Cop Who Declined to Help Puerto Rican Woman Being Harassed for ‘Un-American’ T-Shirt Resigns

A Chicago police officer has resigned a month after a video of him standing by while an elderly man harassed a Puerto Rican woman for her “un-American” T-shirt went viral.

Officer Patrick Connor of the Forest Preserves of Cook County Police Department resigned late Wednesday, and the police department say they are continuing to investigate the incident.

In a video filmed last month that recently went viral, Connor can be seen standing by while an irate man harasses Mia Irizarry, who is dressed in a tank top with the Puerto Rican flag on it.

Seemingly unaware that Puerto Rico is in fact a US territory, the man proceeds to unload on Irizarry, calling her “un-American” and questioning her citizenship.

“I would like to know is she an American citizen? Why is she wearing that shit?” he says, temper rising. “You’re not going to change us. The world is not going to change the United States of America. You should not be wearing that in the United States of America.”

Irizarry called for help from Officer Connor, who declined to intervene, and instead milled around in the background. Eventually, other officers turned up and arrested the man, who they said was intoxicated. The man, identified as 62-year-old Timothy Trybus, was charged with assault.

Connor was placed on desk duty as an investigation began. Meanwhile, the video drew anger on Twitter, and the Governor of Puerto Rico joined the calls for Connor to be fired on Monday. Governor Ricardo Rossello said that he was “shocked and disturbed by the officer’s behavior,” and called Trybus a “bigot.”

Delivered by The Daily Sheeple

We encourage you to share and republish our reports, analyses, breaking news and videos (Click for details).

Contributed by of

Go to Source


Study: The Time You Wake Up Could Impact Mental Health

Researchers at the University of Colorado Boulder and The Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston have been investigating how the time you wake up could impact your health.  So far, they’ve discovered one more reason why early risers are possibly a little more healthy.

Everyone should be aware by now that sleep deprivation is one of the most debilitating conditions a human body can be put through, and Americans are chronically sleep deprived.  But the timing of when you fall asleep and wake up can also play a role in overall mental health, according to research.

Researchers looked at the data of a set of participants from the Nurses’ Health Study II, an ongoing population study focused on identifying the risk factors for major chronic disease in women. A study of more than 32,000 female nurses published in the Journal of Psychiatric Research explores the link between your sleep and wake preferences, when you feel more awake and active, and mood disorders.

To put it quite simply, early birds are less prone to depression and other mood disorders than their night owl counterparts.  The study shows that even after accounting for environmental factors like light exposure and work schedules, chronotype(which is in part determined by genetics) appears to at least mildly influence a woman’s depression risk. Other depression risk factors like body weight, physical activity, chronic disease, sleep duration, or night shift work were also assessed. After accounting for these factors, the researchers found that early risers still had a 12—27 percent lower risk of being depressed than intermediate types. Late types had a 6 percent higher risk than intermediate types. The researches also pointed out that the modest 6% increase was not statistically significant.

“Our results show a modest link between chronotype and depression risk. This could be related to the overlap in genetic pathways associated with chronotype and mood,” said lead author Céline Vetter, director of the Circadian and Sleep Epidemiology Laboratory (CASEL) at CU Boulder.

This isn’t the first study to come to this conclusion either.  Previous studies have shown that night owls are twice as likely to suffer from depression than early birds. But because those studies often used data at a single time-point and didn’t account for many other factors that influence depression risk, it has been hard to determine whether depression leads people to stay up later or a late chronotype boosts the risk of depression, according to Medical Xpress. 

In 2009, all the participants included in the study were free of depression. When asked about their sleep patterns, 37 percent described themselves as early types, 53 percent described themselves as intermediate types, and 10 percent described themselves as evening types.

The researchers found that late chronotypes, or night owls, are also less likely to be married, more likely to live alone and be smokers, and more likely to have erratic sleep patterns. “This tells us that there might be an effect of chronotype on depression risk that is not driven by environmental and lifestyle factors,” said Vetter.

“Being an early type seems to be beneficial, and you can influence how early you are,” she said. Try to get enough sleep, exercise, spend time outdoors, dim the lights at night, and try to get as much light by day as possible.

In the early 1700s, Ben Franklin said, “Early to bed and early to rise makes a man healthy and wise.”  Before that, Aristotle said, “It is well to be up before daybreak, for such habits contribute to health, wealth, and wisdom.”

