A sheriff’s deputy in Kansas Tased 91-year-old man with Alzheimer’s disease in his back after he refused to go to the doctor, shocking newly-released body cam footage shows.
Archive for the ‘ Tasers ’ Category
So I wrote an open letter to my principal about last week’s sex ed:
Dear Dr. Hon,
I am Agatha, a C1 student, and my purpose in writing this open letter to you today is to express my sincere concerns about the MSF “It’s Uncomplicated” workshop all C1 students had to attend on Friday, the 3rd of October.
I attended the workshop with my class in the AVT. Before it started, I flipped through the booklet provided by Focus on the Family (FotF). While sexuality education rarely manages to teach me something that I have not already learnt through past sessions or mainstream media, this booklet was different. From merely glancing through this booklet, I learned a simple yet important lesson: that bigotry is very much alive and it was naïve of me to think I could be safe from it even in school.
While I do have many concerns with regards to this workshop and its content which I consider to be pressing, the most pressing is perhaps that the workshop and booklet actively serve to promote rape culture in school. On the cover page of the booklet itself, it is written, “no means yes?” and “yes means no?” (See attached photo for reference.) The facilitators from FotF neglected to mention that thinking a girl means “yes” when she says “no” is actually completely wrong. Rather, they spent their four hours with us discussing things such as what a girl “really means” when she says something else, as opposed to guys who are “direct” and “always mean what they say” (see photos of pages 20-21). By telling the student population this, FotF sends a dangerous message: that you should always assume that a girl means something else (like “yes”) when really she just means “no”.
Granted, the facilitators did make clear that these gender stereotypes they were promoting were subject to “some exceptions” and that they should be taken lightly, as a sort of joke. While it is reassuring to note that they have apparently realized not everyone fits into their binary model of a nuclear family that in their opinion youth should be actively working towards, not only did they ignore the presence of these people whenever it was inconvenient to them, but they also adopted an extremely damaging attitude.
When someone else tried to raise that the facilitator’s views were too narrow and that they failed to consider, for instance, LGBTQ or polyamorous individuals, he effectively shut her down by saying that her views were not what the audience wanted to listen to and that perhaps she could remain quiet for now and bring it up with him afterwards so they could end the first half of the course for break, which was coming up “very soon”. (He failed to actually ask the audience if we wanted to listen to her opinion and assumed we wholeheartedly accepted his, and break was in fact almost another half hour later.) I personally thought that listening to her opinion was more important than tea break, but what do I know? After all, I am just a “gal”.
The facilitators’ attitude of “jokingly” (I write this with inverted commas because I personally did not believe they were joking) promoting gender stereotypes, in particular, that girls always mean the opposite of what they say as compared to guys who are all very direct, is also extremely damaging in other ways. By endorsing these stereotypes as a tolerable joke, they effectively tell students that these are acceptable views and that it’s perfectly okay to adopt them. This creates a dangerous situation in which questions like “does she mean yes when she says no?” become valid in the male student population’s eyes. Their joking attitude here only serves to reinforce rape culture, since the guys now come to mistakenly understand that girls always mean the opposite when they say anything, including “no”.
Besides this, something else I found distressing was that the workshop seemed to emphasize and enforce traditional gender roles in a relationship. According to FotF, “gals” –as it is written throughout the booklet –are fragile and need guys’ support, and everything a guy does in the relationship is excusable simply because he is a guy and is wired that way. “Gals”, it writes, “need to be loved”, “can be emotional”, “want security”, “[want] you to listen to her problems”, and “[want] to look attractive”, and validation of each of these can only come from the support of a male (see attached photos of pages 25-26). It paints girls as hopelessly dependent beings who are incapable of surviving without guys. This is an extremely sexist view. It simplifies girls to nothing more than what FotF believes they should be like in their relationship with guys.
Yes, I agree that many girls probably feel a need to be loved, and can be emotional, but is this not human, and are these really things that only a guy can solve? Love and emotional support can come from many different people –from families and friends, for instance. Furthermore, that “emotional security” and “closeness” are “far more important to [girls] than financial security” is a questionable and even insulting claim, as is the claim that having a guy listen to a girl’s feelings “automatically solves the problem”. This sexist attitude not only trivializes girls’ problems, but also serves as a foundation for the further boosting of the male ego FotF seems so invested in doing.
This is driven home by the use of the word “gals” throughout the booklet. As a seventeen year-old –someone who should be considered a young adult –I resent the use of this word to describe me. Using the language of twelve year-olds to describe girls makes us seem immature and frivolous and ultimately, easily dismissible. We are not, and should not be portrayed as such.
Guys, on the other hand, are portrayed as guardians who can ultimately do no wrong even when they are evidently doing wrong. “Guys need respect” and “guys are insecure” are just some of the things written in the booklet. “While guys don’t want a girl to pretend to be clueless,” it writes, “they also don’t want a girlfriend that questions their opinions and argues with their decisions all the time”. What this really means is that guys apparently do not want a girl who thinks for herself. I am sure you agree that as a student, being told that I should refrain from having opinions of my own and daring to express them for the sake of keeping a guy’s ego intact is contrary to everything my education has taught me. Similarly, that I should take it upon myself, as a girl, to boost a guy’s ego by showering him with compliments in public because it is my responsibility to do so is equally demeaning.
