Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Chat' started by HippoCrushEverything, Aug 13, 2017.
To help elucidate disorders like panic attacks, phobias, anxiety and depression.
youre going to depress simians? youre going to be doing terrible things I already know
what are you going to do to make them depressed
make them obese and acne scarred, surround them with female simians who wont **** them and males who dont respect them
or some less modern methods
More modern methods, like activating some parts of the brain while recording the cell activity from other areas to gain insight on how these interconnected systems work.
But holy crap, aren't these other ideas great. I wonder if exposing animals to My Chemical Romance songs will lead them to, say, press a lever to get access to eyeliner and self-harm items. I shall test this!
p.s.: my actual experiments are in rodent brains, not simians. But I'm interested in all types of brains.
Were you part of the tests where they would spray citrus scent into the cage and instantaneously shock the mice daily for the length of their lives. Then not shock or subject them to the sent of citrus for two or more generations. Then spray the citrus smell into the cage and the multi-generation separated mice would go into extreme panic in reaction to the scent.
Leading scientists to believe that fear and perhaps memories can be passed down genetically?
Is it this study?
Before addressing the study itself: They only shocked the mice once, not several times for the rest of their lives. It's possible to condition a rat with a single, brief, weak shock, no need to repeat them. The idea is not to cause pain, but to cause an emotionally negative experience -- some models would use a non-painful one, like the smell of a cat, to cause more or less the same effect. And the reaction down the generations wasn't of an extreme panic. Usually what rodents do in a presence of a cue (a light, sound or smell) that has been previously conditioned to something aversive is to stop moving, and engage in risk assessment behaviours.
Anyway, I haven't heard of this study before, and the results are crazy. I wouldn't say they are fraudulent because a person would have to be massively stupid to try and pass something as radical as this as genuine. So either they got a very radical false positive, or this is a genuine phenomenon that has no theoretical explanation, and all that we know about genetics and the brain is wrong.
There aren't many ways to explain this result. There is something called epigenetical transmission of information, where some environmental events can change the transcription of genes, but the effects are different from this, and they are not transmitted to offspring.
The phenomenon of pairing a neutral stimulus (a smell) with a negative one (painful shock) and then later getting a response from the neutral stimulus as if it was a negative one is called Pavlovian conditioning. When I was doing my masters I helped with the creation of a line of rats that were born with a tendency to acquire more aversive Pavlovian memories. We would pair a neutral stimulus with a shock, analyze which animals got a stronger fear memory, and then mate the most fearful females with the males. The next generation was born, we would repeat that. By generation F4 the rats were born with a tendency to learn more strongly fear responses. We modified their brains by selecting the genes that control the acquisition and expression of fear memories.
Key word: tendency. They would not fear the stimulus that their grandparents feared without ever experiencing it themselves, but they would have a stronger tendency to build more fearful, learned responses.
There were human studies showing that people that have a mutation in a gene that controls the production of a neurotransmitter would have a tendency to become aggressive adults if they had a shitty childhood. Negative early life events would change the way the mutated gene is expressed, and make them dysfunctional adults with dysfunctional brains. But they would still have to have a shitty childhood in order to become dysfunctional; it doesn't matter if their parents got a shitty memory of their childhood, because memories are not passed genetically.
These mice, on the other hand, just got a memory of something that they never experienced. This is bonkers. I'd bet that the first generation mice passed changes in how sensitive they are to smell -- which in itself is pretty amazing, but not crazy --, but not actual fear memories. I read the article, and they didn't do any tests to see if the evoked response in the offspring was actually fear, i.e. if the smell was activating the parts of the brain that we know are active during fear episodes. It could be just an enhanced behavioural response to the upregulated smell genes, and not a genuine emotional response. Still quite impactful for the field of epigenetics, though.
To be honest. I haven't read any study in particular. So I'm not sure if this is the exact study or not. I have just heard one quoted on the Joe Rogan Podcast numerous times. And it was made out to be a pretty concrete study and pretty concrete findings.
I know there are constant conversations about memories, fears etc. Being passed down "genetically" with a few different scientists on his podcast.
It's obviously a newer theory. And a new field of study if you will. But I have definitely heard a lot about it lately.
Let's remember everything started as just a theory. And not too long ago the Higgs boson was thought to be an impossibility.
So this absolutely could mean that what we currently know about genetics and the brain is wrong. It wouldn't be the first time as you obviously know.
I am curious to see where these types of studies go. Whether they lead to a dead end or if they do create a pretty radical change.
I think I may have also heard something about goldfish being put into a maze and the offspring and further generations needing significantly less time learn the maze and in some instances seem to know it immediately.
Which from what I remember hearing was suggested the same. That "memories" may be passed down "genetically"
Obviously I am no scientist and don't know the merits of any of this or of these studies.
But it was said on Rogan so it's now law.
