SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Every few seconds, our eyelids automatically shutter and our eyeballs roll back in their sockets. So why doesn't blinking plunge us into intermittent darkness and light?
New research led by UC Berkeley shows that the brain works extra hard to stabilize our vision despite our fluttering eyes.
[...] In a study published today in the online edition of the journal Current Biology, they found that when we blink, our brain repositions our eyeballs so we can stay focused on what we're viewing.
When our eyeballs roll back in their sockets during a blink, they don't always return to the same spot when we reopen our eyes. This misalignment prompts the brain to activate the eye muscles to realign our vision, said study lead author Gerrit Maus, an assistant professor of psychology at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore.
Target Displacements during Eye Blinks Trigger Automatic Recalibration of Gaze Direction. Current Biology, 2017; DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2016.12.029
(Score: 2) by MrGuy on Thursday January 26 2017, @11:02PM
Yeah, there's no way on god's green earth I'm clicking on a URL that looks like that.
I spend enough of my time teaching other people "for the love of god, don't click on links that look like that" to do it myself. I don't care how much I trust the editors or submitters here.
Not that a plausible URL is a guarantee of legitimacy, but no thanks on one that looks like that.
(Score: 3, Informative) by stormwyrm on Thursday January 26 2017, @11:31PM
Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate.
(Score: 3, Informative) by requerdanos on Thursday January 26 2017, @11:35PM
A fine point, perhaps, but...
Well, that's the identifier of the linked article, such as it is, and therefore that's the link text, but the URL itself looks like this:
I.e., dx dot doi dot org slash something.
I believe that URLs that start with something dot something dot org and then follow with the name of a document or folder are not quite as dire as would a URL itself that is a soup and salad of random numbers, letters, and dots.
I agree that Digital Object Identifiers [doi.org] are ugly, but I am not sure that judging the URL by its link text is warranted.
(Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Friday January 27 2017, @12:00AM
We've probably had a couple hundred articles on SoylentNews with prominent DOIs at this point. I insert them into quoted text too in square brackets if applicable. Almost every science submission I do will have:
Article Title (open, DOI: 10.1XXX/stuff) (DX)
at the bottom. DOI string is recognized by my extension and linkified to the service of your choice, and DX is a link to the dx.doi.org/10.1XXX/stuff which is the easiest and most dynamic way to locate an article. In this case, the submitter or editor just linked the DOI to dx.doi.org which is fine too.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2010/03/dois-and-their-discontents-1/ [arstechnica.com]
I'm at a point where I recognize journal groups by the four digit number. 1016 is Cell. Nature is 1038. Science is 1126.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Funny) by takyon on Friday January 27 2017, @12:07AM
...there's way too much information to decode the Matrix. You get used to it, though. Your brain does the translating. I don't even see the code. All I see is blonde, brunette, redhead. Hey uh, you want a drink?
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday January 27 2017, @12:06AM
Here's some recent DOI samples:
Micrometeorites Found in Roof Gutters [soylentnews.org]
Giant Wave Observed in Venusian Atmosphere [soylentnews.org]
Neonicotinoid Can Cause Brain Damage in Bats; Bumblebee Species Added to Endangered List [soylentnews.org]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 27 2017, @02:31PM
Uh, just what paranoid and ignorant heuristic do you tell people to use? One cannot judge a book by its cover, and one dang sure cannot judge an internet URL by the characters in it.