However, I am also sure you agree that this view about guys does not hold true for everyone. Much as girls have been generalized and simplified in this booklet, so too have guys, and this is fair for neither gender. Yet while the simplification of girls serves to belittle their importance as individuals, the gross simplification of guys serves to boost their egos by perpetuating the message that anything and everything guys do is excusable simply because it is wired into them.
The most alarming thing I read in the booklet provided was that “A guy can’t not want to look” and that what a girl is wearing matters only “lest she become an “eye magnet” that cannot be avoided” (see attached photos of pages 27-28). There are two main problems with this –firstly, that guys are apparently incapable of controlling themselves or their hormones at all, and this is excusable because it’s in their natures, and second, that as a girl, when I dress, I should be thinking of what guys think rather than what I think.
FotF would have you believe that guys are slaves to their hormones and therefore girls should take their unwanted attention in their stride. When a “scantily-clad” girl walks past, for instance, a guy is sure to take notice because “no man with a pulse could have done otherwise” (page 26). It is precisely this kind of attitude that makes mothers warn their daughters not to wear short skirts and walk along the street alone at night, instead of warning their sons to be decent human beings and keep their eyes to themselves instead of appraising the female form like they own it. Certainly, we live in a male dominated world, and for this reason, guys do tend to get away with more. Yet that they do get away with more does not mean that they should. FotF, however, seems to believe that anything a guy does is excusable just because he is a guy. It is worrying that this is the message being imparted to students who are frequently told that they are they the future of the nation.
In my opinion, FotF’s portrayal of guys with regards to their raging hormones not only makes them seem pathetic, but again reduces girls to their role as supporters of their male counterparts. The booklet states that “Many guys feel neither the ability nor the responsibility to stop the sexual progression with [girls]”, and thus they “need your help to protect both of you” (page 28). I felt it disgusting that, for one, FotF has reduced guys to nothing but their hormones, and for two, instead, then, of suggesting that we should cultivate a sense of responsibility in guys with regards to respecting boundaries, FotF suggested that girls therefore need to support guys so that they are able to play heroes and guardians. Why should girls have to learn to help guys play guardian rather than learn how to protect themselves?
It should be noted that in the earlier half of the workshop, the facilitators had shared that in moving the relationship to the next stage, “the guy has to take the lead”. When I asked them why, they were unable to provide an answer beyond “It was just a general statement”. I find it strange that a guy can apparently be expected to take charge when moving the relationship forward, yet should not be expected to take charge in stopping it. Also, FotF does not seem to comprehend the damage one can do by reducing everything to general statements, as I have mentioned above.
After the workshop, I took it upon myself to look up FotF to better understand the views they actively promote. While I cannot say that I was shocked to find out that they are, according to their website, a “global Christian ministry” known for their socially conservative views and agenda, I was disappointed that our sexuality education was tasked to them. I feel that FotF has used sexuality education as an opportunity to further spread their own conservative, “God-ordained” beliefs rather than to educate students on arguably more important things such as safe sex, sexual identity and shared and equal responsibility.
At the JC level, students would have spent at least four years hearing about abstinence and why it is the safest way to go. Using the four hour long workshop to once again preach the value of abstinence seems excessive and unnecessary. If schools are to prepare us for situations we will face in the future, then should we not also be taught about safe sex and contraception and about healthy relationship dynamics?
It is especially unfortunate that FotF was in charge of sexuality education in JC. As young adults trying to figure ourselves out, having a known conservative group preach the non-existence or non-importance of individuals it does not approve of is extremely damaging to the self-discovery process because it invalidates our values and choices and ignores diversity in us as human beings. FotF had no problem using a clip with a gay character when it suited their purposes (a scene from My Best Friend’s Wedding), yet was also quick to denounce any relationship outside of the binary heterosexual norm as “unstable” and “unfavourable”.
Indeed, when the facilitator asked someone why he did not believe in the institution of marriage and he replied that it was in his opinion a flawed social construct due to the limits the government imposes on it, the facilitator was quick to declare that marriage had nothing to do with the government (considering what I now know about FotF, one might then assume that marriage is all about God) and that any unmarried or non-heterosexual couple was effectively participating in an unstable relationship. The quickness and ease with which the facilitator dismissed anyone outside of his limited moral framework was a clear display of bigotry and tells students that acceptance is beyond him. For someone questioning their identity, having someone in a position of authority tell them that they simply did not matter if they were not straight is emotionally destructive.
I do not mean to imply that the school management has to take a supportive position in the struggle for LGBTQ rights, though in my opinion this would be ideal. Yet even so the school has a responsibility to the diverse school population; even if the school is unable and unwilling to provide inclusive sexuality education for students, it has a basic responsibility to ensure that it is a place free of bigotry where students can at least feel safe to study in without fear of being persecuted for who they are or are figuring themselves out to be.
