Interesting Stuff Thread

PopePalpatine

I wonder if increasing your astrocyte count (if it's even possible) would count as cheating for exams. There's already some talk over "gene doping" becoming an issue in athletics in the near future.

recedite

Just having a quick google on astrocytes and what they do, it seems to me they are involved with brain "housekeeping," that is "disc cleanup" in PC speak and generally preventing or slowing down age related degeneration.
If we take it that people accumulate knowledge and get "wiser" through life, while at the same time their brain might be slowing down, then if someone could continue getting wiser for a long time without any decrease in brain "power" they would seem to be very intelligent to others. If that is the case, then increasing your astrocyte count would not make you instantly smarter.

So its like the theory that a Cro-Magnon man chasing animals around with a sharpened stick was just as intelligent as modern man, but had not accumulated as much knowledge as us.

chinacup

recedite wrote: »

Just having a quick google on astrocytes and what they do, it seems to me they are involved with brain "housekeeping," that is "disc cleanup" in PC speak and generally preventing or slowing down age related degeneration.
If we take it that people accumulate knowledge and get "wiser" through life, while at the same time their brain might be slowing down, then if someone could continue getting wiser for a long time without any decrease in brain "power" they would seem to be very intelligent to others. If that is the case, then increasing your astrocyte count would not make you instantly smarter.

So its like the theory that a Cro-Magnon man chasing animals around with a sharpened stick was just as intelligent as modern man, but had not accumulated as much knowledge as us.

It also provides nutrient transportation as well though and also why would the young mice be smarter going by your theory?

chinacup

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/2810871

"They grafted human astrocytes into the brain of mice and found that synaptic transmission, learning, and memory are enhanced beyond that of normal mice."

"astrocytes can regulate communication between neurons at synapses and participate in the cellular mechanisms of learning and memory"

recedite

chinacup wrote: »

and also why would the young mice be smarter going by your theory?

Good point. I suppose the human versions work better at whatever they do, compared to the mouse versions. If all they did was "to maintain cellular conditions at an optimum level" within the brain, then transplanting more of them into a healthy human might have no effect, whereas transplanting them into a mouse where the conditions were naturally sub-optimal compared to a human might have an effect. If that was the case, transplanting them into a human with dementia,altzheimers, parkinsons etc. might have an even bigger effect.

Aenaes

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-28886642

"The arrival of three baby anacondas at West Midlands Safari Park is being heralded as a "miraculous virgin birth" by staff.

Reptile handlers at the park believe they are the first snakes of their kind ever to be born in captivity, without any help from a male."

I, for one, welcome our new reptilian messiahs and their saintly mother.

However, it saddens me that male reproductive organs might no longer be needed. The future is a scary place.

recedite

I hope the baby snakes will be alright growing up in a family where both parents are female
But which of the three babies is the anointed one? This presents a problem, unless one eats the other two, in which case we will have Cannibal Anaconda Jesus.
I'll be heading over there with my gifts of gold, frankensteins and mice.

CramCycle

recedite wrote: »

Cannibal Anaconda Jesus

This has to be in the running for the "future greatest movie title ever".

Brian Shanahan

Aenaes wrote: »

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-28886642

"The arrival of three baby anacondas at West Midlands Safari Park is being heralded as a "miraculous virgin birth" by staff.

Reptile handlers at the park believe they are the first snakes of their kind ever to be born in captivity, without any help from a male."

I, for one, welcome our new reptilian messiahs and their saintly mother.

However, it saddens me that male reproductive organs might no longer be needed. The future is a scary place.

It's V all over again, I tells ya! V!!!!!

Pherekydes

Aenaes wrote: »

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-28886642

"The arrival of three baby anacondas at West Midlands Safari Park is being heralded as a "miraculous virgin birth" by staff.

Reptile handlers at the park believe they are the first snakes of their kind ever to be born in captivity, without any help from a male."

I, for one, welcome our new reptilian messiahs and their saintly mother.

However, it saddens me that male reproductive organs might no longer be needed. The future is a scary place.

It's more of a miracle that the zoo staff aren't aware that it already happens in many species of snake!

Asexual reproduction in boa constrictors.

Hotblack Desiato

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cepV5f2-MaU

Delirium

The Politics Of Every Major U.S. Religion, In One Chart





Source

robindch

The mysterious sliding rocks of Death Valley are no longer mysterious. Just very, very cool:

http://www.iflscience.com/environment/mystery-death-valleys-sliding-rocks-solved

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uyHcs7B27Zk

Cabaal

The Irish Nazi's...guess what religion the party supported?



http://www.broadsheet.ie/2014/09/05/fada-land/

With their own ‘swaistica’ and final solution.

