flavorpill

dynastylnoire:

crossconnectmag:

Zhong Biao is a leading contemporary painter hailing from China.  His portrayals of China’s social reforms through visual symbols familiar to the Chinese people, combined with surreal/ethereal compositions, takes representations of China’s past glories, the labor models of the Cultural Revolution, and such symbols of modern life as McDonalds and Boeing aircrafts to another level. Check out his website http://zhongbiao.artron.net

:-)

artist find at 

Cross Connect Mag // Facebook - Flickr - Twitter

DOPE

vicemag
vicemag:

We Let Yousef Munayyer Answer the Questions Sean Hannity Wouldn’t
On the 24th of July, an evil terrorist sympathizer appeared on Sean Hannity’s Fox News show to try to justify the horror tactics perpetrated by the Palestinian people upon the state of Israel. At least, that seemed to be the perception Hannity was trying to push, sitting in front of a large screen bearing the words “Sympathy for the Terrorists,” pointing fingers at interviewee Yousef Munayyer, and not allowing him to get a word in.
Russell Brand picked up on this exchange in a segment of his Trews YouTube series, dissecting Hannity’s “interview” technique as little more than shouting leading questions at Munayyer, which he then didn’t permit his guest to answer. Brand also alleged that Hannity uses this tactic to convey a preconceived narrative of the Israeli-Gaza conflict, as he’d like his viewers to believe it. This prompted a response from Hannity, then a counter-response from Brand; and the latest internet spat was born.

Munayyer—a Palestinian-American political analyst, writer, and executive director of the Jerusalem Fund’s educational program, the Palestine Center—seemed like a calm, fairly reasonable guy, and it was a shame we were prevented from hearing what he had to say. So in an effort to right that wrong, I decided to track him down and let him answer the questions Hannity wouldn’t. [This is an abridged version of the interview with Munayyer; to read the full transcript, click here].
VICE: Hi, Yousef. So did Sean Hannity’s people reach out to you, or did you approach them to be on his show?Yousef Munayyer: No, they reached out. So that was last week, and then of course the Russell Brand thing was totally unexpected. I mean, I’ll be totally honest with you—the last thing I was thinking about in the last three to four weeks, when there were bombs dropping all over Gaza, was Russell Brand.
I’ll get to Brand in a bit, but first I wanted to ask you about something Brand actually pondered on his segment. You weren’t in the studio with Hannity, but did you have access to a monitor? Could you see him aggressively jabbing his finger at you?No. You’re sitting in a room, staring at the black box where the camera is. The monitor wasn’t available, so I couldn’t see anything that was going on. But I could hear, obviously. His tone was quite aggressive on the earpiece. I didn’t see him jabbing his finger at me, but it was very clear that he was acting in an aggressive way; I didn’t need to see it to understand that.
Continue

vicemag:

We Let Yousef Munayyer Answer the Questions Sean Hannity Wouldn’t

On the 24th of July, an evil terrorist sympathizer appeared on Sean Hannity’s Fox News show to try to justify the horror tactics perpetrated by the Palestinian people upon the state of Israel. At least, that seemed to be the perception Hannity was trying to push, sitting in front of a large screen bearing the words “Sympathy for the Terrorists,” pointing fingers at interviewee Yousef Munayyer, and not allowing him to get a word in.

Russell Brand picked up on this exchange in a segment of his Trews YouTube series, dissecting Hannity’s “interview” technique as little more than shouting leading questions at Munayyer, which he then didn’t permit his guest to answer. Brand also alleged that Hannity uses this tactic to convey a preconceived narrative of the Israeli-Gaza conflict, as he’d like his viewers to believe it. This prompted a response from Hannity, then a counter-response from Brand; and the latest internet spat was born.

Munayyer—a Palestinian-American political analyst, writer, and executive director of the Jerusalem Fund’s educational program, the Palestine Center—seemed like a calm, fairly reasonable guy, and it was a shame we were prevented from hearing what he had to say. So in an effort to right that wrong, I decided to track him down and let him answer the questions Hannity wouldn’t. [This is an abridged version of the interview with Munayyer; to read the full transcript, click here].

VICE: Hi, Yousef. So did Sean Hannity’s people reach out to you, or did you approach them to be on his show?
Yousef Munayyer: No, they reached out. So that was last week, and then of course the Russell Brand thing was totally unexpected. I mean, I’ll be totally honest with you—the last thing I was thinking about in the last three to four weeks, when there were bombs dropping all over Gaza, was Russell Brand.