The technical capabilities of the RS-28 speak volumes about what Russia thinks of arms reduction, much more so than any sort of technological advantage held by Russia. The reason why the United States uses the forty-year-old Minuteman III (even over the much newer Peacekeeper meant to replace it) is because START II would have banned the use of MIRV on land-based ICBMs. START II never came into force, as Russia refused to ratify the treaty. The United States nevertheless decided to abide by its conditions as an expression of goodwill. The Peacekeeper was designed to have an immense throw weight, and was very nearly in the 100-ton weight class of the RS-28, because it was meant to carry a dozen modern warheads some 14,000 km. But reducing land-based ICBMs to a single warhead, as dictated by START II, reduced throw-weight requirements from around 10,000kg to under 1000kg, making the old Minuteman more than satisfactory at a much lower operating cost. The USAF sold off the existing Peacekeepers to the Orbital Sciences Corporation to use as an orbital launch platform (branded commercially as the Minotaur IV).
It's arguable that the Minuteman was already overkill for this role, as it was designed to carry a trio of warheads (it was the first MIRV-capable missile ever designed), however the extra money spent on operating a more powerful missile was determined to be cheaper than designing a newer, smaller missile.
With a reduced throw-weight, the RS-28 would also be capable of a so-called fractional orbital bombardment, something expressly banned by the Outer Space Treaty (one of the reasons the Peacekeeper was withdrawn after the US decided to reduce land-based ICBMs to a single warhead payload). That is, a warhead is placed in orbit and then de-orbited over its target. This would allow Russia to launch a strike on the United States from a Southern-directed launch, avoiding the chain of radars in Thule, Alaska, and the North Warning System. This is much more the rationale for the Russian development of the missile than ballistic missile defense, since Russia can already trivially overwhelm American / NATO missile defenses. Russia views the American Prompt Global Strike concept as violating the principle of the Outer Space Treaty. The Outer Space Treaty only expressly forbids weapons of mass destruction in space, not conventional ones, and Russia believes that Prompt Global Strike is a space-based weapon capable of taking on the strategic roles typical of WMDs (like a decapitation strike). In turn, Russia's 'fractional-orbit capable' weapon is a tit-for-tat violation of the treaty, since it clearly oversteps what the treaty intended without technically violating the letter of any treaty (then Putin winks at you from across the table). Basically, Russia and America are being jackasses to each other, which is business as usual.
One of the strange things about that video, however, is that it seems to present two things as advantages that are clearly suspect. First is the fact that the RS-28 is liquid fuelled. The whole point of Russia switching to liquid fuel for their new missiles is to increase throw weight, either for fractional orbit or parallel warhead separation. This motivation is very much counter to a hypergolic propellant, meaning we can speculate that Russia's next-generation missiles are cryogenically fueled (although there's no information on what the fuel is). Either they have gotten much, much better at storing cryogenic fuels (possible), or they are willing to spend a fortune 'topping up' the fuel on their missiles to maintain their claimed 90-second launch timeframe. That 90-second launch timeframe is pretty suspect for another reason: the best inertial navigation systems still use physically spinning gyros, and those take a hell of a lot longer than 90 seconds to spin up. Is Russia willing to guide its ICBMs with inferior ring-laser gyros? Are they willing to guide them with jammable / deniable satellite-based infrastructure? Or are they willing to go through half-million dollar spin-gyros like they're candy keeping them near operating speed? Or they're just willing to lie about a 90-second startup, which seems like the most likely thing out of those options.
I just want to highlight this one word.
This is way better than those " x days worked without an accident" signs
A few questions:
-What's the typical spin-up time for ballistic missile gyroscopes? I only recall that commercial aircraft should have a cooldown period of ~30 minutes after the gyros have been turned off before doing avionics tests, etc. to avoid damaging the gyros
-In commercial aviation, ring laser gyros are significantly less prone to accumulating drift over time, and need less resets and maintenance. Are ballistic missile gyros more "disposable"?
-Why did early BGM-109 Tomahawks use ring laser gyros? I'm not really aware of inertial navigation accuracy requirements when it comes to ballistic vs cruise missiles
A couple of statements:
-I find it implausible that Russia would resort to GLONASS to improve the accuracy of whatever inertial navigation system they utilise, given the vulnerability of satellite navigation systems. ICBMs are such weapons that it's prudent to assume that launch conditions are less-than-optimal
-I really appreciate the effort you make to provide us with such detailed and informative posts
Humanity still suffers from the lingering consequences of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
the fact that the japanese survived?
ugh i just watched anthony bourdains parts unknown episode on Japan and I was marveling at how beautiful and artful the aesthetics of that country can be and I completely forgot about anime culture
i hate japan again
Obviously exact numbers aren't going to be disclosed publicly. But the little we do know about, for instance, Trident II startup procedures put the missile initialization at about five minutes, with the gyro spin-up taking up the bulk of that time. For SLBMs, authenticating launch orders and going through the security and political checks, and getting the boat to launch depth and properly levelled is all done while the gyros spin up. And there's supposed to be time to spare.
