TWO BIG CAVEATS HERE: This video is an advertisement for GoPro. It also might be a fake viral video, because 99.99% of everything on the internet is a fake viral video. With that in mind, this is still awesome. AVALANCHE!
Sunday, April 24, 2011
Saturday, April 23, 2011
This Stripper Broke Into Google Headquarters
Strippers are people too! And just like people, some of them are batshit crazy. Take Vera Svechina
, a stripper who recently followed a blind Google employee into Google headquarters to leave a Russian book and "non-threatening" note for co-founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page. A little weird, no? Turns out, Svechina has a bizarre history with Silicon Valley.
The Business Insider reported on how she allegedly stalked Mark Pincus, CEO of Zynga, so much and threatened his family that he had to file a restraining order. Her voicemails, emails and blog posts were filled with borderline insane behavior, such as:
Svechina allegedly says many bizarre things, including that Zynga was her Russian family's idea, that Google's cofounders killed her father, that Pincus's children are "ugly babies" and that "I wish them all the worst." She also goes after Steve Jobs.
Even nuttier? Back in May 2010, she went to the Mountain View Police Deparment to report Google of a crime. The crime? That Google was sending messages to her brain, ordering her to kill herself. Come on, Google is at least two to twenty years away from developing that sort of technology.
Bad jokes aside, hopefully Vera Svechina can find the professional help that she seems to need.
, a stripper who recently followed a blind Google employee into Google headquarters to leave a Russian book and "non-threatening" note for co-founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page. A little weird, no? Turns out, Svechina has a bizarre history with Silicon Valley.
The Business Insider reported on how she allegedly stalked Mark Pincus, CEO of Zynga, so much and threatened his family that he had to file a restraining order. Her voicemails, emails and blog posts were filled with borderline insane behavior, such as:
Svechina allegedly says many bizarre things, including that Zynga was her Russian family's idea, that Google's cofounders killed her father, that Pincus's children are "ugly babies" and that "I wish them all the worst." She also goes after Steve Jobs.
Even nuttier? Back in May 2010, she went to the Mountain View Police Deparment to report Google of a crime. The crime? That Google was sending messages to her brain, ordering her to kill herself. Come on, Google is at least two to twenty years away from developing that sort of technology.
Bad jokes aside, hopefully Vera Svechina can find the professional help that she seems to need.
Friday, April 22, 2011
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Three-parent IVF needs more research, review says
More research is needed into a controversial fertility treatment, known as three-parent IVF, before it can be considered safe for clinical use, a review has concluded.
Mitochondrial transfer aims to replace a faulty part of a mother's egg with healthy material from a donor.
This means a baby would have a small amount of the donor's genetic material, and therefore three biological parents.
The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) carried out the study.
The HFEA is the UK's independent fertility treatment regulator and its conclusions are published in a scientific review of the technique commissioned by the Department for Health.
Inherited disorders
The proposed treatment is designed to help families with rare inherited disorders.
These disorders are due to faulty energy-generating components of cells called mitochondria. Mothers carrying these faulty mitochondria in their eggs are at risk of having children with the inherited disorder.
Under the transfer treatment, the idea is to replace the faulty mitochondria in the eggs or fertilised embryos with those from eggs or early embryos from a healthy, unaffected donor.
The hope is these methods will enable couples to have healthy children and eliminate the disease for subsequent generations, but the technique is controversial because mitochondria carry their own genetic material (DNA).
Although this is very small and only carries a few genes, the resulting child will have this genetic material from the donor, in addition to the majority of maternally- and paternally-inherited genes present, in the nucleus of the cell.
The scientific review has concluded the two main ways of carrying out mitochondrial transplants appear safe, but a little more research is needed before it can be tried out on people.
Legislation call
Medical charities and research organisations are to press the government to prepare the legislation that would make this procedure legal so the technique can be used in the clinic as soon as it gets the go-ahead from the research community.
Dr Evan Harris, who campaigns for medical research, said: "Without regulations making clinical work legal, it will be difficult to ensure the laboratory research is funded and done in this country and that trials on affected families can be planned.
"Until the government makes clinical research and eventual treatment legal, subject to strict regulation on safety, this country risks losing its world-leading status."
Dr Harris argued for the legalisation of mitochondrial transplantation during the passage of the 2008 Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act when he was science spokesman for the Liberal Democrats.
He has now called on the government to provide a timetable for consultation and the publication of the regulations.
The report, called scientific review of the safety and efficacy of methods to avoid mitochondrial disease through assisted conception, examines three approaches to treating mitochondrial disorders.
The first, which is permitted under current regulations, is known as pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, or PGD.
This involves testing very early stage embryos from the affected couple and implanting only those that seem unaffected by the genetic disorder.
The report authors concluded the technique was unreliable for some disorders and could not guarantee the resulting child would be healthy.
Pro-life groups
The two other techniques are not permitted and would require a change in legislation for its use in the clinic.
Research on human embryonic material however is permitted, provided it is not implanted into a woman's womb.
One technique, known as maternal spindle transfer, involves transplanting the nuclear genetic material (in the form of chromosomes) from an unfertilised egg carrying the abnormal mitochondria obtained from the "patient" (the mother) into an empty donor egg, which is then fertilised.