I’ll get to Brand in a bit, but first I wanted to ask you about something Brand actually pondered on his segment. You weren’t in the studio with Hannity, but did you have access to a monitor? Could you see him aggressively jabbing his finger at you?
No. You’re sitting in a room, staring at the black box where the camera is. The monitor wasn’t available, so I couldn’t see anything that was going on. But I could hear, obviously. His tone was quite aggressive on the earpiece. I didn’t see him jabbing his finger at me, but it was very clear that he was acting in an aggressive way; I didn’t need to see it to understand that.

Continue

On poverty and its effect on our economy.

Symbolic interactionism’s view that the impoverished remain so because they either have difficulty in changing their situation or because they are stigmatized by others whom are not impoverished may be an accurate assumption for a portion of those living in poverty, but it doesn’t offer a comprehensive model to analyze the cause of poverty in general.  It is a one sided view that is critical of those who live in poverty without also considering the possible circumstances which prevent them from attaining higher status which may not be under their control. 

            The structural functionalist view, while it may describe the way in which the impoverished are being exploited (i.e.…  “It’s a dirty job, but someone has to do it”), it also does not identify the institutionalized system of keeping groups of people in poverty.  Also, I disagree with some earlier posters that there is some positive in keeping groups of people poor, so they can occupy menial jobs, and promote commerce of goods that would otherwise be less than desirable to those who could afford better.  Perhaps a better view than this would be, that everyone who works should be paid a realistic living wage, so that they could afford to eat at the same proverbial table as those who were more affluent.  Believing that a greater good is served by keeping the poor poor, whether by intention or complacence is damaging to our society and economy.

            I suggest that conflict-theory offers a view that is critical of a social system, and that is why it lends itself better to describing why our economy is in the state it’s in now.  The very nature of capitalism and corporate behavior is to always show growth (increasing profit) so it would seem plausible that this mentality would force those with the most power and money to arrange our laws and regulations to benefit them.  Through deregulation of the financial sector and industry, our government gives corporations the ability to take from the lower classes as they please, and show those increased profits meanwhile.  Why did we give the biggest banks a bailout at the onset of the recession, only to see them reward their highest paid with extravagant bonuses and opulent parties.  They are being rewarded for their bad behavior.  When we vote against a living wage for all, we are saying that quality of life is more important for a few individuals, but not for the rest of us.  We are saying that we will continue carrying the wealthy on our backs while our middle class becomes poor, and our poor die off.  What a lot of people, Americans especially, fail to see is the overall improvement we could all enjoy with things like universal healthcare, living wage for all, and government funded social programs that support those of us, who really can’t support themselves.  When and if things are truly on a more even playing field in this country economically, we’ll all reap the benefits.

neurosciencestuff
neurosciencestuff:

People with tinnitus process emotions differently from their peers
Patients with persistent ringing in the ears – a condition known as tinnitus – process emotions differently in the brain from those with normal hearing, researchers report in the journal Brain Research.
Tinnitus afflicts 50 million people in the United States, according to the American Tinnitus Association, and causes those with the condition to hear noises that aren’t really there. These phantom sounds are not speech, but rather whooshing noises, train whistles, cricket noises or whines. Their severity often varies day to day.
University of Illinois speech and hearing science professor Fatima Husain, who led the study, said previous studies showed that tinnitus is associated with increased stress, anxiety, irritability and depression, all of which are affiliated with the brain’s emotional processing systems.
“Obviously, when you hear annoying noises constantly that you can’t control, it may affect your emotional processing systems,” Husain said. “But when I looked at experimental work done on tinnitus and emotional processing, especially brain imaging work, there hadn’t been much research published.”
She decided to use functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) brain scans to better understand how tinnitus affects the brain’s ability to process emotions. These scans show the areas of the brain that are active in response to stimulation, based upon blood flow to those areas.
Three groups of participants were used in the study: people with mild-to-moderate hearing loss and mild tinnitus; people with mild-to-moderate hearing loss without tinnitus; and a control group of age-matched people without hearing loss or tinnitus. Each person was put in an fMRI machine and listened to a standardized set of 30 pleasant, 30 unpleasant and 30 emotionally neutral sounds (for example, a baby laughing, a woman screaming and a water bottle opening). The participants pressed a button to categorize each sound as pleasant, unpleasant or neutral.
The tinnitus and normal-hearing groups responded more quickly to emotion-inducing sounds than to neutral sounds, while patients with hearing loss had a similar response time to each category of sound. Over all, the tinnitus group’s reaction times were slower than the reaction times of those with normal hearing.
Activity in the amygdala, a brain region associated with emotional processing, was lower in the tinnitus and hearing-loss patients than in people with normal hearing. Tinnitus patients also showed more activity than normal-hearing people in two other brain regions associated with emotion, the parahippocampus and the insula. The findings surprised Husain.
“We thought that because people with tinnitus constantly hear a bothersome, unpleasant stimulus, they would have an even higher amount of activity in the amygdala when hearing these sounds, but it was lesser,” she said. “Because they’ve had to adjust to the sound, some plasticity in the brain has occurred. They have had to reduce this amygdala activity and reroute it to other parts of the brain because the amygdala cannot be active all the time due to this annoying sound.”
Because of the sheer number of people who suffer from tinnitus in the United States, a group that includes many combat veterans, Husain hopes her group’s future research will be able to increase tinnitus patients’ quality of life.
“It’s a communication issue and a quality-of-life issue,” she said. “We want to know how we can get better in the clinical realm. Audiologists and clinicians are aware that tinnitus affects emotional aspects, too, and we want to make them aware that these effects are occurring so they can better help their patients.”

neurosciencestuff:

People with tinnitus process emotions differently from their peers

Patients with persistent ringing in the ears – a condition known as tinnitus – process emotions differently in the brain from those with normal hearing, researchers report in the journal Brain Research.

Tinnitus afflicts 50 million people in the United States, according to the American Tinnitus Association, and causes those with the condition to hear noises that aren’t really there. These phantom sounds are not speech, but rather whooshing noises, train whistles, cricket noises or whines. Their severity often varies day to day.

University of Illinois speech and hearing science professor Fatima Husain, who led the study, said previous studies showed that tinnitus is associated with increased stress, anxiety, irritability and depression, all of which are affiliated with the brain’s emotional processing systems.

“Obviously, when you hear annoying noises constantly that you can’t control, it may affect your emotional processing systems,” Husain said. “But when I looked at experimental work done on tinnitus and emotional processing, especially brain imaging work, there hadn’t been much research published.”

She decided to use functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) brain scans to better understand how tinnitus affects the brain’s ability to process emotions. These scans show the areas of the brain that are active in response to stimulation, based upon blood flow to those areas.

Three groups of participants were used in the study: people with mild-to-moderate hearing loss and mild tinnitus; people with mild-to-moderate hearing loss without tinnitus; and a control group of age-matched people without hearing loss or tinnitus. Each person was put in an fMRI machine and listened to a standardized set of 30 pleasant, 30 unpleasant and 30 emotionally neutral sounds (for example, a baby laughing, a woman screaming and a water bottle opening). The participants pressed a button to categorize each sound as pleasant, unpleasant or neutral.

The tinnitus and normal-hearing groups responded more quickly to emotion-inducing sounds than to neutral sounds, while patients with hearing loss had a similar response time to each category of sound. Over all, the tinnitus group’s reaction times were slower than the reaction times of those with normal hearing.

Activity in the amygdala, a brain region associated with emotional processing, was lower in the tinnitus and hearing-loss patients than in people with normal hearing. Tinnitus patients also showed more activity than normal-hearing people in two other brain regions associated with emotion, the parahippocampus and the insula. The findings surprised Husain.

“We thought that because people with tinnitus constantly hear a bothersome, unpleasant stimulus, they would have an even higher amount of activity in the amygdala when hearing these sounds, but it was lesser,” she said. “Because they’ve had to adjust to the sound, some plasticity in the brain has occurred. They have had to reduce this amygdala activity and reroute it to other parts of the brain because the amygdala cannot be active all the time due to this annoying sound.”

Because of the sheer number of people who suffer from tinnitus in the United States, a group that includes many combat veterans, Husain hopes her group’s future research will be able to increase tinnitus patients’ quality of life.