By engaging the services of groups such as FotF to teach sexuality education in school, the management hence indirectly participates in promoting rape culture, tells students that we should conform to traditional gender roles instead of being our own persons, demonstrates that the acceptance of diversity in people is unimportant, and erases minority groups in the student population.
I hope that these concerns will be taken into consideration for future events and workshops.
Now how isWayne County Assistant Prosecutor Teana Walsh had posted comments about this week’s unrest in Baltimore, which was sparked by the death of Freddie Gray after he was fatally injured in police custody, according to a screenshot of her page posted on MyFox Detroit.com.
She described “large swarms of people throwing bricks etc at police who are fleeing from their assaults” and then suggested using guns.
“Simple. Shoot em. Period. End of discussion,” Walsh posted.
“Simple. Shoot em. Period. End of discussion,” Walsh posted.
▶ The Brutal Evil Police / Sheriff / Cop CUNTS Attempt to MURDER a WHITE MAN are now on paid VACATION after finially getting caught doing what they do to people every fucking day! (April 09, 2015)Author: SupremePundit
Just fucking watch the Attempted Murder of Francis Pusok ! Oh fuck that’s right he is a white man. Nothing here to see keep moving.
This is why zombies require headshots….. They have body armor
San Bernardino County Sheriffs beat a man that laid down and put his hands behind his back. The man kept his hands behind his back while being beaten.
EVERY COP THAT SHOWED UP WANTED SOME VACATION!
GOTTA GET A KICK IN! GOTTA GET SOME PAID ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE!!
THE ONLY GOOD COPS (IN THE ENTIRE FUCKING USA) WILL BE HOLDING SIGNS OUTSIDE OF THE SAN BERNARDINO STATION DEMANDING ARRESTS AND CONVICTION OF OFFICERS THAT HAVE DISGRACED THEIR PROFESSION. Just go count them….. Oh I will for you ZERO.
These are not rogue cops.
These are what every fucking one of them are like.
Are you going to go quietly?
“IT’S like coffee times ten,” raves one enthusiast. “I use it a couple of times a week and problems solve themselves. At the end of the day, I haven’t wasted hours on frivolous websites. At the end of the week, my apartment is clean.” This marvel of productivity is not a new energy drink or an experimental wonder drug but a simple electrical device that he built at home for less than $10. Whenever this physicist feels like an extra burst of motivation, he places electrodes on his skull and sends a jolt of electricity into his brain.
The currents, which are typically applied for ten to 20 minutes, are hundreds of times smaller than the seizure-inducing shocks used in electroconvulsive therapy. Plans to make such transcranial direction current stimulation (tDCS) machines are freely available online and their components can be bought at hobbyist stores. Kits cater to those lacking soldering skills, and now companies are emerging offering nicely designed and packaged brain zappers for mainstream consumers.
Not everyone using tDCS is seeking to become more efficient in their daily life. Some hope to enhance their concentration for study or video gaming; others want to boost their memory, speed up learning or induce meditative calm. Yet more are trying to self-medicate for conditions such as depression, chronic pain and motor, sensory or neurological disorders. The benefits might sound implausible, but there is some science to support them. The idea goes back a long way. Scribonius Largus, a first-century Roman physician, prescribed the shock of an electric ray for headaches, and in the 19th century electrical pioneers such as Luigi Galvani and Alessandro Volta toyed with crude bioelectric experiments. It was not until the 1960s, however, that the first rigorous studies of electrical brain stimulation took place.
Directing the flow
The theory behind tDCS is that a weak direct current alters the electric potential of nerve membranes within the brain. Depending on the direction of the current, it is said to make it easier or more difficult for neurons in a brain circuit to fire. Position the electrodes correctly and choose the right current, so the idea goes, and you can boost or suppress all kinds of things. Some researchers have reported that tDCS can reduce pain, ease depression, treat autism and Parkinson’s disease, control cravings for alcohol and drugs, repair stroke damage, and accelerate recovery from brain injuries, to say nothing of improving memory, reasoning and fluency. Remarkably, some effects seem to persist for days or even months. And the closer that scientists look at tDCS, the more they seem to find. Scientific papers about the technology appear at an ever-faster rate.
Hardly surprising, then, that DIY brain hackers want in on the action. Christopher Zobrist, a 36-year-old entrepreneur based in Vietnam, is one of them. With little vision he has been registered as blind since birth due to an hereditary condition of his optic nerve that has no established medical treatment. Mr Zobrist read a study of a different kind of transcranial stimulation (using alternating current) that had helped some glaucoma patients in Germany recover part of their vision. Despite neither the condition nor the treatment matching his own situation, Mr Zobrist decided to try tDCS in combination with a visual training app on his tablet computer. He quickly noticed improvements in his distance vision and perception of contrast. “After six months, I can see oncoming traffic two to three times farther away than before, which is very helpful when crossing busy streets,” he says.
Online communities dedicated to tDCS are full of similar stories. More still claim to have gained cognitive enhancements that give them an edge at work or play. Users follow the latest scientific papers avidly and attempt to replicate the results at home, discussing the merits of different currents, waveforms and “montages” (arrangements of the electrodes on the skull).
