brutal prison guard in a matter of days. Which was he, a self-deceiving brute in pacifists clothes, or a sensitive soul who forgot himself?

Neither one, according to the situationists. Look to the situation, not to the person. He was a prison guard, and as he explained in his diary (reproduced in a write up of the psychology experiment), This new prisoner, 416, refuses to eat. That is a violation of Rule Two and we are not going to have any of that kind of shit. I decide to force feed him. I let the food slide down his face. I dont believe it is me doing it.

For the situationists, there is nothing unbelievable about it, because the me who does it is not a constant.

This seems wildly counterintuitive, because we always think about peoples character, their virtues and vices. Isnt there a difference between a brave person and a coward?

Not necessarily, according to philosopher John Doris. In a pioneering 2002 book, Doris writes:

Its not crazy to think that someone could be courageous in physical but not moral extremity, or be moderate with food but not sex, or be honest with spouses but not with taxes. With a bit of effort, we can imagine someone showing physical courage on the battlefield, but cowering in the face of storms, heights, or wild animals. Things can get still trickier: Someone might exhibit battlefield courage in the face of rifle fire but not in the face of artillery fire. (Lack of Character: Personality and Moral Behavior, p. 62.)

Doriss point: there is no such thing as courage across the board. Courage, like every other character trait, can be entirely situation-specific. If that seems contrary to everyday experience, its because most of us, most of the time, live in the same situation from one day to the next: we see the same family and friends today that we saw yesterday and will see tomorrow; we live in the same locale for months or years at a time, and if were employed we work at the same job.

Of course, not even the most radical situationists think individual personality is irrelevant to the choices we make. Talk about the fundamental attribution error does not deny free will or individual differences, or assert that only situations matter, one hundred percent.

Rather, the error lies in vastly overestimating character and ignoring the hidden power of the situation which we do all the time, not least when we play the blame game in criminal sentencing. (I heartily recommend the powerful podcast The Personality Myth, especially its second episode.)

My wife sometimes teaches college philosophy in a prison, where many of her students committed crimes of violence. In the classroom setting, she finds them no different from other college students, and she feels no less safe in their company.

For years, psychologists debated which variable matters more, person or situation; some tried to quantify it. Like many academic debates, this one was technically intricate and personally acrimonious in the words of psychologist John Kihlstrom, it ended up looking more like a fight in an elementary schoolyard.

Over the years, psychologists began to look beyond the sharp either/or, and instead study the way that person and situation influence each other. (In the jargon, this is person/situation interactionism.)

To take a simple example: people behave differently toward a baby depending on whether theyre told the baby is a girl or a boy. The person (the baby) transforms the situation he or she is in (in this case, the way people treat the baby). And vice-versa: how people treat girls and boys as they grow up affects the person they become.

On this line of thought, whenever you enter a room full of people, you become part of the situation of the other people in the room. You change how the others behave; they become part of your situation, and influence how you behave. Thats interactionism. The theory has been around for decades, since the pioneering work of psychologist Kurt Lewin and sociologist Erving Goffman.

Enough of the theory. What it means for the Russia investigation is straightforward: its a mistake to ask who Rachel Brand is, because there is no is. To think otherwise is the fundamental attribution error.

When she decided to join the Trump administration and the Jeff Sessions Justice Department, Brand radically changed her situation. Specifically, she overcame whatever qualms she may have felt about Trump, qualms shared by many conservatives. (After the election, I posted on why those qualms are justified.)

Eyes wide open, she joined an administration that puts a premium on personal loyalty to a narcissistic president who takes everything personally. She placed herself in an environment where the abnormal is the new normal.

Its hard to believe she did it with the intention of slowing down the presidents hectic velocity her background is, as Eric Levitz writes, a bit more partisan and decidedly more right-wing than Rosensteins. Precisely if she is a person who takes her commitments seriously, signing on to the Trump team is a loyalty commitment that, day in and day out, will challenge her commitment to the rule of law. Neither past behavior nor perceived character can predict how she will manage that challenge. If the psychologists are right, she cannot predict it herself.

In my earlier essay on serving in the Trump administration, I warned that

Once you are inside, your frame of reference changes. You see that many of the people youre working with are decent and likable. You tell yourself that decent people like these wouldnt do anything indecent. And above all, you reassure yourself of your own decency because you can contrast yourself with the real radicals, the true believers. Theyre right down the hall.