The other, known as pro-nuclear transfer, involves transplanting the genetic material from a fertilised egg from the patient into a healthy "empty" fertilised egg from a donor, which has had its nuclear genetic material removed.
Some pro-life groups object more to this technique as it involves the creation and destruction of embryos.
Experiments with monkeys and work with embryonic material show promise.
But the HFEA's scientific review says more work needs to be carried out to show that embryos produced by either technique will develop normally.
The report authors also want research that compares the effectiveness of each technique before clinical trials are given the go-ahead.
By Pallab Ghosh
Science correspondent, BBC News
Mitochondrial transfer aims to replace a faulty part of a mother's egg with healthy material from a donor.
This means a baby would have a small amount of the donor's genetic material, and therefore three biological parents.
The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) carried out the study.
The HFEA is the UK's independent fertility treatment regulator and its conclusions are published in a scientific review of the technique commissioned by the Department for Health.
Inherited disorders
The proposed treatment is designed to help families with rare inherited disorders.
These disorders are due to faulty energy-generating components of cells called mitochondria. Mothers carrying these faulty mitochondria in their eggs are at risk of having children with the inherited disorder.
Under the transfer treatment, the idea is to replace the faulty mitochondria in the eggs or fertilised embryos with those from eggs or early embryos from a healthy, unaffected donor.
The hope is these methods will enable couples to have healthy children and eliminate the disease for subsequent generations, but the technique is controversial because mitochondria carry their own genetic material (DNA).
Although this is very small and only carries a few genes, the resulting child will have this genetic material from the donor, in addition to the majority of maternally- and paternally-inherited genes present, in the nucleus of the cell.
The scientific review has concluded the two main ways of carrying out mitochondrial transplants appear safe, but a little more research is needed before it can be tried out on people.
Legislation call
Medical charities and research organisations are to press the government to prepare the legislation that would make this procedure legal so the technique can be used in the clinic as soon as it gets the go-ahead from the research community.
Dr Evan Harris, who campaigns for medical research, said: "Without regulations making clinical work legal, it will be difficult to ensure the laboratory research is funded and done in this country and that trials on affected families can be planned.
"Until the government makes clinical research and eventual treatment legal, subject to strict regulation on safety, this country risks losing its world-leading status."
Dr Harris argued for the legalisation of mitochondrial transplantation during the passage of the 2008 Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act when he was science spokesman for the Liberal Democrats.
He has now called on the government to provide a timetable for consultation and the publication of the regulations.
The report, called scientific review of the safety and efficacy of methods to avoid mitochondrial disease through assisted conception, examines three approaches to treating mitochondrial disorders.
The first, which is permitted under current regulations, is known as pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, or PGD.
This involves testing very early stage embryos from the affected couple and implanting only those that seem unaffected by the genetic disorder.
The report authors concluded the technique was unreliable for some disorders and could not guarantee the resulting child would be healthy.
Pro-life groups
The two other techniques are not permitted and would require a change in legislation for its use in the clinic.
Research on human embryonic material however is permitted, provided it is not implanted into a woman's womb.
One technique, known as maternal spindle transfer, involves transplanting the nuclear genetic material (in the form of chromosomes) from an unfertilised egg carrying the abnormal mitochondria obtained from the "patient" (the mother) into an empty donor egg, which is then fertilised.
The other, known as pro-nuclear transfer, involves transplanting the genetic material from a fertilised egg from the patient into a healthy "empty" fertilised egg from a donor, which has had its nuclear genetic material removed.
Some pro-life groups object more to this technique as it involves the creation and destruction of embryos.
Experiments with monkeys and work with embryonic material show promise.
But the HFEA's scientific review says more work needs to be carried out to show that embryos produced by either technique will develop normally.
The report authors also want research that compares the effectiveness of each technique before clinical trials are given the go-ahead.
By Pallab Ghosh
Science correspondent, BBC News
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Ferrari Quiz
A question that is often asked of someone with a new car is
"what will it do?"
The answer is usually something like "zero to 60 in 5.3 seconds," or something along those lines.
Well, here's the brand new 2011 Ferrari "458 Italia"
First, here's what it looks like:
And here is what it can do...
"what will it do?"
The answer is usually something like "zero to 60 in 5.3 seconds," or something along those lines.
Well, here's the brand new 2011 Ferrari "458 Italia"
First, here's what it looks like:
And here is what it can do...
Monday, April 18, 2011
Pig & Pork Facts - A Christian Viewpoint
The pig or swine is a very popular food item with most Christians. Yet Christians are unaware that the God they profess to believe in had condemned the eating of swine's flesh. The condemnation was based on some very sound biological principles. Here are some facts on pork that prove it to be a very unhealthy food to eat:
A pig is a real garbage gut. It will eat anything including urine, excrement, dirt, decaying animal flesh, maggots, or decaying vegetables. They will even eat the cancerous growths off other pigs or animals.
The meat and fat of a pig absorbs toxins like a sponge. Their meat can be 30 times more toxic than beef or venison.