Delivered by The Daily Sheeple

We encourage you to share and republish our reports, analyses, breaking news and videos (Click for details).

Contributed by The Daily Sheeple of

This content may be freely reproduced in full or in part in digital form with full attribution to the author and a link to

Go to Source
Author: The Daily Sheeple

Damning Evidence: Revealed Documents Prove That Monsanto Deliberately Sold Banned Chemicals for Years Despite Knowing Their Health Risks

Monsanto’s atrocious acts were bound to catch up with them some time — and it is beginning to look like that time has finally come. Recently revealed documents prove that Monsanto knowingly sold banned toxic chemicals for years after confirming their catastrophic risks to the environment and human health. Bill Sherman, the assistant attorney general for Washington state, reviewed documents from The Poison Papers, uncovering yet another one of Monsanto’s wicked schemes of mass deception.

PCBs, or polychlorinated biphenyls, are highly toxic compounds known to cause a litany of health problems — and they’re prone to persisting and accumulating in the environment long-term. And even when Monsanto learned of these glaring issues, they continued to produce and sell toxic PCB products. Now Assistant Attorney General Sherman is looking to hold them accountable. Sherman is quoted as saying that the Poison Papers have provided previously unknown “damning evidence” of the company’s wrongdoing. The state of Washington is now suing Monsanto, along with several cities from along the Pacific coast.

The PCB Deception

Monsanto first began mass-producing PCBs in 1935. The chemicals were used for a variety of industrial uses, including as coolants and lubricants for heavy equipment, like transformers. The company reportedly stopped producing PCBs on their own in 1977 — two years ahead of national bans by the U.S. and other countries. In 1979, PCBs were widely banned due to overwhelming evidence of harm to both humans and the environment.

Now, Sherman’s digging has revealed a sordid truth: Monsanto had confirmed the toxic effects of PCBs in 1969. A pollution abatement plan from the company’s archive describes the hazards of PCBs as virtually unquestionable.

The archived document’s section on “damage to the ecological system by contamination from PCBs,” declares:

The evidence proving the persistence of these compounds and their universal presence in the environment is beyond questioning.

“Direct lawsuits are possible” the section explained, because “customers using the products have not been officially notified about known effects nor [do] our labels carry this information.”

Three modes of recourse were described, each with its own “profit and liability” flow chart. The options were:  “Do nothing”, “discontinue manufacture of all PCBs” or “respond responsibly,” which would have meant fessing up to environmental contamination and pursuing corrective action. You can guess which option they chose.

“At the same time that Monsanto was telling the public that that PCBs were safe, they were literally graphing their potential legal liability against the lost profits and public image boost that might accompany being responsible and honest. At the end of the day, Monsanto went for the profits instead of for public health and environmental safety,” Sherman contended.

In September 1969, another memo reveals that Monsanto was responsible for PCBs spilling into the Gulf Coast, Great Lakes and San Francisco Bay areas — and again decided the best course of action was to do nothing and “let govt prove its case on a case by case basis.” Another memo from November 1969 shows that Monsanto scientists had determined PCBs were “highly toxic” to reproductive health in birds.

The evidence of PCBs harm to humans goes back even further. In 1937, autopsies confirmed three Monsanto employees died from severe liver damage after handling PCBs. Later, Monsanto would privately state that PCBs “can have permanent effects on the human body.”

Will Monsanto be held accountable?

In spite of all this, Monsanto continued to publicly deny the toxicity of PCBs for years. But with the evidence in hand, perhaps states and cities will finally be able to hold Monsanto accountable for their unsavory business practices. In addition to the lawsuit from Washington state, the “world’s most evil company” is also being sued by city authorities in Seattle, Spokane, Long Beach, Portland, San Diego, San Jose, Oakland and Berkeley, for PCB contamination.

Now that the company is set to merge, Bayer (another evil company) might be on the hook for their misdeeds, too. Monsanto can try to change their name, but they can’t outrun their past.

Read more stories about evil corporate greed and how it may be affecting your health at

Sources for this article include:

Delivered by The Daily Sheeple

We encourage you to share and republish our reports, analyses, breaking news and videos (Click for details).

