Being the oldest person alive is a record you can break continuously (unlike most).

[QUOTE=Nick;343299]Being the oldest person alive is a record you can break continuously (unlike most).[/QUOTE]

Unlike, say, "world's tallest", you mean? ;)

[QUOTE=Nick;343299]Being the oldest person alive is a record you can break continuously (unlike most).[/QUOTE]
...unless your name is Benjamin Button? ;-)

[URL="http://news.discovery.com/human/are-languages-shaped-by-geograpy-130613.htm"]Are Languages Shaped By Geography?[/URL][QUOTE]A study of more than 550 languages around the world found that tongues spoken in high-altitude regions contain more sounds called ejective consonants, made with a burst of air, than languages closer to sea level.[/QUOTE]

Hands-free technology causing driver ‘inattention blindness’
 

[url]http://hexus.net/ce/news/automotive/56773-hands-free-technology-causing-driver-inattention-blindness/[/url]

[QUOTE=kladner;343348][url]http://hexus.net/ce/news/automotive/56773-hands-free-technology-causing-driver-inattention-blindness/[/url][/QUOTE]
Studies have shown for [U]several years[/U] now that it is the brain and not the hands or eyes that are the problem with hands free mobile phones. One of the tests that showed there is a difference, those that use radios while driving (two way radios, but only half-duplex). There was better performance during half-duplex. The areas of the brain that light up when talking on the phone are those that are also used during driving (spatial and visualization areas.) Add that on top of the fact that the other party has no clue what is going on where the driver is. It is like carrying teenagers in the vehicle, [URL="http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2012/05/aaa-study-passengers-up-risk-of-teen-driver-fatalities/1#.UbqZLPr1GSo"]they don't know when to be quiet and let the driver focus[/URL].

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;343353]Studies have shown for [U]several years[/U] now that it is the brain and not the hands or eyes that are the problem with hands free mobile phones. One of the tests that showed there is a difference, those that use radios while driving (two way radios, but only half-duplex). There was better performance during half-duplex. The areas of the brain that light up when talking on the phone are those that are also used during driving (spatial and visualization areas.) Add that on top of the fact that the other party has no clue what is going on where the driver is. It is like carrying teenagers in the vehicle, [URL="http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2012/05/aaa-study-passengers-up-risk-of-teen-driver-fatalities/1#.UbqZLPr1GSo"]they don't know when to be quiet and let the driver focus[/URL].[/QUOTE]

And unlike having a conversation with a person riding shotgun, you do not have an extra set of eyes on the road. A paranoid passenger is one of the best collision avoidance systems ever, if one can avoid getting irritated. I'd rather get an unneeded warning than have a wreck. Hence, I am very tolerant of my partner's anxieties and passenger side brake stomping. :smile:

[QUOTE=kladner;343356]And unlike having a conversation with a person riding shotgun, you do not have an extra set of eyes on the road. A paranoid passenger is one of the best collision avoidance systems ever,[/QUOTE]As part of one of the studies that I heard about, it turns out that a competent driver is a better driver when there is another competent driver with them.

[URL="http://www.latimes.com/news/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-video-maps-universe-20130613,0,5793604.story"]This video is a trip -- through the known universe[/URL]

I got the link to this from Yahoo. admittedly I didn't watch the whole video. the French accent doesn't help me.

[url=http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/14/us-usa-court-genes-idUSBRE95C0PW20130614?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews]U.S. top court bars patents on human genes unless synthetic[/url]

Not even the usual flip-a-coin 5-4 crap on this one.

Thought I'd mention [URL="https://selectedpapers.net/"]SelectedPapers.net[/URL]. This is a way to find, read, share and comment on academic papers. At present, it works with Google+ users. Several mathematicians are giving it a try. [url]http://docs.selectedpapers.net/intro.html[/url][QUOTE][LIST][*]Now you can initiate and join discussions of papers directly on any SelectedPapers.net page.
[*]Alternatively, without even signing in to SelectedPapers.net, you can just write posts on Google+ containing the hashtag [B]#spnetwork[/B], and they will automatically be included within the SelectedPapers.net discussions (i.e. indexed and displayed so that other people can reply to them etc.). Here’s an example of a Google+ post example:[QUOTE]This article by Perelman outlines a proof of the Poincare conjecture!

#spnetwork #mustread #geometry #poincareConjecture arXiv:math/0211159[/QUOTE]You need the tag [B]#spnetwork[/B] for SelectedPapers.net to notice your post. Tags like [B]#mustread[/B], [B]#recommend[/B], and so on indicate your attitude to a paper. Tags like [B]#geometry[/B], [B]#poincareConjecture[/B] and so on indicate a subject area: they let people search for papers by subject. A tag of the form [B]arXiv:math/0211159[/B] is necessary for arXiv papers; note that this does not include a # symbol.

For PubMed papers, include a tag of the form [B]PMID:22291635[/B]. Other published papers usually have a DOI (digital object identifier), so for those include a tag of the form [B]doi:10.3389/fncom.2012.00001[/B].

Tags are the backbone of SelectedPapers.net; you can read more about them [URL="http://docs.selectedpapers.net/hashtags.html"]here[/URL].
[*]You can also post and see comments at [url]https://selectedpapers.net[/url]. This page also lets you search for papers in the arXiv and search for published papers via their DOI or Pubmed ID. If you are signed in, the homepage will also show the latest recommendations (from people you’re subscribed to), papers on your reading list, and papers you tagged as interesting for your work.[/LIST]Papers[LIST]Papers are the center of just about everything here. Here’s what you can do with a paper:
[*]click to see the full text of the paper via arXiv.org or the publisher’s website.
[*]read other people’s recommendations and discussion of the paper.
[*]add it to your [B]Reading List[/B]. This is simply a private list of papers – a convenient way of marking a paper for further attention later. When you are logged in, your Reading list is shown on the homepage. No one else can see your reading list.
[*][B]share[/B] the paper with others (such as your Google+ Circles or Google+ communities that you are part of).
[*][B]tag[/B] it as interesting for a specific topic. You do this either by clicking the checkbox of a topic (it shows topics that other readers have tagged the paper), by selecting from a list of topics that you have previously tagged as interesting to you, or by simply typing a tag name. These tags are public; that is, everyone can see what topics the paper has been tagged with, and who tagged them.
[*][B]post[/B] a question or comment about the paper, or [B]reply[/B] to what other people have said about it. This traffic is public. Specifically, clicking the Discuss this Paper button gives you a Google+ window (with appropriate tags already filled in) for writing a post. Note that in order for the spnet to see your post, you [B]must[/B] include Public in the list of recipients for your post (this is an inherent limitation of Google+, which limits apps to see only the same posts that any internet user would see – even when you are signed-in to the app as yourself on Google+).
[*][B]recommend[/B] it to others. Once again, you [B]must[/B] include Public in the list of recipients for your post, or the spnet cannot see it.[/LIST]We strongly suggest that you include a [B]topic hashtag[/B] for your research interest area. E.g. if there is a hashtag that people in your field commonly use for posting on Twitter, use it. If you have to make up a new hashtag, keep it intuitive and follow “camelCase” capitalization e.g. #openPeerReview.[/QUOTE]