Ring-laser gyros and fibre optic gyros both provide excellent drift performance versus most physical gyros available, with lots of commercially-available systems claiming half a nautical mile per hour or less. But this is compared to gyroscopes that use physical bearings or air bearings. Laser-based gyros offer excellent precision at an acceptable price for most aviation applications.
However, as far as I know (I'm imagining a lot of information is kept away from public hands) ICBMs and SLBMs use electrostatically-supported gyroscopes. A non-magnetic metal sphere (usually beryllium) is contained in an evacuated cavity at a very-high quality vacuum. Given a small charge, the metal mass can be suspended in an electrostatic field and beryllium is largely free from interference from metal parts in the ship / missile and Earth's magnetic field. The gyroscope position through time is then measured optically. Such gyros are not cheap. To use your example, for instance, a modern Western ESG can easily cost more than an entire Tomahawk cruise missile. However, in addition to missiles themselves, such gyros are accurate enough to be relied on to guide SSBNs for days (possibly weeks) at a time between GPS check-ins (since GPS radio signals can only penetrate a few meters of water before the signal has attenuated too much).
The Tomahawk had a lot of different redundant guidance systems. GPS and INS guide the missile somewhere near the target, and then terminal guidance is handled with active radar homing. In a GPS-denied environment, the INS only needs to get the thing near enough to a target where radar homing and terrain mapping can take over and guide the vehicle the rest of the way. For an ICBM or SLBM, the assumption is that previous nuclear strikes have rendered radar useless, and that GPS and radio-based guidance have been jammed or otherwise eliminated. The INS has to do all of the heavy lifting, so requirements are much, much higher.
Of course Russia would do no such thing. That's why I suggested that they're just lying through their teeth, to pretend that these things have any sort of credible launch-under-attack capability. They almost certainly don't; they're cryogenically-fuelled for Christ's sake, they're clearly a first-strike weapon. Russia's much smaller single-warhead road-mobile ICBMs have a credible launch-under-attack window, and give Russia a credible second-strike ability independent of their submarines (which the American Office of Naval Intelligence claims it can track, but the ONI is as much a propaganda arm as it is an intelligence branch, so take that as you will).
While a lot of people are openly shocked at the cost of modern weapons platforms like aircraft and ships, and these get a lot of media attention, I think that the price of just plain old ordinance is fairly hidden from view. Canada recently got permission from the US Department of State for the purchase of just thirty-two AIM-120Ds, at a cost of $140M USD. This purchase was originally associated with the purchase of 18 Advanced Super Hornets for an interim fighter. The CF-18 cannot currently make use of the AIM-120Ds range, as it doesn't have an over-the-horizon / AESA radar. However, even though that F/A-18 E/F order is now in jeopardy, nearly all the jets Canada is considering for its next fighter (save the Rafale) can fire the AIM-120D, so this particular order continued. For an availability rate of 50%, that's less than one combat load per available fighter. For $140M.
To be fair, this includes training infrastructure, captive rounds, a maintenance contract, and so forth. Follow-on orders will run about $50M for the same number of missiles.
The CF-18 has a maximum load out of ten AIM-120s (two doubles under each wing, plus two fuselage points), plus two AIM-9s on the wingtips. However, typical air-sovereignty missions (eg: intercepting Tu-95s) run four AIM-120s (one double under each wing), two AIM-9s on the wingtips, and three drop tanks. More recent combat missions, such as over Iraq and Syria, have seen a more diverse layout with 1-3 drop tanks, 0, 1, or 2 AIM-120s, and two-to-four pylons dedicated to air-to-ground ordinance - always with the two AIM-9s on the tips. (With a lot of nifty asymmetric load-outs, as below)
I'm still pretty anxious to see this mess get sorted out. Canada's defense procurement makes the Pentagon look like a beacon of sanity and common sense.
For the first time since WWI, German fighters flew over Israeli skies. They participated in the 2017 Blue Flag excercise. In total, 8 countries participated and it was probably pretty epic to see if for the people who were around.
Does the Indian air force allow their sikh pilots to wear turbans instead of helmets?
ive always wanted to ride in this seat
that looks like a comfy seat
modern war tourism?
Something I haven't heard of before: terrain denial.
Apparently, the USAF is running vast B-52 sorties, armed with massive load-outs of dumb bombs, to literally shape the terrain in Afghanistan to such a degree that it is stripped of its tactical value to the Taliban, such as making small mountain passes unpassable, or collapsing in caves and other features.
I suppose this has many parallels with the defoliant campaign in Vietnam, both politically and tactically at a few different scales. I guess I just never thought about reshaping the terrain around a battlefield like this before.
Got to bomb something. Besides, that's what those mountain sides get for looking at them crossways.