Contributed by Vicki Batts of

The NaturalNews Network is a non-profit collection of public education websites covering topics that empower individuals to make positive changes in their health, environmental sensitivity, consumer choices and informed skepticism. The NaturalNews Network operates without a profit incentive, and its key writer, Mike Adams, receives absolutely no payment for his time, articles or books. The NaturalNews Network is not for sale, and does not accept money to cover any story (or to spike it). NaturalNews Network is what the news industry used to be, before it sold out to big business.

Go to Source
Author: NaturalNews Network

Brett Kavanaugh, Defender of the Deep State

Earlier this week rumors swirled that President Trump actually considered filling the vacant Supreme Court slot with Judge Napolitano.

It was too good to be true.

Instead, he picked Brett Kavanaugh, no friend to the Constitution. Kavanaugh supports allowing the state to violate the Fourth Amendment and conduct widespread snooping on the American people. 

He also wants to make sure you never find out who whacked JFK. 

JFK Facts reports Kavanaugh sided with the CIA—included on the list of suspects accused of murdering the president—making sure you never find out what the government is keeping secret about the assassination. 

In November 2013 on the fiftieth anniversary of the murder Gallup reported only thirty percent of polled Americans believe Lee Harvey Oswald was a lone gunman. More than sixty percent believe “others were involved” in a conspiracy. 

From the start, many Americans didn’t believe the government cover story.

“Americans were skeptical about the ‘lone gunman’ theory almost immediately after Kennedy was killed,” Gallup reported. “In a poll conducted Nov. 22-27, 1963, Gallup found that 29% of Americans believed one man was responsible for the shooting and 52% believed others were involved in a conspiracy. A majority of Americans have maintained that ‘others were involved’ in the shooting each time Gallup has asked this question over the past 50 years, except December 1966, when exactly half of Americans said someone in addition to Oswald was responsible.”

Trump promised he would release secret CIA and FBI documents on the murder. During the campaign, he accused Ted Cruz’s father of being associated with Oswald. 

I was skeptical when Trump made his announcement. I said no way will the government release documents that contradict the absurd lone gunman theory that became the official explanation fifty years ago. 

Sure enough, Trump backed down. 

He said “executive departments and agencies have proposed to me that certain information should continue to be redacted because of national security, law enforcement, and foreign affairs concerns.”

Brett Kavanaugh’s protection of the CIA and his disregard for the Constitution make him a dangerous choice for the Supreme Court. 

Democrats and liberals are opposed to Kavanaugh—not because he will undermine the Bill of Rights, but because they think he will try to overturn Roe v. Wade.

In 2006, during his confirmation hearings on appointment to the DC circuit court, Kavanaugh told Chuck Schumer that if he ever made it to the Supreme Court he would up hold the federal abortion law. But we know how promises go when issued by swamp critters in service to the deep state.

No way in hell will a man or woman or Andrew Napolitano’s stature be elevated to the highest court in the land. Libertarians may be allowed to defend the Constitution on Fox News, but they will never be permitted to sit on the Supreme Court and do the same. 

Delivered by The Daily Sheeple

We encourage you to share and republish our reports, analyses, breaking news and videos (Click for details).

Contributed by Kurt Nimmo of Another Day in the Empire.

Go to Source
Author: Contributing Author

White Man Stops Black Doctor From Entering Her Gated Community — This Is Madness!

Dr. Nnenna Aguocha was stopped from entering her gated community by a man who swore up and down she didn’t live there.

Can you imagine being stopped from entering your gated community by a person because they don’t think you belong there because of your color of skin? That’s what happened in this situation when this doctor was stopped from entering her property.

I don’t understand what’s happening in today’s society but I can tell you this, there’re some sick people in the world needs to be put away for a long time.

Here’s one that would get you angry, the man doesn’t even live in the community he was protecting. He claimed there were some burglaries in the area? According to The Root, the president of the Homeowners Association said he had no knowledge or burglaries in the area, so where in the hell did he get that from?

Source: The Root

Dr. Nnenna Aguocha captured some of the encounter on camera. According to WXIA-TV, the good doctor was trying to enter the Buckhead Townhome community in Atlanta when another property owner blocked her at the gate entrance, parking his vehicle under the gate arm and refusing to move forward to let her in despite her requests, a police report shows.

“He got out of the car and threatened to call the police on me because I was trespassing,” Aguocha narrated in the recording of the incident. “This is racial profiling at its finest.”

