Samsung Wants Its New Device To Put You To Sleep

You shouldn’t bring your smartphone to bed, but Samsung has a new device it’s hoping you’ll snuggle up with.

The Korean electronics company on Thursday revealed a gadget called SleepSense that slides under your mattress and keeps track of your slumbering habits. It communicates with a smartphone app, and Samsung claims it will keep track of your heart rate, breathing and movement during sleep with 97 percent accuracy.

There are already quite a few products that do similar things. But SleepSense has a couple of interesting other features: The device will give you advice tailored by Dr. Christos Mantzoros, a professor at Harvard Medical School, and it also includes a handy function that lets you spy on the sleep habits of your loved ones.

You read that correctly. Samsung doesn’t refer to it as such in its press materials, but the device does have a dedicated function that lets you monitor the sleep habits of someone you care about. You can put it in your aging mom’s bed and use a built-in “family care” option to get updates about her sleep sent directly to your email. Or, flip the equation: A worried dad could put a SleepSense in his high school student’s bed to make sure the kid’s actually getting quality shut-eye.

SleepSense will also communicate with other “smart” devices in your home: It can turn your TV off when it learns that you’ve fallen asleep, for example. Not that you were looking at a sleep-wrecking screen before bedtime, of course.

A representative for Samsung did not immediately respond to a request for comment from The Huffington Post about the device’s release date and price. In the meantime, our very own Arianna Huffington has a few ideas about how you can get better sleep — <a target="_blank" href="http://parade.com/411133/parade/go-to-sleep-with-arianna-tips-for-getting-more-zzzs/" —> Read More

Neurological Diseases vs. the California Stem Cell Agency: Disease-a-Week Challenge #16

2015-09-04-1441361328-5031677-notesUWzoo.jpg

First, a seeming digression from the subject of chronic illness.

In my youth, I worked as an aquarium diver for Marine World Africa USA in Redwood City, California. Five days a week, I would swim down into the tanks full of wildlife, spending time with sharks, dolphins, eels, seals and other creatures of the sea.

The most beautiful tank was a million-gallon tropical fish display, with giant groupers big as cars and tiny cleaner fish that swam in and out of their mouths, and angelfish, surgeonfish, damselfish, wrasses, and more in this man-made reef.

But then one day, the fish began to die. One by one I carried them out, these fish I knew as individuals. Their colors faded, and they died. After three weeks, the tank was almost empty. We turned off the heaters and changed to a cold sea collection of local fish.

We never knew what killed that underwater neighborhood. But what if there had been one single solution, to save the lives of many?

There was. And in later years, I saw it happen.

Hold that thought.

Now. Consider neurodegenerative (nerve-destroying) diseases, such as Parkinson’s, Huntington’s, Alzheimer’s and ALS (Lou Gehrig’s disease). All incurable.

What if they had a common weakness: might a single medication defeat them all?

If you go to the California stem cell agency web page, www.cirm.ca.gov, and look up the project of Steven Finkbeiner of the Gladstone Institutes, you will find an amazing possibility.

First, the problem.

“A major medical problem… is the growing population of individuals with neurodegenerative diseases, including Parkinson’s and Huntington’s…These diseases affect millions of people, sometimes during the prime of their lives, and lead to total incapacitation and…death.”

Millions of people, incurably ill, with no expectation but suffering and death? That is about —> Read More

Hacking Quantum Theory

Does your college teach you how to hack a theory? In Strings Are Dead, I hacked and invalidated all string theories with the flawed Tidal Axiom. Can we do the same for quantum theory? Am I going to be in real hot soup for suggesting this? Yes.

First note that the physics establishment is coming around to accepting the fact that there are major fundamental problems with their theories. Professors Steinhardt and Efstathiou, in their Kavli Institute video blog, and Professors Lykken and Spiropulu in their May 2014 Scientific American “A Crisis in Physics?” point to the real risk that their empirical data no longer supports their theories.

We all know how to hack a computerized system, find the weakest link, a bug or a password. With physical theories it is the same. The weakest links are the axioms (assumptions used in mathematics). These are usually stated but can be implicit.

Quantum theory is looking more and more like string theories, open ended – the more you research the more you find. CERN is adding more fundament particles in their search to unify everything. The latest are the pentaquarks. How many more particles do we need to add before we determine that either the Standard Model is complete or is fundamentally flawed? 20, 50, 100 . . . ? Maybe Nature’s design allows for an infinity of particles types and no theoretical physicist has proposed otherwise.

Nature shows us that from a finite set of elements it is possible to construct an infinite set of chemicals. Is this Nature’s design philosophy? To construct an infinity from the finite? Therefore, observing an open ended number of particles would suggest that we are asking the wrong question. —> Read More

1 2 3 3,940