Jumat, 01 Oktober 2010
Ciara & Chris Brown Dueces Remix Coming Soon
What's the song in the Honda CR-Z Sport Hybrid commercial?
Search: hybrid sleigh bells
Why: I am rewatching Sharktopus, and it's all up in there.
Answer: "Riot Rhythm" by Sleigh Bells!
I won't lie to you - the truth is that I already knew it was them. In fact, I listened to their album Treats both last night and this morning. It took some getting used to (in June, I told Ashley it was too noisy), but it's pretty good!
Source: Paste Magazine
The More You Know: I thought Sleigh Bells was a bunch of girls, but turns out it is just 2 peeps: Derek E. Miller (songwriter, guitarist, producer) and Alexis Krauss (vocals). Here is probably my favorite song from that record, "Rill Rill":
Keep thinking about every straight face yes
Wonder what your boyfriend thinks about your braces
Is it OK to use moldy ginger?
Search: moldy ginger
Why: Chandler has been making ginger ale, but today, the ginger root looks like this:
I don't know what that yellow Hershey Kiss thing is. I think it's like a potato eye.
Answer: I don't know! Maybe! But maybe not, so maybe just throw it away and go buy some more.
Here are some postings from a LiveJournal thread called "Can I Eat This?" (which would be a good name / idea for a blog, in case anyone out there needs something to do):
- if it were a really big piece and you cut off a good portion around the moldy part then it might have been safe, but sometimes its better safe than sorry...
- I would have cut off the mold and used it.
But I store my fresh ginger root in a jar full of white sherry so I don't have to worry about mold.
- I store mine in the freezer. Doesn't stick to the grater when its frozen either.
Select and clean a piece of ginger root. I don't peel the outer skin off mine until I'm about to use it, so leave that intact. Place it in a glass jar and cover it completely with sherry. Any grade of sherry will do, but if you're a sherry purist, by all means use the good stuff. The sherry will saturate and preserve the ginger. Slice the amount you need, then peel and mince it.Source: LiveJournal, The Herb Gardener,
The More You Know: Homemade ginger ale tastes pretty good. Here is the system Chandler has been using:
- Dissolve 1 c sugar in about 1/2 c water in a saucepan and let cool.
- Combine 2 T fresh grated ginger, the juice of 1 lemon, and 1/4 t of dry active yeast in a clean 2 liter plastic bottle.
- Add the simple syrup from the pan, fill the rest of the way up with filtered water and seal it up.
- Leave at room temp for 2 days or until it's too tight to squeeze, then refrigerate. Filter through something like a tea strainer or cheesecloth, either as needed or the whole bottle at once.
Don't forget that ginger is good for you! Eat it in candy! (I have this.)
Signet wedding ring
Wouldn't a signet ring make a romantic wedding ring? If you take your husband's last name, it would show off your lovely new initials!
Actually, I'm curious: Will you (or did you) take your husband's last name? I kept my name, and only a handful of my friends have changed theirs. What will you do? Do you like the sound of your name with his last name?
Boob job in a bottle: The £125 gel that says it'll make you a half-cup size bigger
It promises to spell the end for push-up bras, padding and expensive silicone implants.
Via Mail Online
A small tube of cream dubbed the ‘boob job in a bottle’ can increase a woman’s bust size by half a cup, if its makers’ claims are to be believed.
And at £125 for a 100ml pot, it is a far cheaper option than spending thousands of pounds on breast enlargement surgery.
Women using the gel rub it into their chest every day for less than two months, after which, manufacturers Rodial claim, their bust will be firmer and up to two-and-a-half centimetres larger while skin will be less wrinkled.
The cream, called Boob Job and already on sale in John Lewis, contains natural chemicals which supposedly increase the number of fat cells in the breast.
Celebrity devotees of this type of treatment are said to include actress Scarlett Johansson, Victoria Beckham and Kelly Brook.
Ed. I'm thinking what's to stop me rubbing the cream in my own private bits. Firmer and an extra 2.5cm would be nice but fewer wrinkles would be awesome.
Genes for ADHD, eh?
The first direct evidence of a genetic link to attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder has been found, a study says.Wow! That's the headline. What's the real story?