It doesnt matter if you are what moralists of my generation like to call a person of integrity a person whose principles harmonize with her conduct. Years ago, in the wake of the Enron-era corporate scandals, the law school and business school worlds endured a predictable outbreak of academic conferences on integrity.

Churlishly, I pointed out that you can harmonize your principles and your conduct by changing your principles just as easily as by changing your conduct. That too is one of the basic teachings of social psychology: we often reduce cognitive dissonance between our principles and our conduct the easy way, by unconsciously modifying our principles so they rationalize our conduct.

Of course it is comforting to know that a public official is an admirable person and not an opportunist or a scoundrel. But blind faith that persons of character will rescue us is faith in an illusion. Look to the situation, not to the person.

David Luban is Professor in Law and Philosophy at Georgetown University.

Follow this link:
Would Rachel Brand Stand Up to Trump? - Newsweek

Leo Burnett, one of the most iconic advertising agencies in the game, is evolving the way it thinks about creative.

I've been focused on infusing technology, data and analytics to make creative more relevant, personalized and effective, said Andrew Swinand, CEO at Leo Burnett.

For Swinand, who spent time on the media side as president at Starcom Mediavest Group, data can develop the creative brief to reflect individual consumer intent and open the pathways for personalized creative.

When the creative brief is for one 30-second spot, thats what you get, he said. When its [based on]six segments andthe nuances that create relevance, its a different starting point.

But at Leo Burnett, the extent to which data is incorporated into creativity depends on changing clients mindsets and training employees to execute on this new mandate.

AdExchanger caught up with Swinand in Cannes.

AdExchanger: Whats the biggest challenge as the CEO of a creative agency today?

To be successful today, we need to have a base understanding of technology and data, but we still need to deliver our core promise of using creativity to change human behavior.

All of the data and technology in the world is worthless unlesssomeone feels, sees and engages in creative that changes their behavior. A lot of people are overly enamored with data and technology.

How is the creative brief changing?

Its both integrated and collaborative with media. [Were] starting with the sources of behavior and intelligence that allow us to connect with consumers.

Weve added a metric of prosperity to all of our briefs. How does content add value to [consumers] lives, grow [our clients] business and increase sales? That has to be a collaboration between creative and media agencies.

How do you measuresomething subjectivelike creative?

I challenge that its subjective. The idea that creative is unmeasurable is a false construct.

How so?

Theres a thousand ways now to measure consumer response. I can measure how many people engage in creative. I can bring in Nielsen data and dynamic logic.

Publicis won the media business in the UK for P&G. They built a technology that incorporates Neustar data and Artis Optimizer (a Starcom product) to [measure] creative response rate [with] Nielsen data from stores.

The technology exists. We just need to change client and agency behavior to keep up with it.

Are your clients holding you back from realizing data-driven creative?

Its a bell-shaped curve. Were doing alot of work with Allstate, who is really smart on this. Other clients are further behind. The closer you are to ecommerce, the higher the propensity and experience with digital.

How do you train your employees onprogrammaticand data?

We hold digital and programmatic days. Were one of Googles priority agencies; we have Google employees in the building. Weve done similar things with Facebook and Adobe. The onus is on us to train them.

Who should own programmatic creative: creative or media agencies?

Its a partnership. So much of the technology has been on the media side. But if you serve the same ads to six segments, its worthless. Youreusing a more expensive way to buy run-of-site.

Vendors have the ability to say, These people are drastically different from these people. Then media agencies buy [segments of] women from New York City versus women from Chicago, which are different, and we serve the same ad to them. Whats the point?

Is personalized creative at the individual level possible yet?

The capability exists. Its just not the factory thats been built. How do we change behavior and approaches? It starts with the creative brief.

Do increasingly shorter ad formats constrain creativity?

The starting point isnt How do I make a good ad? Its Whats the right tool for the job?

If you have a simple idea that communicates the client's benefit, why do I need the extra 24 seconds? Embrace the six seconds and do it efficiently. If I have a complex business problem, maybe six seconds isnt the right format.

Has sound-off, feed-based video killed creativity?

It makes you approach the problem from a different perspective. The creative challenge becomes How do I have something thats so compelling that people turn the sound on?

Its like out of home (OOH). Its just a different format for an old problem.

This interview has been edited and condensed.

