Alles wat jan bezig houd, jan interesseert en jan irriteert... en ook een beetje onzin...

vrijdag, maart 24, 2017

Spoordeelwinkel - De leukste en voordeligste uitjes met de trein

http://m.spoordeelwinkel.nl/

Research Debt

http://distill.pub/2017/research-debt/

Explanation of "habitual be".

The Unit of Caring

you gave me wings when you showed me birds

"

[There's a] frequently misunderstood construction that linguists refer to as the "habitual be." When speakers of standard American English hear the statement "He be reading," they generally take it to mean "He is reading." But that's not what it means to a speaker of Black English, for whom "He is reading" refers to what the reader is doing at this moment. "He be reading" refers to what he does habitually, whether or not he's doing it right now.

D'Jaris Coles, a doctoral student in the communication disorders department, and a member of the African-American English research team, gives the hypothetical example of Billy, a well-behaved kid who doesn't usually get into fights. One day he encounters some special provocation and starts scuffling with a classmate in the school yard. "It would be correct to say that Billy fights," Coles explains, "but he don't be fighting."

Janice Jackson, another team member who is also working on a Ph.D. in communication disorders, conducted an experiment using pictures of Sesame Street characters to test children's comprehension of the "habitual be" construction. She showed the kids a picture in which Cookie Monster is sick in bed with no cookies while Elmo stands nearby eating cookies. When she asked, "Who be eating cookies?" white kids tended to point to Elmo while black kids chose Cookie Monster. "But," Jackson relates, "when I asked, 'Who is eating cookies?' the black kids understood that it was Elmo and that it was not the same. That was an important piece of information." Because those children had grown up with a language whose verb forms differentiate habitual action from currently occuring action (Gaelic also features such a distinction, in addition to a number of West African languages), they were able even at the age of five or six to distinguish between the two.

"


zaterdag, maart 18, 2017

Scientists who found gluten sensitivity evidence have now shown it doesn't exist - ScienceAlert

Scientists who found gluten sensitivity evidence have now shown it doesn't exist - ScienceAlert

Scientists Who Found Gluten Sensitivity Evidence Have Now Shown It Doesn't Exist

The scientific method in action.

In one of the best examples of science working, a researcher who provided key evidence of (non-celiac disease) gluten sensitivity recently published follow-up papers that show the opposite.

The paper came out last year in the journal Gastroenterology. Here's the backstory that makes us cheer: The study was a follow up on a 2011 experiment in the lab of Peter Gibson at Monash University in Australia. The scientifically sound - but small - study found that gluten-containing diets can cause gastrointestinal distress in people without celiac disease, a well-known autoimmune disorder triggered by gluten. They called this non-celiac gluten sensitivity.

Gluten is a protein composite found in wheat, barley, and other grains. It gives bread its chewiness and is often used as a meat substitute: If you've ever had 'wheat meat', seitan, or mock duck at a Thai restaurant, that's gluten.

Gluten is a big industry: 30 percent of people want to eat less gluten. Sales of gluten-free products are estimated to hit $US15 billion by 2016.

Although experts estimate that only 1 percent of Americans - about 3 million people - actually suffer from celiac disease, 18 percent of adults now buy gluten-free foods.

Since gluten is a protein found in any normal diet, Gibson was unsatisfied with his finding. He wanted to find out why the gluten seemed to be causing this reaction and if there could be something else going on. He therefore went to a scientifically rigorous extreme for his next experiment, a level not usually expected in nutrition studies.

For a follow-up paper, 37 self-identified gluten-sensitive patients were tested. According to Real Clear Science's Newton Blog, here's how the experiment went:

Subjects would be provided with every single meal for the duration of the trial. Any and all potential dietary triggers for gastrointestinal symptoms would be removed, including lactose (from milk products), certain preservatives like benzoates, propionate, sulfites, and nitrites, and fermentable, poorly absorbed short-chain carbohydrates, also known as FODMAPs. And last, but not least, nine days worth of urine and faecal matter would be collected. With this new study, Gibson wasn't messing around.

The subjects cycled through high-gluten, low-gluten, and no-gluten (placebo) diets, without knowing which diet plan they were on at any given time. In the end, all of the treatment diets - even the placebo diet - caused pain, bloating, nausea, and gas to a similar degree. It didn't matter if the diet contained gluten. (Read more about the study.)

"In contrast to our first study… we could find absolutely no specific response to gluten," Gibson wrote in the paper. A third, larger study published this month has confirmed the findings.

It seems to be a 'nocebo' effect - the self-diagnosed gluten sensitive patients expected to feel worse on the study diets, so they did. They were also likely more attentive to their intestinal distress, since they had to monitor it for the study.

On top of that, these other potential dietary triggers - specifically the FODMAPS - could be causing what people have wrongly interpreted as gluten sensitivity. FODMAPS are frequently found in the same foods as gluten. That still doesn't explain why people in the study negatively reacted to diets that were free of all dietary triggers.

You can go ahead and smell your bread and eat it too. Science. It works.

This article was originally published by Business Insider.


Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPad

maandag, maart 13, 2017

zondag, maart 12, 2017

ECLI:NL:GHARN:2005:AT0895, voorheen LJN AT0895, Gerechtshof Arnhem, 2004/644

Ik kwam deze interessante uitspraak tegen.

Het komt er kort op neer dat het is toegestaan een politieagent op de openbare weg te fotograferen. De agent kan wel vragen onherkenbaar gemaakt te worden (dus gezicht of naamplaatje) niet zichtbaar.

> 4.2 Met hun vordering beogen [geïntimeerden] met een beroep op het bij artikel 21 Auteurswet (Aw) geregelde portretrecht dan wel op artikel 6:162 van het Burgerlijk Wet-boek (BW) te bewerkstelligen dat [appellant] de foto's die zich in de hiervoor genoemde geheugenkaart bevinden, niet publiceert. Zij vorderen primair vernietiging van de geheugenkaart en subsidiair een door een dwangsom versterkt verbod op publicatie van de foto's. In beide gevallen gaat het om een inbreuk op het bij artikel 7 Grondwet (Gw) en artikel 10 van het Europees Verdrag ter Bescherming van de Rechten van de Mens en de Fundamentele Vrijheden (EVRM) geregelde recht op uitingsvrijheid, in dit geval het recht van [appellant] op publicatie van de door hem vervaardigde foto's.


https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/inziendocument?id=ECLI:NL:GHARN:2005:AT0895