Sibling of Daedalus writes:

“Above is is the symbol of Ireland’s only indigenous fascist party, Ailtirí na hAiséirghe (Architects of the Resurrection), established by ‘disaffected accountant’ Gearoid O’Cuinneagain among Gaelic League members in the early 1940s.
Among the stated aims of the movement were the criminalisation of English, discriminatory measures against Jews, and the conquest of Northern Ireland. The movement fizzled out following the end of the Second World War, but during its brief existence numbered among its members broadcasters and writers Brian Cleeve and Breandan O’hEithir…”

Thankfully that died a death,

PopePalpatine

I'm sure their spirit lives on in Youth Defence, especially if you learn about Michael Quinn (surprisingly, no relation to David).

Hotblack Desiato

http://geoffsshorts.blogspot.ie/2013/07/the-river-of-bile-on-steroids.html

recedite

Cabaal wrote: »

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2014/09/05/fada-land/
Thankfully that died a death,

Only because the nazis lost the war. If the Battle of Britain had gone differently, if they had not had the spitfire, those idiots might have taken charge here. As some form of Vichy type puppet government.

recedite

Barclays bank to introduce a desktop biometric "finger vein scanner".
Its a more reliable ID than scanning fingerprints apparently.
http://eandt.theiet.org/news/2014/sep/finger-vein-barclays.cfm

Hotblack Desiato

Every man is now thinking 'I wonder would that work with...'

BTW the Spitfire got all the credit for the Battle of Britain, but the Hurricane was more numerous and accounted for 60% of German planes shot down by the RAF.

recedite

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Every man is now thinking 'I wonder would that work with...

It will be available in three sizes. Small, medium, and magnificent.

Hotblack Desiato

Yum!



From an article on pinhole cameras.

Brian Shanahan

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Yum!



From an article on pinhole cameras.

California cheeseburger, my favourite!

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

Only because the nazis lost the war. If the Battle of Britain had gone differently, if they had not had the spitfire, those idiots might have taken charge here. As some form of Vichy type puppet government.

Bit of a hisotorical "what if", I suppose, but I don't think that would ever have been very likely. They were a tiny group, mostly completely bonkers, and they wouldn't have been numerous enough to make even a small contribution to a Vichy-style regime. Plus, while they had the antisemitism and the insanity, the aggressive Catholicism would not have appealed to our new Nazi overlords.

The IRA was a much more formidable force, and had a track record of somewhat effective co-operation with the Germans. I suspect that's where the Germans would have looked first for an Irish Quisling.

But in truth the German options would have been limited no matter where they worked. Nearly everybody who was favourably disposed to the Nazis took that stance because they saw the Nazis as allies against Britain; their fundamental motivation was Irish nationalism. And, if they did take power under Nazi overlordship, their objective would have been to grab Northern Ireland. Which isn't something the Nazis would have wanted to happen at all.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

The IRA was a much more formidable force, and had a track record of somewhat effective co-operation with the Germans. I suspect that's where the Germans would have looked first for an Irish Quisling.

But the IRA were a bit "lefty" they probably would have ended up operating as partisans against the nazis, similar to lefties in Yugoslavia and Greece.
The political wing was marxist up until the 1980's, although you don't hear much about that any more from the bould Gerry :pac:

Peregrinus wrote: »

But in truth the German options would have been limited no matter where they worked. Nearly everybody who was favourably disposed to the Nazis took that stance because they saw the Nazis as allies against Britain; their fundamental motivation was Irish nationalism. And, if they did take power under Nazi overlordship, their objective would have been to grab Northern Ireland. Which isn't something the Nazis would have wanted to happen at all.

Agreed. However the basic requirement would have been for somebody with fascist tendencies who would be willing to do what they were told, in return for some limited amount of power. I think these guys would have fitted the bill.

As for NI, well it would have been in the interests of the Germans to pit local nationalists against each other, to keep them busy. Therefore unite Ireland, and separate off Scotland too, in order to divide and break up British power.
They had a policy in Ukraine to arrest and detain ultra nationalist leaders in the early years of the war while they were still winning, at the same time recruiting rank and file nationalists into SS divisions to fight the Russians.
When the tide turned and the Germans were retreating back to Germany, they released the nationalist leaders, hoping that they would organise resistance against the incoming Russians.

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

But the IRA were a bit "lefty" they probably would have ended up operating as partisans against the nazis, similar to lefties in Yugoslavia and Greece.