View original post here:
Cannes: Leo Burnett Gets Creative With Data - AdExchanger

A version of this essay was originally published at Tech.pinions, a website dedicated to informed opinions, insight and perspective on the tech industry.

One of the core premises of our research is to understand technology from a deeper human level. We too often get caught up in the technology itself, and may lose sight of the basic human needs or desires technology is serving. With all the tech of artificial intelligence, augmented reality and any number of other buzzwords, I sense that the human angle is again being lost while we chase technological advancements for the sake of the technology rather than the sake of the human.

The human angle is being lost while we chase technological advancements for the sake of the technology rather than the sake of the human.

To frame my perspective, I think it is helpful to use the idea of human augmentation as a basis for our understanding of how technology serves humans and will always do so. The core definition of augment is to make something greater by adding to it. Using this framework from a historical perspective, we can observe how nearly every human technological invention was designed to augment a fundamental weakness of human beings.

Tools were invented to augment our hands so we can build faster, bigger, more complex things. Cars were invented to augment the limitations of the distance humans can travel. Planes were invented to augment humans lack of ability to fly. The telephone was invented to augment the limitations of human communications. Nearly every example of technological innovation we can think of had something to do with extending or making greater some aspect of a human limitation or weakness.

This was true of historical innovation, and it will be true of future innovation, as well. Everything we invent in the future will find a home augmenting some shortcoming of our human bodies. Technology, at its best, will extend human capabilities and allow us to do things we could not do before.

While we can analyze many different angles in which technology will augment our human abilities, there is one I think may be one of the more compelling things to augment: Our memory.

My family and I recently took a vacation to Maui. It is always nice to get out of the bubble of Silicon Valley for a more natural atmosphere to observe human behavior and technology. Going to a place where most people are on vacation provides an even deeper atmospheric layer to observe.

One of technologys greatest values to humans is in the assistance of capturing memories.

On vacation, I saw how critical and transformative the smartphone camera has been when it comes to memory augmentation. Ive long thought that one of technologys greatest values to humans is in the assistance of capturing memories. For sure, this is the single driving motivation behind most people purchasing digital cameras and video cameras through the years. With most people in developed markets now owning a memory-capture device, and comparable apps on their smartphones to enhance these memories, observing memory augmentation is now a frequent activity.

It was fascinating to see the lengths people on vacation would go through with their phones, drones (I was surprised how many drones I saw), GoPros, waterproof smartphone cases and more to capture and preserve their memories.

I saw people climbing trees, braving cliffs and hiking extreme conditions with their phones to get a unique selfie. Flying their drone overhead as they jumped off waterfalls. Putting their phones in waterproof cases to get pics of kids snorkeling. And obviously, there were lots of uses for GoPros to capture unique photos and videos of undersea creatures and experiences.

The camera sensor is, and will remain for some time, one of the most important parts of our mobile computing capabilities.

As was often the case, most of the memories captured are designed to share on social media, but the point remains that these pervasive capture devices enable us to create and capture memories we would most likely forget, or have a hard time recalling if left to our memory.

Ive argued before that the camera sensor is, and will remain for some time, one of the most important parts of our mobile computing capabilities. The desire to preserve, or capture a unique memory will remain a deeply emotional and powerful motivator for humans.

Allowing technology to take this idea a step further, we have things like Apple Photos and Google Photos, which look over our memories and make short videos to not just augment but to automate our memory creation process. As machine learning gets even better, these technologies will make creating memories from moments even easier.

As technology continues to augment more and more of our human capabilities, my hope is that the technological tool or process involved will fade so deeply into the background that it nearly disappears. This way we can get the most out of our time whether at work, school, play or vacation, and spend less time fidgeting with technology. Ultimately we will be able to do more with technology, but also spend less time with the technology itself, and more time doing the things we love.

Ben Bajarin is a principal analyst at Creative Strategies Inc., an industry analysis, market intelligence and research firm located in Silicon Valley. His primary focus is consumer technology and market trend research. He is a husband, father, gadget enthusiast, trend spotter, early adopter and hobby farmer. Reach him @BenBajarin.

View original post here:
Technology is created for the purpose of augmenting the fundamental weaknesses of human beings - Recode

Chimpanzees want to fit in with the popular kids, just like humans do researchers say chimps will change their behavior to match what others are doing.