Dissenting voices are rare. Here and there are tales of people who experienced headaches, nausea, confusion or sleeplessness after tDCS, while temporary visual effects and mild skin burns are fairly common. There have been no reports of seizures, serious injuries or deaths. But that does not mean it is without risk, says Peter Reiner, co-founder of the National Core for Neuroethics at the University of British Columbia. He says DIY users may place electrodes incorrectly, thus stimulating the wrong part of their brain, or reverse the polarity of current, potentially impairing the very things they are trying to improve. No one really knows how tDCS interacts with chemical stimulants or recreational drugs like marijuana, or with pre-existing conditions like epilepsy. Even something as fundamental as being left-handed can alter the functional organisation of the brain. And if the benefits of tDCS can persist for weeks, perhaps its side-effects can linger, too. Many neuroscientists are particularly worried that the use of tDCS by children and young adults could affect their long-term neural development.
Some of these concerns can be addressed by manufacturing tDCS devices to make it difficult, or impossible, to exceed recommended currents or to apply the electrodes incorrectly. One such product already exists. The Foc.us V2, made by Transcranial, a London company, is advertised as a $199 pocket-sized controller that pairs with a $99 headset intended to help with concentration and reaction speed while videogaming. Donning the headset automatically positions the electrodes on the left and right temples, and both the duration and maximum current are capped. A second headset provides a different montage aimed at improving performance and motivation while exercising.
In reality, however, there is no guarantee that even slick products are any safer than a pocket-money brain stimulator assembled at home from a 9-volt battery, electrodes, a few wires and other components. Unlike the tDCS machines used for medical trials and clinical research, consumer versions may not have been assessed by any official body for safety or effectiveness. If the maker insists they are for use only by healthy adults to enhance cognition or leisure activities and make no diagnostic or therapeutic claims, such “wellness” devices have slipped under the regulatory radar of both the Medical Devices Directive in Europe and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in America.
That worries some experts. A recent paper from the Institute for Science and Ethics at the University of Oxford points out that consumer tDCS products are mechanically and functionally equivalent to medical neurostimulation devices that require licensing. Why regulate the version that is likely to be operated responsibly by health professionals, and not the one freely available to unskilled and inexperienced users? The Nuffield Council on Bioethics agrees, recommending in 2013 that the European Commission should consider regulating all such gadgets under its medical devices regime, regardless of the purposes for which they are marketed.
The Institute for Science and Ethics proposes a graded regulation system that errs on the side of consumer choice for tDCS devices, requiring comprehensive, objective information about risks and benefits to allow users to make informed decisions. But it wants supplying brain zappers to children to be made illegal. Last year the FDA allowed transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulator (TENS) machines for headache relief as it rated them as low-to moderate-risk devices. TENS devices use a different waveform to tDCS and target cranial nerves rather than the brain itself, but they rely on a similar controller and head-mounted electrodes. Before allowing new TENS products to be sold, the FDA now wants to see evidence that the components are not likely to cause injury, that the controller can reliably provide the correct output, that there are no thermal or mechanical hazards, and that clinical data demonstrate the device is safe and effective as a headache treatment. Recent draft FDA guidelines for wellness devices suggest tDCS machines may eventually be regulated in a similar way.
The University of British Columbia’s Dr Reiner doubts that any manufacturer today can provide such information for tDCS. Even if they could, the cost of gathering it would make consumer devices more expensive. “When you can make a tDCS device yourself for less than $20, we would advise strongly against heavy regulation because it will only drive the technology underground,” he says.
Proving the effectiveness of brain stimulation will be difficult. Although it may well do something, exactly what is open to question. As the hype around tDCS grows, some neuroscientists are starting to question whether the technology really is the panacea it appears to be.
In 2013 Teresa Iuculano and Roi Cohen Kadosh of the Department of Experimental Psychology at the University of Oxford split volunteers up into three groups and asked them to learn a made-up mathematical notation system. The first two groups received tDCS to different parts of the brain previously associated with numerical understanding and learning, while a non-functional “sham” device was used on the third group as a control. After a week, all three groups were tested on how well they had learned the new notation system, and whether they could use it in practice. The first group showed an improvement in learning compared with the control group, but a decrease in their ability to apply their knowledge, while the second group experienced the opposite result. This suggests that the brain is actually rather well balanced: boost performance in one cognitive realm through stimulation, and aptitude in another will naturally diminish.
There is also the possibility that a variation in individual responses to tDCS will overshadow any general effects. In a study published last year, Dr Cohen Kadosh set up two groups: one of people who were anxious when presented with mathematical problems, and another who had confidence in their ability to breeze through numerical quizzes. When treated with tDCS to their prefrontal cortices, the nervous individuals improved their reaction time on simple arithmetical problems and showed reduced levels of stress. Given the same treatment, the confident group had longer reaction times and no less stress. “If you can get exactly the opposite results with a different population, that shows DIY brain hackers and companies marketing stimulation to improve gaming or other abilities are not on the right track,” says Dr Cohen Kadosh. “We need to understand how the brain works in different people.”