The man apparently told officers that he was trying to protect his community after the theft of some air conditioners in the area. But Aguocha isn’t buying that (and neither am I).

“I absolutely think it was racially motivated,” Aguocha told the news station as she broke into tears. “When this altercation was going on, what went through my mind was this guy could do absolutely anything to me. He could shoot me dead on the spot because he was trying to protect the neighborhood and the property, and people would make up stories later.”

This is ridiculous and unacceptable. The doctor even had a key to open up the gate!!

I hope and pray that they bring to the fullest extent of the law to this racist, ignorant man, whatever consequences that maybe I hope that they utilize it. Once again, this is ridiculous, and it’s just getting out of hand.

I would have called the police and let them know a man is harassing a community tenant and blocking her from getting into the gated community where I live. I would have also called the security company in charge of the unmanned gate. I hope she sues him broke.

How would you have handled this incident? SOUND OFF in the comment section below.

Don’t forget to follow the Wayne Dupree Show social media accounts on FacebookSpreakeriHeartRadioGoogle Plus & Twitter.

Having problems finding a source for real news links in real time, click on Visit, bookmark and share this resource and then tell your friends and family.

Go to Source
Author: The Daily Sheeple

Thieves Steal Ancient Poison From Museum

(Newser) – Where’s Indiana Jones when you need him? Authorities are trying to track down an ancient vial containing a deadly poison, stolen from the Dutch national museum of science and medicine this week. Thieves broke into an outbuilding at Leiden’s Rijksmuseum Boerhaave and took a refrigerator-sized safe holding a small amount of money and a glass bottle of curare, used by South American tribes to poison arrows. “It was offered to us recently as part of a collection, but we decided we didn’t want to have it” and were “going to have it destroyed safely,” the museum director tells AFP.

As Wednesday’s theft came before that could happen, authorities are warning anyone who comes across the dried-out poison, which resembles a black sugar cube, not to touch it because it’s “very toxic and can be fatal.” Curare, which comes from a climbing vine and acts as a neurotoxin that powers down the nervous system, is not only used in tribal hunting, but as a muscle relaxant during euthanasia in the Netherlands, per the NL Times. For now, it’s not clear why the thieves went for the safe or if anything else was taken from the museum. “We are still investigating that” but “are first urgently looking for the poison,” says a police rep.

Go to Source
Author: The Daily Sheeple

The Supreme Court Is Much Too Powerful

The current frenzy over the vacancy on the Supreme Court in the wake of Justice Kennedy’s retirement highlights just how much power has been centralized in the hands of a small number of people in Washington, DC.

The left has grown positively hysterical over the thought of yet another Trump-appointed judge being installed, who could potentially serve on the court for decades. Right-wingers who claim the left is overreacting, however, are unconvincing. One can only imagine the right’s reaction were Hillary Clinton president. She would have already had the opportunity to appoint Scalia’s replacement, and we might now be talking about her nominee to replace Justice Ginsberg.

The right-wing media would be filled with article after article about how the new court would be a disaster for health-care freedom, private gun ownership, and, of course, the unborn.

But, as it is, we live in a country where five people on a court decide what the law is for 320 million people. And for some reason, many people think this is entirely normal. It’s our own American version of the Soviet politburo, but few are even bothering to ask whether it’s a good idea.

After all, if it makes sense for a small handful of people to decide law for the entire country, why even bother with a House of Representatives? Even the Senate — composed primarily of multimillionaires living full-time in Washington, DC, is is extravagantly “democratic.”

The Myths Behind the Court

To combat the obvious absurdity of the Supreme Court’s vast lawmaking powers, however, we have invented a number of myths designed to convince ourselves that the Court is not, in fact just another political institution. It is — we tell ourselves — something special. Something non-political.

But, as I wrote in “ The Mythology of the Supreme Court,” the idea of the court as a group of jurisprudential deep thinkers is a tale for little school children:

This view of the court is of course hopelessly fanciful, and the truly political nature of the court is well documented. Its politics can take many forms. For an example of its role in political patronage, we need look no further than Earl Warren, a one-time candidate for president and governor of California, who was appointed to the court by Dwight Eisenhower. It is widely accepted that Warren’s appointment was payback for Warren’s non-opposition to Eisenhower’s nomination at the 1952 Republican convention. The proposition that Warren somehow transformed from politician to Deep Thinker after his appointment is unconvincing at best. Or we might point to the famous “switch in time that saved nine” in which Justice Owen Roberts completely reversed his legal position on the New Deal in response to political threats from the Franklin Roosevelt administration. Indeed, Supreme Court justices are politicians, who behave in the manner Public Choice theory tells us they should. They seek to preserve and expand their own power.