A study in the journal Current Biology points to a specific type of behavior in these apes called the grooming handclasp. Its exactly what it sounds like: Two animals engaged in the social interaction of grooming will clasp one anothers hands. But the exact form this rare chimp handshake varies among groups, with some gripping each others palms and the others gripping wrists depending on what group they were in. Scientists studying the behavior in Zambia saidits a group-level cultural tradition in chimpanzees rather than one passed down from mothers to their young.

Read: What Monkey Brains and Social Behavior Tell Us About Human Minds

Grooming itself is a social behavior that does more than clean the chimps: It is also a bonding experience, a way to relax and an action that defers to the hierarchy of the chimp community. And only some groups of these apes perform the handclasp. The University of St. Andrews explained that because it varies among groups as opposed to chimpanzee families, this indicates that, like humans, chimpanzees have the capacity and motivation to learn from each other and fine tune their learned behavior such that it matches with the group norm.

A behavior passed down through a family line does not explain why chimps within one group will clasp hands in one way and chimps in another will clasp in another.

Some chimpanzees clasp hands while grooming, a behavior they acquire in groups rather than learn from their families. The behaviors origin shows chimps can form and adhere to cultures just like humans. Photo: University of St. Andrews

It is hard to imagine how any genetic or environmental influences could have shaped the group-specific preferences that we observed, lead author Edwin van Leeuwen said in the statement. Within the group chimpanzees converged on one particular variant of clasping. This indicates a certain willingness to match each others styles.

The study offers a glimpse into the minds of chimps, specifically whether they can form a culture and cultural traditions, which is a controversial topic. The university said becausechimpanzees can form a social tradition like a grooming handclasp behavior outside of their family unit,they are more closely mimicking human culture than previously thought.

Read: Jungle Falls Silent After Howler Monkey Disease Epidemic

Although chimpanzees are different from humans in many ways, they are similar in others. For one, the genetic differences between the species are miniscule: Humans and chimps share almost 99 percent of their DNA. Chimpanzees can use tools to get a job done, and its possible that they can live as long as humans in the wild recent research has shown if disease, food shortages, predators or other hazards dont get in the way, a chimpanzee can live almost 33 years. Thats right within the range of life expectancy for those who have similar lifestyles to apes, the human hunter-gatherers still left in the world. Those people live27 to 37 years.

Understanding the relationship between humans and chimpanzees isnt just a point of interest. It can also help scientists understand how humans evolved and, in the case of life expectancy, how different conditions changed mortality rates.

Follow this link:
Apes Have Social Traditions Just Like Humans, Chimp Behavior Shows - International Business Times

June 20, 2017 Credit: CC0 Public Domain

The image of grazing cows in a field has long conjured up a romantic nostalgia about a relaxed pace of rural life. With closer inspection, however, researchers have recognized that what appears to be a randomly dispersed herd peacefully eating grass is in fact a complex system of individuals in a group facing differing tensions. A team of mathematicians and a biologist has now built a mathematical model that incorporates a cost function to behavior in such a herd to understand the dynamics of such systems.

Complex systems research looks at how systems display behaviors beyond those capable from individual components in isolation. This rapidly emerging field can be used to elucidate phenomena observed in many other disciplines including biology, medicine, engineering, physics and economics.

"Complex systems science seeks to understand not just the isolated components of a given system, but how the individual components interact to produce 'emergent' group behaviour," said Erik Bollt, director of the Clarkson Center for Complex Systems Science and a professor of mathematics and of electrical and computer engineering.

Bollt conducted the work with his team, lead-authored by post-doctoral fellow Kelum Gajamannage, which was reported this week in the journal Chaos.

"Cows grazing in a herd is an interesting example of a complex system," said Bollt. "An individual cow performs three major activities throughout an ordinary day. It eats, it stands while it carries out some digestive processes, and then it lies down to rest."

While this process seems simple enough, there is also a balancing of group dynamics at work.

"Cows move and eat in herds to protect themselves from predators," said Bollt. "But since they eat at varying speeds, the herd can move on before the slower cows have finished eating. This leaves these smaller cows facing a difficult choice: Continue eating in a smaller, less safe group, or move along hungry with the larger group. If the conflict between feeding and keeping up with a group becomes too large, it may be advantageous for some animals to split into subgroups with similar nutritional needs."