“It’s a communication issue and a quality-of-life issue,” she said. “We want to know how we can get better in the clinical realm. Audiologists and clinicians are aware that tinnitus affects emotional aspects, too, and we want to make them aware that these effects are occurring so they can better help their patients.”

neurosciencestuff

neurosciencestuff:

New Device Allows Brain To Bypass Spinal Cord, Move Paralyzed Limbs

For the first time ever, a paralyzed man can move his fingers and hand with his own thoughts thanks to an innovative partnership between The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center and Battelle.

Ian Burkhart, a 23-year-old quadriplegic from Dublin, Ohio, is the first patient to use Neurobridge, an electronic neural bypass for spinal cord injuries that reconnects the brain directly to muscles, allowing voluntary and functional control of a paralyzed limb. Burkhart is the first of a potential five participants in a clinical study.

“It’s much like a heart bypass, but instead of bypassing blood, we’re actually bypassing electrical signals,” said Chad Bouton, research leader at Battelle. “We’re taking those signals from the brain, going around the injury, and actually going directly to the muscles.”

The Neurobridge technology combines algorithms that learn and decode the user’s brain activity and a high-definition muscle stimulation sleeve that translates neural impulses from the brain and transmits new signals to the paralyzed limb. In this case, Ian’s brain signals bypass his injured spinal cord and move his hand, hence the name Neurobridge.

Burkhart, who was paralyzed four years ago during a diving accident, viewed the opportunity to participate in the six-month, FDA-approved clinical trial at Ohio State’s Wexner Medical Center as a chance to help others with spinal cord injuries.

“Initially, it piqued my interested because I like science, and it’s pretty interesting,” Burkhart said. “I’ve realized, ‘You know what? This is the way it is. You’re going to have to make the best out of it.’ You can sit and complain about it, but that’s not going to help you at all. So, you might as well work hard, do what you can and keep going on with life.” 

This technology has been a long time in the making. Working on the internally-funded project for nearly a decade to develop the algorithms, software and stimulation sleeve, Battelle scientists first recorded neural impulses from an electrode array implanted in a paralyzed person’s brain. They used that data to illustrate the device’s effect on the patient and prove the concept.

Two years ago, Bouton and his team began collaborating with Ohio State neuroscience researchers and clinicians Dr. Ali Rezai and Dr. Jerry Mysiw to design the clinical trials and validate the feasibility of using the Neurobridge technology in patients.

During a three-hour surgery on April 22, Rezai implanted a chip smaller than a pea onto the motor cortex of Burkhart’s brain. The tiny chip interprets brain signals and sends them to a computer, which recodes and sends them to the high-definition electrode stimulation sleeve that stimulates the proper muscles to execute his desired movements. Within a tenth of a second, Burkhart’s thoughts are translated into action.

“The surgery required the precise implantation of the micro-chip sensor in the area of Ian’s brain that controls his arm and hand movements,” Rezai said. 

He said this technology may one day help patients affected by various brain and spinal cord injuries such as strokes and traumatic brain injury.

Battelle also developed a non-invasive neurostimulation technology in the form of a wearable sleeve that allows for precise activation of small muscle segments in the arm to enable individual finger movement, along with software that forms a ‘virtual spinal cord’ to allow for coordination of dynamic hand and wrist movements.

The Ohio State and Battelle teams worked together to figure out the correct sequence of electrodes to stimulate to allow Burkhart to move his fingers and hand functionally. For example, Burkhart uses different brain signals and muscles to rotate his hand, make a fist or pinch his fingers together to grasp an object, Mysiw said. As part of the study, Burkhart worked for months using the electrode sleeve to stimulate his forearm to rebuild his atrophied muscles so they would be more responsive to the electric stimulation.

“I’ve been doing rehabilitation for a lot of years, and this is a tremendous stride forward in what we can offer these people,” said Mysiw, chair of the Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation at Ohio State. “Now we’re examining human-machine interfaces and interactions, and how that type of technology can help.”  

Burkhart is hopeful for his future.

“It’s definitely great for me to be as young as I am when I was injured because the advancements in science and technology are growing rapidly and they’re only going to continue to increase.”

personalfactory

personalfactory:

Arup Develops 3D Printing Technique for Structural Steel ~ archdaily.com

A team lead by Arup has developed a method of designing and 3D Printing  joints which will significantly reduce the time and cost needed to make complex nodes in tensile structures. Their research is being touted as “a whole new direction for the use of additive manufacturing” which provides a way of taking “firmly into the realm of real-world, hard hat construction.”