In practice, the Supreme Court is just another federal legislature, although this one decides matters of public policy based on the opinions of a mere five people, most of whom spend their time utterly divorced from the economic realities of ordinary people while cavorting with oligarchs and other elites.

The court’s legislative power is matched by its political power since every vacancy on the court is a gift to the dominant political parties. Every time a justice dies or retires, the event provides political parties with yet another opportunity to issue hysterical fundraising letters to the more monied supporters and demand unqualified support from the rank and file while claiming the SCOTUS-appointment process makes the next election “the most important ever.”

It seems to bother few, however, that we live in a political system where the most important political and economic matters of the day — or so we are told — are to be decided by a tiny handful of people, whether they be the chairman of the Federal Reserve, five Supreme Court justices, or a president with his “ pen and phone.”

Just as it is supremely dysfunctional for a major economy to hang on every word of a central bank chairman, so too should it be considered abnormal and unhealthy for a country of 320 million people to wait with bated breath for the latest prognostications of nine friends of presidents in black robes from their palatial offices in Washington, DC.

The Court Is Just a Group of Nine Politicians in Fancy Robes

We’re told by pundits and politicians from across the spectrum how indispensable, awe-inspiring, and absolutely essential the Supreme Court is. In truth, we should be looking for ways to undermine, cripple, and to generally force the Court into irrelevance.

We ought to point out at every opportunity that the whole notion of judicial review, which is itself a total innovation and fabrication dreamed up by Chief Justice John Marshall. Absolutely nowhere does Article III of the Constitution (the part that deals with the court, and is half a page long) give the court the power to decide on what can be legal or not in every state, town, village, or business of the United States. Moreover, as Jeff Deist has noted, the Court’s powers we so blithely accept as fait accompli are mostly made up:

  • The concept of judicial review is a fabrication by the Court, with no basis in Article III.
  • Constitutional jurisprudence is not constitutional law.
  • The Supreme Court is supreme only over lower federal courts: it is not supreme over other branches of government.
  • Congress plainly has constitutional authority to define and restrict the jurisdiction of federal courts.

A Tool of Centralization of Power

But don’t look for many in Washington to admit this any time soon. The Supreme Court serves a very important function in centralizing federal power in DC and in the hands of a small number of senior federal personnel. And how convenient it is for members of the ruling classes to influence and access these guardians of the federal government’s intellectual respectability: the members of the court, presidents, and senators are all generally all members of the same socio-economic class, send their children to the same elite schools, and work and live together in the same small social circles. At the same time, this closed social and professional circle also helps to diminish the influence of those outside the Washington, DC bubble.

The Court in Its Present Form Could be Abolished Overnight

If it wished to, Congress could overhaul the Court this afternoon. Nothing more than simple legislation would be necessary to radically change or completely abolish the lower federal courts. Congress could decide what topics fall under the lower courts’ jurisdiction, and thereby limit the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction as well. Congress could also decide that the Supreme court is made up of one justice or 100 justices.

Indeed, since the Supreme Court is nothing more than a legislature, why not make it one? Why not make SCOTUS a body of 50 “judges,” with the understanding that the Senate will not ratify any appointment which does not hold to the rule that each state gets a judge on the Court? Politics and ideology prevent this, but no Constitutional provision does.

“But the court would just declare all those reforms to be unconstitutional,” some might say. That is true, although to that, we need only paraphrase the (possibly apocryphal) words of Andrew Jackson: “the Court has made its decision. Now let them enforce it.”

The Court need not worry, though, since its can nearly always count on the support of the president and the Congress precisely because the Court serves an essential role in augmenting the power of the other branches of the federal government.

The Solution: Mock the Court and Seek to Undermine It

Far too often we’re told to revere the Court simply because it is enshrined in the Constitution. Slavery is enshrined in the Constitution too. Need we revere that?