Felipe Fregni, director of the Laboratory of Neuromodulation at Harvard Medical School, says tDCS has been shown to accelerate the learning of new skills. But he agrees that individual variation is important, noting that younger people sometimes do not improve as much as older subjects, and that people at later stages of learning may even experience detrimental effects. “The more science you know, the more confused you can become of what really is the effect of tDCS,” says Dr Fregni.
One advantage of the deluge of scientific papers is that they can be subjected to meta-analysis, whereby studies can be statistically combined to tease out new discoveries. Last year, Jared Horvath, a neuroscientist at the University of Melbourne in Australia, published a meta-analysis of 30 measurements taken during tDCS studies, including neural responses, oxygen levels and electrical activity in the brain. Surprisingly, he found that tDCS had a reliable effect on only one: the electrical response of muscles to stimulus, and even that has steadily declined in studies over the last 14 years. Mr Horvath believes this indicates that the response has historically been measured poorly and that it too will eventually disappear as techniques mature.
Equally troublesome is a meta-analysis of the cognitive and behavioural effects on healthy adults that Mr Horvath subsequently carried out. As before, he included only the most reliable studies: those with a sham control group and replicated by other researchers. It left 200 studies claiming to have discovered beneficial effects on over 100 activities such as problem solving, learning, mental arithmetic, working memory and motor tasks. After his meta-analysis, however, tDCS was found to have had no significant effect on any of them.
If tDCS alters neither the physiology of the brain nor how it performs, thinks Mr Horvath, then evidence suggests it is not doing anything at all. Marom Bikson, a professor of biomedical engineering at City University of New York, disagrees. “I can literally make you fall on your butt using the ‘wrong’ type of tDCS,” he says. Dr Bikson thinks the biggest challenge for tDCS is optimising techniques, such as the dose.
Mr Horvath notes that many papers measure 20 or more outcomes, with brain stimulation showing a weak effect on one or two. “But in the title and abstract, that’s all they talk about,” he says. “No one mentions the tons of effects that tDCS didn’t have an impact on but that technically it should have if it is doing what the researcher thinks it is.”
Another problem might be the small sample size, sometimes as few as ten or 15 people. Mr Horvath says future studies should use at least 150 subjects. There is, of course, the possibility that Mr Horvath’s analyses are flawed. His paper included only one-off sessions, while many scientists believe the effects of tDCS accumulate with repetition. However, too few multiple-session studies exist for a valid meta-analysis. Dr Cohen Kadosh points out that individual variations could make the technology look as though it is doing nothing when in fact it has real but opposing effects in different people. Mr Horvath insists that his analysis allows for this possibility.
Critics might also wonder why Mr Horvath omitted tests where tDCS seems to have been most effective, in alleviating, for instance, clinical conditions such as depression. He admits that would be useful but says, “If something doesn’t demonstrate any type of effect in healthy people, it becomes incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to argue why it would work within a clinical population.”
Not all neuroscientists are defending the status quo. “I’m not surprised that he found no effect from conventionally applied tDCS,” says Jamie Tyler, a professor at Arizona State University and one of the founders of Thync, a Silicon Valley startup that recently unveiled a smartphone-controlled tDCS device. Thync tried to replicate some basic tDCS findings on cognition but could not do so. Dr Tyler now believes that tDCS may not directly stimulate the brain at all but instead modulates cranial nerves in the skull, like the headache-busting TENS technology. He designed the Thync device, a pocket-sized unit with disposable pre-shaped electrodes, to target these nerves with the aim of generating either relaxed or energetic mental states.
A shot of caffeine
Dr Tyler recently published a study of 82 people with a control. Its results suggest that Thync’s device can reduce psychophysiological stress by altering skin conductivity (a measure used in pseudoscientific lie detectors), stress enzymes and heart rate variability. He likens Thync’s “modified tDCS” programs to ingesting either a third of a cup of coffee or a glass of wine, and says no effect has been found on cognitive processes like working memory. While Thync’s stimulator is not yet available to the public, the firm was willing to give your correspondent a pre-launch trial.
The Thync device attaches with one sticky electrode on the right temple and one behind the right ear. The unit is controlled via a smartphone app, with the user able to adjust the intensity but not the duration of the session. At first, the unit generated a barely perceptible crawling feeling on the skin near the electrodes, building gradually to a pronounced tingling sensation. Over the 20-minute session, the strength of the signal varied up and down according to a preset routine. It felt itchy at times and, at its most powerful, caused muscles in the forehead to spasm alarmingly. Although the experience was not altogether unpleasant, any extra energy or focus proved, alas, elusive. Dr Tyler acknowledged that perhaps one in four people do not perceive any immediate benefit from the device.
Even for those who find themselves susceptible to its charms, the challenges for a product like Thync are formidable. The cognitive enhancements of a strong cup of tea or a glass of vintage Burgundy are well established. And partaking of them can be socially acceptable, deliciously enjoyable and rapidly achieved. None of these can be said of a disconcerting gizmo that needs half an hour to work and causes eyebrows to raise, both literally and socially.