Bollt and his colleagues incorporate a cost function into their model to capture these tensions. This adds mathematical complexity to their work, but it became apparent that it was necessary after discussing cows' behavior with their co-author, Marian Dawkins, a biologist with experience researching cows.

"Some findings from the simulation were surprising," Bollt said. "One might have thought there would be two static groups of cowsthe fast eaters and the slow eatersand that the cows within each group carried out their activities in a synchronized fashion. Instead we found that there were also cows that moved back and forth between the two."

"The primary cause is that this complex system has two competing rhythms," Bollt also said. "The large-sized animal group had a faster rhythm and the small-sized animal group had a slower rhythm. To put it into context, a cow might find itself in one group, and after some time the group is too fast. Then it moves to the slower group, which is too slow, but while moving between the two groups, the cow exposes itself more to the danger of predators, causing a tension between the cow's need to eat and its need for safety."

The existing model and cost function could be used as a basis for studying other herding animals. In the future, there may even be scope to incorporate it into studies about human behavior in groups. "The cost function is a powerful tool to explore outcomes in situations where there are individual and group-level tensions at play," said Bollt.

Explore further: Horses masticate similarly to ruminants

More information: Kelum Gajamannage et al, Modeling the lowest-cost splitting of a herd of cows by optimizing a cost function, Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science (2017). DOI: 10.1063/1.4983671

In contrast to ruminants, horses chew their food only oncebut with the same regu-lar, rhythmic movements as cows, who ruminate their food after eating, as demon-strated by researchers at the University of Zurich and the ...

Dairy cows housed indoors want to break curfew and roam free, suggests new research from the University of British Columbia, published today in Scientific Reports.

A group of Clarkson University mathematicians and a civil engineer developed a passive and noninvasive approach to "listen" to a collection of relevant signals from bridges and other mechanical structures to diagnose changes ...

A Fitbit for cows? Collars with tags that carry an accelerometer the same technology used in the popular fitness-tracking device are effective noninvasive tools for tracking the health of dairy cows, according to ...

Animal scientist Phil Cardoso knew that milk protein increases when dairy cows are fed the amino acid methionine, but he suspected that the supplement might have additional health benefits.

Cattle with subacute ruminal acidosis suffer from a number of low-level ailments that affect productivity. A research team led by University of Illinois scientists has documented changes in pH, microbiome, and rumen epithelial ...

You may not have heard of optical coherence tomography, or OCT. But if you've visited an ophthalmologist recently, chances are your eye came within an inch or two of a scanning device employing the technology. Tens of thousands ...

In the last decades, mobile phones and other wireless devices have become central features of life around the globe. These devices radiate varied amounts of electromagnetic energy and thus project electric fields into the ...

The image of grazing cows in a field has long conjured up a romantic nostalgia about a relaxed pace of rural life. With closer inspection, however, researchers have recognized that what appears to be a randomly dispersed ...

Glow sticks, like those brandished by trick-or-treaters and partygoers, light up due to excited electrons of the molecules in the contained fluorescent dye. Electrons accept the exciting energy from a chemical reaction that ...

Ocean circulation patterns have a profound effect on global climate. Waves deep within the ocean play an important role in establishing this circulation, arising when tidal currents oscillate over an uneven ocean bottom. ...

Bursts of plasma, called plasma jets, have numerous uses ranging from the development of more efficient engines, which could one day send spacecraft to Mars, to industrial uses like spraying nanomaterial coatings on 3-D objects.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

See original here:
Cow herd behavior is fodder for complex systems analysis - Phys.Org

Its pretty much a given that teenagerseat junk food as oftenas they can. And, while junk binging isa normal habit for most teens, new research finds thatwhat kids eat can have a lasting impact on their brains well into adulthood.

For a study published in The Journal of Neuroscience, researchers raised mice on a balanced diet up until their teenage years, when some of the miceswitched to a diet that wasnt so balanced and some kept on with their perfectly balanced menu. Theteen mice who werefed a poorly rounded diet consumed food that lackedomega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids brain-boosting nutrients that are notproduced inthe human (or mouse) body butare easily found in fatty fish, walnuts, soybeans, and spinach.

The researchers found that the mice that ate baddiets as teenagers had lowered levels of omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids in several parts of their brains as adults; including the medial prefrontal cortex and the nucleus accumbens. The mice who had stayed on balanced diets, had none of these deficits. In addition, thebrains of the mice that had been fed a poor diet had difficulty fine-tuning connections between neurons in those regions of the brain; the mice who had remained on a healthy, balanced diet did not.