Even if the Supreme Court’s current form were actually Constitutional (which, again, it is not) it would still be a obsolete relic of a distant age. The idea that the Supreme Court could somehow address all the legal issues arising in a vast confederation was absurd from the outset, but all the more so now. Recognizing this, the authors of the Constitution created the Court as a body designed to address only conflicts between states, or between individuals of different states. In other words, it was supposed to head off conflicts that could lead to crises between state governments; it was designed to prevent wars between states. Whether or not your local confectioner should bake a cake for gay couples wasn’t exactly at the top of the agenda.

Even in the late 18th century though, the Court’s status as a tiny elite club required the creation of the myth that the court was somehow “apolitical” which was buttressed by the creation of lifelong tenure for judges, no matter how senile or out of touch. Otherwise, prevailing ideas of representation in government at the time would have never allowed for a political institution like the Court to gain acceptance. This can be illustrated by the fact that in 1790, Congress was far more “democratic” than it is now, in the sense that there were far more representatives per person than today. Elections in many state governments were annual affairs, and legislative districts very small by today’s standards, ensuring that your elected officials lived in close proximity to you and were physically accessible.

In contrast to this, in 1790, there was one Supreme Court judge for every 600,000 Americans. Today, there is one Supreme Court judge for every 35 million Americans. Not even the Soviet politburo managed that level of non-representation.

On the other hand, there is no reason why a council of state governments could not be employed to address issues of conflicts between states, and the states (or even small portions thereof) — not nine political appointees — should perform the function of judicial review. This isn’t the 18th century. Having delegates from a variety of diverse and geographically varied states remain in constant contact and regularly meet is by no means a logistical impossibility.

Even worse, many of the justices haven’t had a real job in decades and have no idea how reality actually works. It’s unlikely that the older members of the Court could even use Google to find a phone number on the internet, let alone understand the complexities of how modern people run their businesses, raise their families, or function in every day life. The Court is largely the domain of geriatrics who are paid generously to make complex judgments about a world they rarely engage and can scarcely understand.

If Americans want a government that’s more likely to leave them in peace, they should ignore the pleas to elect another politician who will just appoint another donor or political ally to the court. Instead, state and local governments should seek at every turn to ignore, nullify, and generally disregard the rulings of the Court when they run counter to local law and local institutions where — quite unlike the Supreme Court — average citizens have some actual influence over the political institutions that affect their lives.


We encourage you to share and republish our reports, analyses, breaking news and videos (Click for details).

Go to Source
Author: Contributing Author

Scientists Invented AI Made From DNA

An artist’s depiction of what was happening in the Caltech test tubes, probably. Image: Shutterstock

Last Wednesday, researchers at Caltech announced that they created an artificial neural network from synthetic DNA that is able to recognize numbers coded in molecules. It’s a novel implementation of a classic machine learning test that demonstrates how the very building blocks of life can be harnessed as a computer.

This is pretty mind blowing, but what does it all mean? For starters, “artificial intelligence” here doesn’t refer to the superhuman AI that is so beloved by Hollywood. Instead, it refers to machine learning, a narrow form of artificial intelligence that is best summarized as the art and science of pattern recognition. Most of the cutting edge advances in machine learning involve artificial neural networks, which are a type of computing architecture loosely based on the human brain. These neural networks are fed a lot of data as input and then taught how to perform some task with that data; sometimes humans help to guide the algorithm’s learning, and sometimes not.

This is effectively what the Caltech researchers designed, but instead of using silicon and transistors, they used DNA and test tubes as their neural network’s hardware.

All DNA is composed of four basic nucleotides: adenine (A), cytosine (C), guanine (G), and thymine (T). Strands of these nucleotides can bond with other strands of these nucleotides to form the double helix of DNA, but can only bind in specific combinations (i.e., A-T or C-G). This predictable pattern of combination makes these nucleotide strands ideal computing devices, which can be designed so that they produce specific chemical reactions in the presence of various molecules.

The Caltech researchers applied this sort of DNA-based computer to one of the classic tests in computer vision research: teaching an algorithm how to recognize handwritten numbers. This is tough for a computer to do because humans all write the number four slightly differently. Humans are hardwired to easily see the similarities between the ways different people write four, but machines don’t have such biological luxuries. By feeding an artificial neural network a ton of handwritten examples of the number four, however, an algorithm can “learn” to generalize qualities from individual examples and form an abstract idea of what a written four looks like. The next time the algorithm encounters something that looks like a four, it will compare this to its abstract representation of four and if it’s a close enough match, it will conclude that it is looking at a four.