Nothing in their actual relations with the Nazis during the war leads us to think this. Even IRA figures who fought on the Republican side during the Spanish Civil War were prepared to co-operate with the Nazis.

recedite wrote: »

Agreed. However the basic requirement would have been for somebody with fascist tendencies who would be willing to do what they were told, in return for some limited amount of power. I think these guys would have fitted the bill.

You left out "minimally competent, and not living in total cloud-cuckoo land". You wouldn't appoint A na hA to run your Quisling government unless you wanted it to collapse in chaos and ridicule.

recedite wrote: »

As for NI, well it would have been in the interests of the Germans to pit local nationalists against each other, to keep them busy. Therefore unite Ireland, and separate off Scotland too, in order to divide and break up British power.

Basically, the Nazis quite admired the British. They were Aryans, after all, and quite successful ones. They would have hoped that once the corrupt cosmopolitan ruling class was replaced by thoughtful, intelligent men with a proper grasp of the principles of National Socialism and the destiny of the Aryan race, Britain would turn into a very useful ally which could keep its Empire, etc. The wouldn't want to undermine their own puppet government in London by presenting it as one which couldn't even hold Britain together.

If anything, the Nazi tendency would have been in the other direction. I recall reading somewhere that one version of the outline plans for the occupation government of Britain called for the top level of the occoupation government to be based in London, with the next (regional) level distributed across six cities - one of which was Dublin.

Brian Shanahan

recedite wrote: »

If the Battle of Britain had gone differently, if they had not had the spitfire, those idiots might have taken charge here. As some form of Vichy type puppet government.

The Battle of Britain was a last minute despairing measure thrown together when Hitler finally realised that his invasion plan (Sealion) was a thing of bad fantasy (for example about half the Rhine river barges which were to be commandeered as troop transports would have been sunk on the first transit of the channel by the wakes of the destroyer escorts from the Kriegsmarine, assuming that the Royal Navy themselves didn't intervene, said lack of intervention to be brought about by wishful thinking), and in order to be seen to be doing something in retaliation to the far more effective bombing raids on German cities by Arthur Harris' Bomber Command.

And the Battle of Britain was essentially unwinnable for the Germans as the UK had better early warning systems (radar and ENIGMA), better planes, more planes, and more personnel. The only advantage the Germans had was that they initially had better trained pilots. And by far the worst effect of the Battle of Britain was to strip the Luftwaffe of the planes and personnel it needed to be effective after the earliest stages of Barbarossa, as all the production was being funnelled west and a lot of the units in the East were being taken away.

Hey, if you look at even the invasion of France in 1941 you'd realised that they gambled on a million-to-one shot and won (for example just at the right time the French army withdrew a crack armoured division from the section of the Ardennes the Germans were to break through and replace them with an infantry division made up of raw conscripts. This was not due to any misdirection on the Germans' part, just bad timing).

redfacedbear

Peregrinus wrote: »

Basically, the Nazis quite admired the British. They were Aryans, after all, and quite successful ones....I recall reading somewhere that one version of the outline plans for the occupation government of Britain called for the top level of the occoupation government to be based in London, with the next (regional) level distributed across six
cities - one of which was Dublin.

I remember hearing that the Nazi plan was to obliterate the Irish - we had caused the Brits so much grief over the previous '800 years' that it was preferable to just get us out of the way.

Can't for the life remember where I came across that, or how reliable it is.

CramCycle

redfacedbear wrote: »

I remember hearing that the Nazi plan was to obliterate the Irish - we had caused the Brits so much grief over the previous '800 years' that it was preferable to just get us out of the way.

Can't for the life remember where I came across that, or how reliable it is.

I haven't seen it quoted either but you would have to be pretty naive to think that they would just think, ah shure, the Paddies are no harm, let them do what they want over there. I have seen statements/memos (can't find them now though) from them and us though stating we would have an agreed peace (or something similar aka we'd leave each other well enough alone) but again, if anyone hear believed that, more fool them.

recedite

The Germans would most certainly have taken control of Ireland in order to control the Atlantic with its shipping and aviation routes. The Nazis at the Wannsee Conference (where they planned the "final solution") had some kind of lists of Jews in the countries they planned to take over, which lists included the Jews of Ireland. I don't know whether these were names or just estimates of numbers. Nor do I know who compiled the lists, but in addition to the eirefascists there were actual Nazis in Dublin at the time, led by a German guy who worked in the National Museum.
In the event of a takeover, most other Irish people could probably have carried on in their daily lives pretty much as normal though, like they did in Norway.