Regardless of their questionable utility and effectiveness, tDCS gadgets are too novel, cheap and alluring to simply dismiss. Consumer-wellness devices like Thync may appeal to those who cannot use caffeine or alcohol for medical or religious reasons, and there will always be healthy overachievers seeking to supercharge their cognition for study or work. More importantly, tDCS presents the tantalising promise of relief from some medical conditions for which traditional therapies are either ineffective or unaffordable. As the University of Melbourne’s Mr Horvath says, “If there are ten percent of people who are feeling a huge effect, even if that’s placebo, who are we to say no to them?”
If people want to experiment with tDCS, there seems to be no reason to prevent them, provided it is done in the safest way possible. Devices could be regulated lightly with a view to safety rather than effectiveness, and neuroscientists encouraged to design future studies with more rigour. Happiness and health may always be more than just a 9-volt battery away, but brain hacking looks like it is here to stay.
The markings and signs of use on each weapon tell their own stories, usually having to do with bludgeoning a policeman.
Brain Stimulation Found to Speed Up Learning
A mild zap to the brain could help people learn faster, according to new research recently presented at the British Science Festival.
The same technique might also someday help stroke patients recover lost motor skills.
Researchers at the University of Oxford have found that applying a small amount of electric current to the brain sped up learning, said the British Science Association, which sponsored the festival.
Using a technique called transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), a team of scientists, led by Heidi Johansen-Berg, electrically stimulated the brains of subjects trying to learn a computer game that required a series of button presses. The current was applied to the part of the brain that controls movement for about 10 minutes either before or during the game.
Subjects who received the current learned the sequences faster than subjects who received only a quick burst of electricity before the game.
“While the stimulation didn’t improve the participant’s best performance, the speed at which they reached their best was significantly increased,” Johansen-Berg told BBC News.
The stimulation, Johansen-Berg added, could help people recovering from strokes. In a separate experiment, stroke patients who received the same electrical stimulation showed improved motor function.
Technique Promising for Stroke Recovery
Dr. Sarah Lisanby, chairwoman of the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at Duke University in Durham, N.C., has been involved in her own research using tDCS. She said the current acts on the parts of the brain affected by a stroke.
“By using direct current application during the performance of a task that engages the circuits affected by a stroke, the current can help facilitate the response that leads to recovery,” she said. The technique, she said, shifts the electrical potential of the brain to facilitate learning.
Experts say it makes sense that a technique such as tDCS that might affect learning could also help stroke patients improve their level of functioning.
“Stroke recovery is a form of learning, but the brain cells involved in learning are damaged,” said Dr. David Alexander, professor of neurology and medical director of the UCLA Neurological Rehabilitation and Research Unit. “We want brain cells uninvolved in the stroke to take over function, but those cells will have to learn that function that’s been lost.”
Lisanby said there have been a number of studies looking at tDCS and its potential for treatment of a variety of other conditions, such as depression and schizophrenia, as well as examining the effects of tDCS on memory and other kinds of learning.
A recent study, also done by researchers at the University of Oxford, found that tDCS improved math performance for up to six months.
Despite the positive findings, experts say, there’s still a way to go until tDCS is used in a clinical setting. “We need to understand what happens at a cellular level and fine tune that,” Alexander said.
Lisanby said the technique does have several advantages — it’s safe, portable and inexpensive — but larger studies and a better evaluation of safety are needed before being able to use tDCS as treatment.
“The impact of this work goes beyond stroke to illustrating how targeted neuromodulation can unlock the mysteries of the brain’s potential for resilience and how that may ultimately be applied to clinical treatment of brain-based disorders,” Duke University’s Lisanby said.
Pumped up with the evanescent waves from light subatomic particles can now be accelerated just like at cern right in your hand.
‘Accelerator On A Chip’ Could Help Make Portable X-ray Source To Assist Injured Soldiers On Battlefield : Science : Headlines & Global News.
Cops fucking little children because they get away with it almost every time.
Besides general thuggery and lawlessness this is why cops join the force.
When the shit hits the fan here all the storm troopers, sheriffs, national guard, local police, highway patrol and their bosses will be amped up on some form of amphetamine.
They are going to be ZOMBIES with body armor. Head shots required.
The USA uses it to this day. Why is this a surprise.