In 2011, Caltech bioengineer Lulu Qian created the first artificial neural network out of DNA, but it could recognize only a handful of patterns. In the work unveiled last week, one of Qian’s graduate students, Kevin Cherry, has considerably advanced this technique by applying it to the recognition of handwritten “molecular numbers.” Each molecular number was based on a handwritten number translated into a 20-bit pattern in a 100-bit (10×10) grid. Each of the bits on the grid was represented by a molecule of DNA, and these molecules of DNA were assigned a place on a conceptual 10×10 grid before being mixed together in a test tube.

The DNA in the test tube doesn’t resemble a grid—it’s all mixed up—and so a molecule’s place on the grid was determined by the concentration of each molecule in the test tube. The DNA neural net was a strand of DNA that produced a specified reaction when added to the test tube only if the 20 DNA molecules assigned to represent a given number are arranged (i.e., in the appropriate concentrations) so that they form that number when translated onto the 10×10 grid.

Examples of handwritten sixes and sevens arranged on a 10×10 grid. Each square on the grid is represented by a molecule in a specified concentration. Image: Nature

Cherry began his experiment by building a neural net that could distinguish between handwritten sixes and sevens that had been translated into molecular structures. He tested this approach on 36 different handwritten versions of the same numbers and in each instance the DNA neural network was able to recognize them. Cherry used a “winner take all” approach to allow DNA neural nets to distinguish between numbers by synthesizing a so-called “annihilator” molecule.

“The annihilator forms a complex with one molecule from one competitor and one molecule from a different competitor and reacts to form inert, unreactive species,” Cherry said. “The annihilator quickly eats up all of the competitor molecules until only a single competitor species remains. The winning competitor is then restored to a high concentration and produces a fluorescent signal indicating the networks’ decision.”

Importantly, this winner take all approach also allowed the DNA neural net to differentiate between the numbers 1-9 in a DNA soup. After undergoing its reactions, the test tube would show two fluorescent signals, which would indicate which number was represented in the test tube. For example, green and yellow fluorescence represented a five, and green or red represented a nine.

Looking to the future, Cherry and Qian hope that this technique can be augmented by adding memory functions to their DNA neural nets and allow for improved medical testing.

“Common medical diagnostics detect the presence of a few biomolecules, for example cholesterol or blood glucose.” Cherry said. “Using more sophisticated biomolecular circuits like ours, diagnostic testing could one day include hundreds of biomolecules, with the analysis and response conducted directly in the molecular environment.”

Go to Source
Author: The Daily Sheeple

[WATCH] Kitchen Worker PULLS GUN On Man Who Sucker Punched Colleague

A kitchen worker pulled a gun on a man who decided to brutally sucker punch her colleague. The incident occurred at a George Webb diner restaurant on June 29 of this year.

The attacker in the video has not been arrested by police, reported WTMJ-TV news. In the 18-second CCTV (closed circuit television) video shared by a Milwaukee politician, Alderman Bob Donovan, a man dressed in a white t-shirt and pants is seen approaching two female workers in the kitchen before brutally punching one of the women in the face. But he didn’t know the other woman was armed with a gun.

The assailant fled almost immediately when realizing he had a pointed at him. Donovan praised the actions of the armed staff member. He called for the at-large attacker to be brought to justice; releasing the video in the hope that someone can identify him. The incident took place in Wisconsin, which is “concealed carry” state, meaning that once a license to carry a weapon is acquired (permission to exercise rights is paid for and granted by the ruling class), residents may then carry a concealed firearm.

The surveillance footage shows how the second staff member was able to easily pull a firearm on the attacker in an effort to make him flee, and it worked. “One can only imagine what might have occurred if that employee had not pulled out her weapon, Donovan said in a Facebook post according to RT. “It is sickening to see this unsuspecting worker assaulted so brutally by this individual. It was an unprovoked attack and I’m asking anyone with information to contact the Milwaukee Police Department,” he added. “I am tired of this crap happening.”

According to RT, the violent attacker is known to the authorities in Milwaukee.

Delivered by The Daily Sheeple

We encourage you to share and republish our reports, analyses, breaking news and videos (Click for details).

Contributed by The Daily Sheeple of

This content may be freely reproduced in full or in part in digital form with full attribution to the author and a link to

Go to Source
Author: The Daily Sheeple