
50 Things we know now that we didn't know this time last year - malvosenior
http://www.att.net/s/editorial.dll?eetype=Article&eeid=7020757&render=y&Table=&ch=ne&
======
dangrossman
"40. The speed of U.S Internet broadband lags far behind other industrial
nations, including Japan, Finland, South Korea, France and Canada."

We knew that last year, AT&T. I believe the government handed you some
billions of dollars to do something about that years ago.

------
10ren
_5\. One mutated gene is the reason humans have language, and chimpanzees, our
closest relative, do not._ Overstated? Seems unlikely to be just one gene.
<http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/282009>

_12\. Scientists have discovered how to scan brain activity and convert what
people are seeing or remembering into crude video images._ Really? Including
what people are remembering?
[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/living/article...](http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/living/article6898177.ece)

~~~
kadavy
RE 5: "Only one gene is involved in the important barrier." but "the gene,
FOXP2, is not the only one involved in our ability to communicate
linguistically but the specific gene in chimpanzees and humans act and appear
much differently." I guess it's just one that is the difference.

~~~
jacquesm
That's testable. Splice the human gene in to the chimpanzee genome and see if
the outcome is the talking chimpanzee. If not then there are more genes
active.

~~~
10ren
It's a fascinating idea, especially what would their language (syntax) be like
if they didn't have the concepts (semantics). Or would it turn out that they
do have _enough_ in the way of concepts, and have only lacked the language to
express it? Or does syntax play a greater role in intelligence than we'd
thought - not fully whorf-sapir, but perhaps there is some contribution, in
the way that going from regular to context-free languages makes a difference?
(personally, I think most of the power of our language comes from a huge
vocabulary and combining it in regular ways; the CFG aspect doesn't seem so to
be so profound _in practice_ to me)

~~~
jacquesm
There's this weird thing though, we don't seem to have much in terms of
'intermediately intelligent' creatures. It seems to be an all-or-nothing
thing, you can't be for instance smart enough to develop a 50,000 word
vocabulary and write a thesis if you can not _also_ speak, or at least have a
speech center (no insult intended to deaf people).

~~~
10ren
It's hard to generalize from a single instance, but you may have something
there. It is striking that _both_ means of expressing large numbers of ideas -
vocabulary and syntax - only occur in us. I would guess that they were driven
by the same evolutionary pressures and benefits.

There was an article about a (potentially) intermediate "proto-syntax"
language used by an animal. Even since your comment, I've been wracking my
brains for what it was. I can't even recall what type of animal it was... ah,
now that you prompt me to put it into words :), I can google "proto-syntax":
[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091212144710.ht...](http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091212144710.htm)

And just submitted (I seem to have come to it from reddit; it hadn't been
submitted here yet): <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1036802>

------
jacquesm
That would be an even better article if it linked to the original research for
those items.

~~~
anthonyb
The original article _does_ have links - not necessarily to the research
itself, but still much better than this one.

[http://www2.tbo.com/content/2009/dec/27/na-50-things/news-
me...](http://www2.tbo.com/content/2009/dec/27/na-50-things/news-metro/)

~~~
jacquesm
Great find, maybe the submitter can change the link ?

~~~
anthonyb
Wasn't that hard - if you follow the <http://www.tampatrib.com> link at the
bottom of the original article, it's staring you right in the face.

There are also similar articles back to 2005, which might be good to see
whether the items that the Tribune picked turned out to be important or not.

~~~
jacquesm
Ah, yes, now I see it. Weird though how they actually had that information and
then decided to leave it out of the article, that's a serious devaluation for
no good reason at all.

------
kyro
I came expecting points addressing ATTs shortfalls in service, and how they
plan on improving. That's not what I got, unfortunately.

------
ams6110
_15\. The higher a patient's body-mass index, the less respect he or she gets
from doctors._

I'm surprised to see this on the list, I would have thought this would have
been established long ago. Anecdotally, I've talked with several docs who have
commented on the frustration of trying to help people who clearly are not
taking care of themselves (e.g 350 lb diabetics who won't lose weight, etc.)

~~~
patrickgzill
Corollary might be "the spherical nurses in the cardiac unit are the ones most
likely to lecture you on the importance of losing weight and a healthy diet".

I accompanied a close friend to the local hospital to get some tests done
(EKG, etc). Virtually all the nurses were such that you couldn't any part of
the chair they were sitting on except the back of the seat.

------
bh23ha
_12\. Scientists have discovered how to scan brain activity and convert what
people are seeing or remembering into crude video images._

Does anyone else think we'll have the ability to "download" ourself into
computers quite a while before we extend the life span of the human body
beyond 250 years?

~~~
ericb
I think consciousness is tied to the hardware it is running on, so I'm not
optimistic about that prospect... If you mean "copy ourselves" then I'd be
more inclined to agree.

------
lunchbox
This is a neat list but skewed towards fun facts rather than substantial
research. I would love to see a list of the biggest findings of the year,
ranked in importance by scientists.

~~~
s3graham
A few here: [http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/science/july-
dec09/yeari...](http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/science/july-
dec09/yearinscience_12-31.html)

~~~
lunchbox
That's exactly what I was looking for; thanks!

------
mixmax
This one surprised me:

 _"Analysis of Greenland ice samples shows Europe froze solid in less than 12
months 12,800 years ago, partly due to a slowdown of the Gulf Stream. Once
triggered, the cold persisted for 1,300 years."_

Scared me a little too since I'm from Northern Europe...

Does anyone know where to find more information or the original research?

~~~
bd
Their source:

[http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427344.800-mini-
ice-...](http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427344.800-mini-ice-age-took-
hold-of-europe-in-months.html)

Some more details in the ESF press release:

 _"Geological evidence shows that the Big Freeze was brought about by a sudden
influx of freshwater, when the glacial Lake Agassiz in North America burst its
banks and poured into the North Atlantic and Arctic Oceans. This vast pulse, a
greater volume than all of North America’s Great Lakes combined, diluted the
North Atlantic conveyor belt and brought it to a halt."_

[http://www.esf.org/media-centre/press-releases/ext-single-
ne...](http://www.esf.org/media-centre/press-releases/ext-single-
news/article/big-freeze-plunged-europe-into-ice-age-in-months-592.html)

And the background on "Big Freeze" mini ice-age:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas>

~~~
mixmax
Thanks!