In 1972, Heinrich Böll won the Nobel Prize for literature. But before he became a writer of novels, short stories, and essays, Böll was a writer of letters. During his early 20s, which also happened to be during World War II, he was conscripted into the German military. And as he fought, serving in France, Romania, Hungary, and finally the Soviet Union, Böll corresponded with his family back in Cologne. The letter he sent on May 20, 1940, contained not just an update, but a request. “Perhaps you could obtain some more Pervitin for my supplies?” Just one of these pills, Böll explained, was as effective at keeping him alert as several cups of coffee. Plus, when he took Pervitin, he was able to forget, temporarily, about the trials and terrors of war. He could — for a while, at least — be happy.Pervitin was the early version of what we know today as crystal meth. And it was fitting that a German soldier would become addicted to the stuff: the drug, Der Spiegel notes, first became popular in Germany, brought to market by the then-Berlin-based drugmaker Temmler Werke. And almost immediately, the German army physiologist Otto Ranke realized its military value: not only could the methamphetamine compound keep fighters pilots, in particular alert on little sleep; it could also keep an entire military force feeling euphoric. Meth, Spiegel puts it, “was the ideal war drug.”7983133268_bf4e8368a6_m.jpgAnd it was, as such, put to wide use. The Wehrmacht, Germany’s World War II army, ended up distributing millions of the Pervitin tablets to soldiers on the front they called it “Panzerschokolade,” or “tank chocolate”. The air force gave the tablets to its flyers in this case, it was “pilot’s chocolate” or “pilot’s salt”. Hitler himself was given intravenous injections of methamphetamine by his personal physician, Theodor Morell. The pill, however, was the more common form of the drug. All told, between April and July of 1940, more than 35 million three-milligram doses of Pervitin were manufactured for the German army and air force.News of meth’s powers, unsurprisingly, spread. British papers began reporting on German soldiers’ use of a “miracle pill.” Soon, Allied bomber pilots were experimenting with the drug. Their tests ended quickly, though; while the soldiers who used pilot’s salt were able to focus on their flying in the short term … they also became agitated, aggressive, and impaired in their judgment over the long.The Germans would notice the same side effects — the side effects thanks, Breaking Bad! we know so well today. Short rest periods, it turned out, weren’t enough to compensate for long stretches of wakefulness. Some soldiers who used the meth died of heart failure; others ended up committing suicide during psychotic phases. Many others simply became addicted to the stimulant, leading to all the familiar symptoms of addiction and withdrawal: sweating, dizziness, hallucination, depression. Leonardo Conti, the Third Reich’s top health official, moved to limit use of the drug among his forces. He was, however, unsuccessful.As late as the 1960s, in fact, the Temmler Werke was supplying the armies of both East and West Germany with its Pervitin pills. And it wasn’t until the 1970s that West Germany’s postwar army, the Bundeswehr, finally removed the drug from its medical arsenal. East Germany’s National People’s Army wouldn’t follow suit until 1988.Via Der Spiegel, hat tip Digg.
Training for when “people become crazy, violent and fearful” the joint Military-Police occupiers will be desensitized to killing US civilians after their training by HALO corp in San Diego this month.
Wise the fuck up! This is no tongue in cheek way to teach the military, “federal workers” and OUR police forces to work together and get used to a viral outbreak.
Yes you are the zombie. And if you approach a uniformed euro-bankster thug in uniform they will put one in YOUR HEAD.
as US Army tanks travelled down residential neighborhoods. They were told that this is not the beginning signs of martial law.
Drills involving the US military and mock civilian uprisings or riot scenarios were conducted at Vigilant Guard 2010 where “Americans” were told to demand food and their Constitutional rights while soldiers practiced subduing and containing them.
Martial law was declared in Chicago before the NATO Summit commenced. Clear “red Zone” areas around Chicago were marked while the DOT shut down access roads in and out of the downtown area. Plans to evacuate the city should “terrorist attacks” be carried out.
According to Doug Hagmann , private investigator, his high-level source at DHS confirmed that the agency is preparing for “massive civil war” in the US.
Hagmann says: “We have problems . . . The federal government is preparing for civil uprising. . . so every time you hear about troop movements, every time you hear about movements of military equipment, the militarization of the police, the buying of the ammunition, all of this is . . . they (DHS) are preparing for a massive uprising.”
Teen Girls that are too ugly to fuck
Men that are too pretty to throw out of the beauty contest
Cops that kill
Cops that steal
Vegans that can’t read
Women that rape the man next door
Just read the last ten posts or so…
Not good for any company
The US Govt. is getting called on the carpet on how they talk out of both sides of their mouths…
The two sides had disagreed on what the jury signaled with its verdict. The defense said jurors showed they believed Mehserle’s Taser story when they rejected murder and voluntary manslaughter, both of which require an intent to kill.
SP ( I CAN SEE IT NOW THE COPS WILL BE SHOOTING PEOPLE AND SAYING IT WAS A MISTAKE AND IT WAS THE TASER THEY INTENDED TO USE TO SHOCK THEM TO DEATH WITH NOT THE GUN…..)
Prosecutors disagreed. They said jurors had found that Mehserle did not intend to kill Grant, but that he had meant to shoot him. The gun enhancement, prosecutors noted, required the panel to find that Mehserle had fired a gun on purpose.
Defense attorneys believe the jury misapplied the gun enhancement after it was poorly explained to them.
During trial, prosecutor David Stein said Mehserle had “lost all control” of his emotions before the shooting. The defense said he had made a mistake under pressure and cast blame on poor training at BART – particularly on the agency’s Taser training, which Mehserle received a month before the shooting – and on the character of Grant, who had spent time in prison.
Grant had been detained at about 2 a.m. that New Year’s Day, along with four friends, for fighting on a Dublin-Pleasanton train. Within minutes, Mehserle’s then-colleague on the BART force, Anthony Pirone, reported that Grant had resisted him and ordered his arrest. Stein argued that the arrest itself was unlawful because Grant had cooperated.
Mehserle then moved to handcuff Grant as he lay on his chest, but struggled to pull back the Hayward man’s right arm before standing up and pulling out his pistol.