Given the mentality of the times, it would have been easy for the Germans to recruit special battalions of nationalists in the south, who would be sent up to Belfast and Derry where they could "protect law abiding people" from loyalist paramilitary resistance fighters.

Hitler famously signed a concordat (treaty) with the Holy See, so the catholic ethos of the place would not have been a problem for him. Catholicism certainly wasn't a problem for Mussolini in Italy, far from it. He gave them the Vatican territory as a sovereign state in return for their support.

It wouldn't have taken a whole lot I reckon, to win the population over. Perhaps a few kind words from the Bishops about what a clever chap Mussolini was, and maybe some nice Italian soldiers to garrison the country, instead of Germans.
Here's the Irish Army uniform of 1940

Peregrinus

I agree, the Germans would have taken control of Ireland for strategic reasons. And we know, in fact, that they regarded doing so as a natural aspect of taking control of the UK, which in itself tell us something about their attitude to Irish nationalism.

As for setting up a puppet government, I think their options were pretty limited.

- A na hA, as already pointed out, was ideologically the closest thing to Naziism in Ireland, but it was very pietistic and Catholic which, yes, recedite, the Nazis did have a huge problem with. Hitler didn’t sign the 1933 concordat because he had no problem with Catholicism but rather because he did. He hoped the concordat (which had largely been negotiated before the Nazis came to power in 1933) would help to contain and quieten the church. That didn’t really work for him, and he knew that long before 1940.

- But the real problem with A na hA was not their Catholicism, but the fact that there was only a handful of them - about twenty to twenty -five, I think - and they were nearly all as mad as a bush. Between the lot of them they couldn’t muster enough sane bodies to furnish something like Newbridge Town Commission, never mind a national puppet government.

- The IRA, or at least significant elements within the IRA, did co-operate with the Nazis before and during the War. But they didn’t do so out of any sympathy with Naziism - if anything, their political instincts were on the other side. They had to swallow those instincts in order to co-operate with the Nazis, which they did largely on the basis that my enemy’s enemy is my friend, even if I don’t especially like him.

- Which means, I think, that if it came to providing a puppet government, the price for IRA support/involvement would have been a puppet government of a united Ireland. Which, for the reasons I have already outlined, I don’t think the Nazis would have been willing to offer at all. I don’t think the suggestion of IRA gangs helping the Nazis against loyalist paramilitary resistance fighters is remotely plausible; the other way around strikes me as far more likely. The Nazis would have tried very hard to appeal to conservative/unionist/BUF sentiment in Britain, which was the most likely source for a Quisling government there. If they succeeded in that, Northern Unionism coming on board was highly likely.

- Generally, the occupation governments that worked best from the Nazi point of view were actually the ones whose co-operation with the Nazis was somewhat reluctant - those who took the job on the basis that we are where we are, and we have to make the best of a bad job. Very often they were old-fashioned conservatives rather than new-fangled Nazis, or at least they sought to include those elements. Very often they did succeed in protecting their populace to some extent from the worst excesses of Naziism, at least for a time - think Denmark, Belgium, Vichy France. What the Nazis mainly wanted (in Western Europe at any rate) was military and strategic support, military materials, etc. In Ireland, as you point out, they would want the Atlantic ports and, if in this alternative history the US had entered the war - Ireland as a location for forward Luftwaffe bases. Measures against Ireland’s Jewish population wouldn’t actually have been a huge priority for them in 1940. On the other hand, I don’t flatter myself that a government which had reconciled itself to Nazi occupation would have died on the barricades to defend Irish Jews.

In my guess, the most likely source for “talent” for a puppet government would actually have been the pragmatic elements in the existing political class. And they had pretty much defined themselves as pragmatic already, by accepting the treaty in 1922 on one side, and swallowing their pride and taking the oath in 1927 on the other. So, while some individuals would certainly have refused, I think on both sides the Nazis could have found established and recognised political figures who would conclude that the least worst thing for Ireland was for them to serve in a government which preserved as much freedom of maneouvre as possible, within the limits of allowing the Nazis access to the ports and, later, air bases that they wanted. The Nazis’ gesture to Irish nationalism would likely have been to allow Ireland’s remaining formal links to the Commonwealth to be cut in 1940, rather than in 1949 as actually happened. On the “national question”, their formal position would likely have been that, within the New European Order, this was a matter to be settled peacefully between the British and Irish puppet governments, while behind the scenes they would have backed the British puppet government to the hilt.