The research was published in The Lancet, and it's brought to you by Wilson et al from Cardiff University: Rare chromosomal deletions and duplications in attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder.
The authors looked at copy-number variations (CNVs) in 410 children with ADHD, compared to 1156 healthy controls. A CNV is simply a catch-all term for when a large chunk of DNA is either missing ("deletions") or repeated ("duplications"), compared to normal human DNA. CNVs are extremely common - we all have a handful - and recently there's been loads of interest in them as possible causes for psychiatric disorders.
What happened? Out of everyone with high quality data available, 15.6% of the ADHD kids had at least one large, rare CNV, compared to 7.5% of the controls. CNVs were especially common in children with ADHD who also suffered mental retardation (defined as having an IQ less than 70) - 36% of this group carried at least one CNV. However, the rate was still elevated in those with normal IQs (11%).
A CNV could occur anywhere in the genome, and obviously what it does depends on where it is - which genes are deleted, or duplicated. Some CNVs don't cause any problems, presumably because they don't disrupt any important stuff.The ADHD variants were very likely to affect genes which had been previously linked to either autism, or schizophrenia. In fact, no less than 6 of the ADHD kids carried the same 16p13.11 duplication, which has been found in schizophrenic patients too.
So...what does this mean? Well, the news has been full of talking heads only too willing to tell us. Pop-psychologist Oliver James was on top form - by his standards - making a comment which was reasonably sensible, and only involved one error:
Only 57 out of the 366 children with ADHD had the genetic variant supposed to be a cause of the illness. That would suggest that other factors are the main cause in the vast majority of cases. Genes hardly explain at all why some kids have ADHD and not others.Well, there was no single genetic variant, there were lots. Plus, unusual CNVs were also carried by 7% of controls, so the "extra" mutations presumably only account for 7-8%. James also accused The Lancet of "massive spin" in describing the findings. While you can see his point, given that James's own output nowadays consists mostly of a Guardian column in which he routinely over/misinterprets papers, this is a bit rich.
The authors say that
the findings allow us to refute the hypothesis that ADHD is purely a social construct, which has important clinical and social implications for affected children and their families.But they've actually proven that "ADHD" is a social construct. Yes, they've found that certain genetic variants are correlated with certain symptoms. Now we know that, say, 16p13.11-duplication-syndrome is a disease, and that its symptoms include (but aren't limited to) attention deficit and hyperactivity. But that doesn't tell us anything about all the other kids who are currently diagnosed with "ADHD", the ones who don't have that mutation.
"ADHD" is evidently an umbrella term for many different diseases, of which 16p13.11-duplication-syndrome is one. One day, when we know the causes of all cases of attention deficit and hyperactivity symptoms, the term "ADHD" will become extinct. There'll just be "X-duplication-syndrome", "Y-deletion-syndrome" and (because it's not all about genes) "Z-exposure-syndrome".
When I say that "ADHD" is a social construct, I don't mean that people with ADHD aren't ill. "Cancer" is also a social construct, a catch-all term for hundreds of diseases. The diseases are all too real, but the concept "cancer" is not necessarily a helpful one. It leads people to talk about Finding The Cure for Cancer, for example, which will never happen. A lot of cancers are already curable. One day, they might all be curable. But they'll be different cures.
So the fact that some cases of "ADHD" are caused by large rare genetic mutations, doesn't prove that the other cases are genetic. They might or might not be - for one thing, this study only looked at large mutations, affecting at least 500,000 bases. Given that even a deletion or insertion of just one base in the wrong place could completely screw up a gene, these could be just the tip of the iceberg.
But the other problem with claiming that this study shows "a genetic basis for ADHD" is that the variants overlapped with the ones that have recently been linked to autism, and schizophrenia. In other words, these genes don't so much cause ADHD, as protect against all kinds of problems, if you have the right variants.
If you don't, you might get ADHD, but you might get something else, or nothing, depending on... we don't know. Other genes and the environment, presumably. But "7% of cases of ADHD associated with mutations that also cause other stuff" wouldn't be a very good headline...
N. M. Williams et al (2010). Rare chromosomal deletions and duplications in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: a genome-wide analysis The Lancet
Genes for ADHD, eh?
The first direct evidence of a genetic link to attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder has been found, a study says.Wow! That's the headline. What's the real story?