When eating beef or venison, it takes 8 to 9 hours to digest the meat so what little toxins are in the meat are slowly put into our system and can be filtered by the liver. But when pork is eaten, it takes only 4 hours to digest the meat. We thus get a much higher level of toxins within a shorter time.
Unlike other mammals, a pig does not sweat or perspire. Perspiration is a means by which toxins are removed from the body. Since a pig does not sweat, the toxins remain within its body and in the meat.
Pigs and swine are so poisonous that you can hardly kill them with strychnine or other poisons.
Farmers will often pen up pigs within a rattlesnake nest because the pigs will eat the snakes, and if bitten they will not be harmed by the venom.
When a pig is butchered, worms and insects take to its flesh sooner and faster than to other animal's flesh. In a few days the swine flesh is full of worms.
Swine and pigs have over a dozen parasites within them, such as tapeworms, flukes, worms, and trichinae. There is no safe temperature at which pork can be cooked to ensure that all these parasites, their cysts,and eggs will be killed.
Pig meat has twice as much fat as beef. A 3 oz T bone steak contains 8.5 grams of fat; a 3 oz pork chop contains 18 grams of fat. A 3 oz beef rib has 11.1 grams of fat; a 3 oz pork spare rib has 23.2 grams of fat.
Cows have a complex digestive system, having four stomachs. It thus takes over 24 hours to digest their vegetarian diet causing its food to be purified of toxins. In contrast, the swine's one stomach takes only about 4 hours to digest its foul diet, turning its toxic food into flesh.
The swine carries about 30 diseases which can be easily passed to humans. This is why God commanded that we are not even to touch their carcase (Leviticus 11:8).
The trichinae worm of the swine is microscopically small, and once ingested can lodge itself in our intestines, muscles, spinal cord or the brain. This results in the disease trichinosis. The symptoms are sometimes lacking, but when present they are mistaken for other diseases, such as typhoid, arthritis, rheumatism, gastritis, MS, meningitis, gall bladder trouble, or acute alcoholism.
The pig is so poisonous and filthy, that nature had to prepare him a sewer line or canal running down each leg with an outlet in the bottom of the foot. Out of this hole oozes pus and filth his body cannot pass into its system fast enough. Some of this pus gets into the meat of the pig.
There are other reasons grounded in biological facts that could be listed to show why pigs and swine should not be eaten. But a true Christian should only need one reason why not to eat this type of food because God prohibited it.
"And the swine, because it divides the hoof, yet does not chew the cud, it is unclean unto you: you shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch their dead carcase." - Leviticus 11:7,8; Deuteronomy 14:8
Those who say Christ abolished the law condemning pork are motivated by their stomach not scripture. The problems with pork are biological, and Christ never changed the laws of biology.
A pig is a real garbage gut. It will eat anything including urine, excrement, dirt, decaying animal flesh, maggots, or decaying vegetables. They will even eat the cancerous growths off other pigs or animals.
The meat and fat of a pig absorbs toxins like a sponge. Their meat can be 30 times more toxic than beef or venison.
When eating beef or venison, it takes 8 to 9 hours to digest the meat so what little toxins are in the meat are slowly put into our system and can be filtered by the liver. But when pork is eaten, it takes only 4 hours to digest the meat. We thus get a much higher level of toxins within a shorter time.
Unlike other mammals, a pig does not sweat or perspire. Perspiration is a means by which toxins are removed from the body. Since a pig does not sweat, the toxins remain within its body and in the meat.
Pigs and swine are so poisonous that you can hardly kill them with strychnine or other poisons.
Farmers will often pen up pigs within a rattlesnake nest because the pigs will eat the snakes, and if bitten they will not be harmed by the venom.
When a pig is butchered, worms and insects take to its flesh sooner and faster than to other animal's flesh. In a few days the swine flesh is full of worms.
Swine and pigs have over a dozen parasites within them, such as tapeworms, flukes, worms, and trichinae. There is no safe temperature at which pork can be cooked to ensure that all these parasites, their cysts,and eggs will be killed.
Pig meat has twice as much fat as beef. A 3 oz T bone steak contains 8.5 grams of fat; a 3 oz pork chop contains 18 grams of fat. A 3 oz beef rib has 11.1 grams of fat; a 3 oz pork spare rib has 23.2 grams of fat.
The swine carries about 30 diseases which can be easily passed to humans. This is why God commanded that we are not even to touch their carcase (Leviticus 11:8).
The pig is so poisonous and filthy, that nature had to prepare him a sewer line or canal running down each leg with an outlet in the bottom of the foot. Out of this hole oozes pus and filth his body cannot pass into its system fast enough. Some of this pus gets into the meat of the pig.
There are other reasons grounded in biological facts that could be listed to show why pigs and swine should not be eaten. But a true Christian should only need one reason why not to eat this type of food because God prohibited it.
"And the swine, because it divides the hoof, yet does not chew the cud, it is unclean unto you: you shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch their dead carcase." - Leviticus 11:7,8; Deuteronomy 14:8
Those who say Christ abolished the law condemning pork are motivated by their stomach not scripture. The problems with pork are biological, and Christ never changed the laws of biology.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)