Taking the stand near the end of the trial, Mehserle testified that he had decided to use his Taser because he saw Grant put his right hand in his pants pocket and believed he might be reaching for a gun.
Mehserle said he had accidentally pulled out his pistol and fired before realizing he had grabbed the wrong weapon.
Mehserle’s shooting of Grant was witnessed by scores of New Year’s revelers, several of whom recorded it on cell-phone cameras.
The trial was moved to Los Angeles in an effort to find impartial jurors. In the Bay Area, many community leaders, activists and others saw the shooting as a window into a larger problem of police officers abusing people of color with little accountability.
Today’s sentencing “will have a detrimental impact on the relationship between the police and the African American community,” said Burris, the Grant family attorney. “It only says there is no bridge here.”
The sentencing is not the final word on Grant’s death. The U.S. Justice Department has said that its civil rights division, along with the U.S. attorney’s office and the FBI, will investigate the shooting “to determine whether the evidence warrants federal prosecution.”
Pirone and his partner the night of the shooting, Marysol Domenici, were fired earlier this year by BART – Pirone for his actions on the train platform and Domenici for the way she reported the incident to investigators. Their appeals are pending.
SP (FOR THE WAY SHE REPORTED THE INCIDENT TO INVESTIGATORS … NOW LET’S CALL A LIE A LIE …. ALL COPS LIE. ONLY BECAUSE THIS WAS CAUGHT ON VIDEO and SOMEONE WAS KILLED WAS ANYTHING DONE ABOUT IT.
BART agreed in January to pay $1.5 million in a civil settlement to Grant’s daughter, Tatiana Grant. But Grant’s mother, along with several of his friends who were with him when he was shot, still have pending lawsuits that may go to trial.
Chronicle staff writer Kevin Fagan contributed to this report.
The jury also found that Mehserle, a Napa County resident, had used a gun during the crime. However, Judge Robert Perry threw out the gun conviction today, saying it was not supported by the evidence
Hey! I am just back from a flight where the terahertz radiation DNA damaging machines were set up but not being used. I wanted to opt out just to get felt up.
But I have a strange feeling I can not chose who searches me.
If we always have High school graduates or GED passed TSA grown men to finger fellate the male passengers and un-marriageable college drop-out femi-nazis to manually stimulate the female passengers then what if a lesbian did not want to be touched by a woman that was not her wife (allowed in several states) so she could stay faithful. What if a lesbian wants a man to feel her up because she will not have any sexual stimulation from him (and does not care if he is stimulated and frustrated in the process)
Why does the TSA get to chose who checks us?
Why can’t we chose who does us in public? What about the homosexual guys that want the TSA dorks to run their hands up until they meet resistance? What if the Homosexual passenger starts to moan and writhe? Is this acceptable?
What about the hard up lesbians that will get all wet just thinking about getting felt up by that uniformed, jack-booted, utility belt wearing dyke with a GED?
Why can’t I have the same experience with the same dyke?
You see the way I see it is this “security theater” is supposed to shame and intimated us into submitting to the terahertz radiation box. But freedom loving folks like myself can turn the tables. I want to be felt up in public by the TSA so I can LOUDLY moan and request that they do it again. OVER AND OVER…..
Well they are not ALL BAD they at least snatched the 2 year old child first then tortured the legless helpless father.
Let’s all pledge allegiance now…..
Then the cops arrested someone that was using a phone to video the situation and deleted the video from the phone. (Destruction of evidence and intimidation of a witness) Then the cops wrote a report that is in conflict with over 10 eye witlessness. Yep, they will retire with over 100k a year and full medical for life.
Keep it up pigs….
There is nothing here sheeple just go back to your TV’s………………………………………………………..
a little video is here
Possibly not but when pockets disappeared from woman’s clothes back in the 1800’s they had to start carrying purses. (you know those things that get stolen, lost, filled with crap, and become useless) Well in a survival situation where you may be on the move or just securing the compound calls for a way to carry plenty of stuff.
In steps the fishing / photo / shooting vest.
You will want zipper closures on all compartments so nothing falls out when you do a handstand. Of course the ladies may just go for the ones that have the right color….
If she is still bitching about wearing a vest or carrying anything at all just tell you will be back in a hour and make sure that your vest contains everything you need.
Or just show her how she will look skinny in one…..
Fishing vests are in along with military wear this year. Who knew?
Go ahead and laugh at those folks in tin foil hats. At least they are not hearing voices that are being beamed into their heads. (Other voices I dunno?)
That’s right these weapons have been under investigation for several years and are now being publicly implemented. Anyone possissing one of these weapons can cause great pain to anyone they want even inside a building or car.
To hell with tasers way too messy lets just cook little Suzie brain.
Tasers, pepper spray, batons, jack boots, and NOW heat weapons. Those folks wearing tin foil are not looking so stupid now are they?
Well that is the question. If a starving child goes into a store after an earthquake and leaves a note of what they took to eat and left the store would a cop shoot the child?
Those orders were given before and likely will be given again.
The US Army and National Guard went house to house after Katrina in teams with one police officer in each team (to make it legal) to confiscate guns.
Just youtube collateral murder, and Katrina gun confiscation…