The research was published in The Lancet, and it's brought to you by Wilson et al from Cardiff University: Rare chromosomal deletions and duplications in attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder.
The authors looked at copy-number variations (CNVs) in 410 children with ADHD, compared to 1156 healthy controls. A CNV is simply a catch-all term for when a large chunk of DNA is either missing ("deletions") or repeated ("duplications"), compared to normal human DNA. CNVs are extremely common - we all have a handful - and recently there's been loads of interest in them as possible causes for psychiatric disorders.
What happened? Out of everyone with high quality data available, 15.6% of the ADHD kids had at least one large, rare CNV, compared to 7.5% of the controls. CNVs were especially common in children with ADHD who also suffered mental retardation (defined as having an IQ less than 70) - 36% of this group carried at least one CNV. However, the rate was still elevated in those with normal IQs (11%).
A CNV could occur anywhere in the genome, and obviously what it does depends on where it is - which genes are deleted, or duplicated. Some CNVs don't cause any problems, presumably because they don't disrupt any important stuff.The ADHD variants were very likely to affect genes which had been previously linked to either autism, or schizophrenia. In fact, no less than 6 of the ADHD kids carried the same 16p13.11 duplication, which has been found in schizophrenic patients too.
So...what does this mean? Well, the news has been full of talking heads only too willing to tell us. Pop-psychologist Oliver James was on top form - by his standards - making a comment which was reasonably sensible, and only involved one error:
Only 57 out of the 366 children with ADHD had the genetic variant supposed to be a cause of the illness. That would suggest that other factors are the main cause in the vast majority of cases. Genes hardly explain at all why some kids have ADHD and not others.Well, there was no single genetic variant, there were lots. Plus, unusual CNVs were also carried by 7% of controls, so the "extra" mutations presumably only account for 7-8%. James also accused The Lancet of "massive spin" in describing the findings. While you can see his point, given that James's own output nowadays consists mostly of a Guardian column in which he routinely over/misinterprets papers, this is a bit rich.
The authors say that
the findings allow us to refute the hypothesis that ADHD is purely a social construct, which has important clinical and social implications for affected children and their families.But they've actually proven that "ADHD" is a social construct. Yes, they've found that certain genetic variants are correlated with certain symptoms. Now we know that, say, 16p13.11-duplication-syndrome is a disease, and that its symptoms include (but aren't limited to) attention deficit and hyperactivity. But that doesn't tell us anything about all the other kids who are currently diagnosed with "ADHD", the ones who don't have that mutation.
"ADHD" is evidently an umbrella term for many different diseases, of which 16p13.11-duplication-syndrome is one. One day, when we know the causes of all cases of attention deficit and hyperactivity symptoms, the term "ADHD" will become extinct. There'll just be "X-duplication-syndrome", "Y-deletion-syndrome" and (because it's not all about genes) "Z-exposure-syndrome".
When I say that "ADHD" is a social construct, I don't mean that people with ADHD aren't ill. "Cancer" is also a social construct, a catch-all term for hundreds of diseases. The diseases are all too real, but the concept "cancer" is not necessarily a helpful one. It leads people to talk about Finding The Cure for Cancer, for example, which will never happen. A lot of cancers are already curable. One day, they might all be curable. But they'll be different cures.
So the fact that some cases of "ADHD" are caused by large rare genetic mutations, doesn't prove that the other cases are genetic. They might or might not be - for one thing, this study only looked at large mutations, affecting at least 500,000 bases. Given that even a deletion or insertion of just one base in the wrong place could completely screw up a gene, these could be just the tip of the iceberg.
But the other problem with claiming that this study shows "a genetic basis for ADHD" is that the variants overlapped with the ones that have recently been linked to autism, and schizophrenia. In other words, these genes don't so much cause ADHD, as protect against all kinds of problems, if you have the right variants.
If you don't, you might get ADHD, but you might get something else, or nothing, depending on... we don't know. Other genes and the environment, presumably. But "7% of cases of ADHD associated with mutations that also cause other stuff" wouldn't be a very good headline...
N. M. Williams et al (2010). Rare chromosomal deletions and duplications in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: a genome-wide analysis The Lancet
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)