As a result, the mice on the bad diet had increased anxiety-like behavior as adults, and performed worse on memory tasks than their healthy-eating counterparts.

Of course, thisstudy was conducted on mice not humans and more research needs to be done before scientists can definitively say that eating a poor diet as a teenager makes you more likely to have problems with your behavior and memory down the road. But many studies of human behavior are originally tested on mice, so this might not be too far afield. Additionally, whether or not this study shows a direct corollary to human behavior there is no doubt that what you eat can have an impact on your brain. Doctor Santosh Kesari, MD, PhD, a neurologist and neuro-oncologist and Chair of the Department of Translational Neuro-Oncology and Neurotherapeutics at the John Wayne Cancer Institute at Providence Saint Johns Health Center in Santa Monica, Calif. who did not participate in the study, upheld this assertion telling Yahoo Beauty.

The brain is constantly developing and new connections are being made, he says. Whether youre young, old, or in adolescence, what you eat can have an impact on neurological issues such as anxiety.

The studys researchers didnt investigate whether a poor diet as a teenager has reversible effects on an adult brain, but Kesari suspects that making healthier dietary choices in adulthood could help. Poor diet can have a long-lasting effect if you dont fix the underlying issue of the diet, he says.

Thats why he recommends having omega-3 fatty acids at all stages of life, as well as eating a healthy, well-rounded diet that includes lipids (organic compounds found in olive oil, among other things) and carbohydrates.

The studys findings dont mean that everyone who ate a poor diet as a teenager is bound for issues with anxiety and memory it just may raise your risk. I suspect some people are more prone than others to developing these issues, Kesari says.

He stresses the importance of eating well for your brain and overall health: We dont pay much attention to diet and healthcare, but this highlights how diet can have significant effects on neurological health and prevent a lot of medical issues in the future.

Read more from Yahoo Beauty+ Style:

Follow us onInstagram,Facebook, andPinterestfor nonstop inspiration delivered fresh to your feed, every day. For Twitter updates, follow@YahooStyleand@YahooBeauty.

Go here to read the rest:
What You Ate as a Teenager Could Impact Your Brain Now - Yahoo Health

A slater-like crustacean that lives in the sand on Aucklands Piha beach has provided new evidence that animals have biological clocks influenced by the tide as well as the more familiar circadian clock that follows the day/night cycle and regulates human behavior.

While the molecular mechanism of the circadian clock in humans is well known, including its location in the human brain and the genes involved, the mechanisms of other biological clocks are not.

Many animals are known to have extra biological clocks that regulate feeding or reproduction according to the tide or lunar cycle, but scientists have been unsure of how they work, particularly over longer periods.

Senior lecturer James Cheeseman from the faculty of medical and health sciences, and Mike Walker from the School of Biological Sciences at the University of Auckland carried out a study of Scyphax ornatus, a nocturnal sand-burrowing isopod that feeds on the plant and animal detritus that is moved up the beach by the incoming tide.

Leaving their burrows only at night, the animals need to maximize the amount of time for feeding before the tide comes in. In the wild, they appear able to follow a semilunar or approximately fortnightly feeding cycle, meaning something other than the circadian clock must be regulating their behavior.

Taking the animals from Piha into the laboratory, the study used artificially manipulated light and tidal cycles to test several hypotheses for the mechanism of the semilunar clock that controls their behavior.

The study found the animals followed internal biological clocks even when deprived of external stimuli.

What we have found is that, in the laboratory, with light and tide cycles artificially manipulated, these animals follow the same rules of behavior as they would in the wild, says Cheeseman. So we can very accurately change the semilunar rhythm by changing the perceived length of the day and tidal cycles.

That tells us their semilunar or fortnightly behavior continues to be regulated by the interaction of circatidal and circadian clocks even where there is either no external stimuli or they are in an environment with artificial light cycles or tidal cycles.

Walker said circalunar and circatidal behavior in animals was well known by early Maori who followed a fishing and planting calendar over the circalunar cycle.

The study is published in Scientific Reports.

Go here to read the rest:
Animal Behavior Regulated by Interaction of Tidal, Circadian Clocks - Laboratory Equipment