If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties‚ subscribe to Reclaim The Net. As the (paraphrased here) classic pop song goes – “some typos are bigger than others.” Namely‚ a “suspected typo” in a geofencing warrant is to blame for extending surveillance of everybody and their phone in a given physical location from a supposedly restricted one – to in one instance “two miles over San Francisco‚” reports say. That would include businesses‚ private homes‚ and places of worship. The incident highlights the problems related to this legal/law enforcement tactic‚ and its implementation‚ and reminds those willing to listen why it is wrong to begin with – warrant order typos or not. First of all‚ in the US – the dragnet-style “hunt” is now considered unethical even when it concerns marine animals. So how could it possibly be acceptable‚ but also‚ constitutional‚ to treat every human that happens to be in one location as a potential suspect? But that’s geofencing‚ 101. It turns the rule of “innocent until proven guilty” on its head‚ and is therefore‚ as critics concerned with civil liberties insist‚ clearly unconstitutional. Nevertheless‚ US judges keep signing off on such warrants‚ although the actual numbers are not entirely clear. Keeping that secret is one way for a country to implement a true‚ functional democracy‚ “rule of law” principle. Or not. And now we have evidence of things around geofencing going south not only regarding the very nature of the thing – but also just related to clerical issues. “Many private homes were also captured in the massive sweep‚” ACLU attorney Jake Snow said in a blog post. The truly disturbing thing about the story‚ though‚ is the essential secrecy of it all – citizens are not even allowed to know which law enforcement outfit asked for the particular San Francisco warrant‚ nor the time span it covered. Those relying on geofencing – surely – must be aware that the practice is already so fraught with controversy that they literally can’t afford to make many more “slips.” But they don’t seem to be aware of it. And here we are: on top of the whole thing being a mess from the standpoint of civil rights‚ and sheer legality – now geofencing warrants also feature costly-to-civil-rights “typos.” The post How a Typo in a Geofence Warrant Further Endangered Privacy appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

Biden Administration Demands Governor Abbott Stop Blocking Border Patrol Along the Mexican Border

'Election Interference': Did AP‚ TV Nets Call Iowa Too Early?

Houthis Strike an American Cargo Ship

The ancestors of frogs and toads were armed with large fangs and thousands of hook-like denticles‚ making their modern counterparts look a bit gummy by comparison. Do frogs have teeth? Yes‚ but exactly what kind of teeth and where they’re found varies significantly.Frogs have a complex history with teeth‚ estimated to have lost them over 20 times during their evolution. The uses for teeth among frogs today range from hunting to juicy-lipped love bites‚ but frogs have proven time and time again that they can get by just fine without them.Do frogs have teeth?Only one species of frog known to science has true teeth on both the upper and lower jaws. It’s a large marsupial frog‚ Gastrotheca guentheri‚ and it was first described back in 1882.To earn the title of true teeth‚ mouth bones must have dentin and enamel‚ but spotting those constituent parts in a tooth the size of a grain of sand is easier said than done. Working out whether G. guentheri’s teeth were the genuine article was made even more complex by fears they may have gone extinct‚ after not being seen in their native habitat in the cloud forests of Colombia and Ecuador for quite some time.Fortunately‚ these peculiar frogs – that carry their eggs in a back pouch and hatch as froglets‚ not tadpoles – were not extinct‚ and CT scans of their teeth revealed that both the upper and lower sets were packing dentin and enamel. The finding was surprising‚ as amphibians hadn’t had true teeth in their lower jaws for millions of years by the time this species evolved. It defies an idea known as Dollo’s Law‚ which states that once a complex trait has been lost in evolution‚ it doesn’t come back again.The maxillary teeth of Ceratophrys cranwelli‚ seen at the top of the article.Image credit: A. Kristopher Lappin‚ Sean C. Wilcox‚ David J. Moriarty‚ Stephanie A. R. Stoeppler‚ Susan E. Evans &; Marc E. H. Jones via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 4.0)What kind of teeth do frogs have?G. guentheri might be the only frog with a mouthful of true teeth‚ but there are lots of species that have teeth on their upper jaw‚ known as maxillary teeth. Some frogs also have small teeth on the roof of their mouths‚ known as vomerine teeth. Saber-toothed frogs have maxillary teeth and strange fang-like protrusions sticking up on their lower jaws. These fangs aren’t quite the same‚ however‚ as they lack the dentin-enamel makeup of true teeth‚ and they only grow once‚ whereas frog teeth are constantly lost and replaced.Why do frogs need teeth?Frog teeth have little to do with defense. They are sometimes used in “traumatic mating‚” but a study into the evolutionary loss and gain of teeth among frogs found that diet appears to be the biggest factor‚ especially among animals eating tiny things like ants and other small insects.Maxillary teeth come in handy when you're munching on giant worms.Image credit: Zaruba Ondrej/Shutterstock.com“Having those teeth on the jaw to capture and hold on to prey becomes less important because they’re eating really small invertebrates that they can just bring into their mouth with their highly modified tongue‚” said Daniel Paluh‚ a PhD candidate at the University of Florida’s department of biology‚ to Florida Museum. “That seems to relax the selective pressures that are maintaining teeth.”As for your chances of ever seeing any frog teeth?“If you open a frog’s mouth‚ chances are you will not see teeth even if they have them‚ because they’re usually less than a millimeter long‚” Paluh added.Put the frog down‚ people.

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has scrapped its plan to end the use of mammals for the safety testing of chemicals by 2035. First announced back in 2019‚ the plan was considered pretty controversial – and it seems the move to ditch it is no different.Chris Frey‚ assistant administrator for R&;D at the EPA‚ told Science that the decision was based on current research. “We need to focus on what the science is telling us in order to advance methods that don’t involve animal testing‚ and not focus so much on arbitrary dates.”These methods can involve computer models and organoids‚ which some have argued are not yet sufficient to replace animals in safety testing. In March last year‚ a group of 38 organizations‚ ranging from environmental to justice groups‚ sent a letter to the administrator of the EPA maintaining that very point.Although that group may well be pleased by this latest news‚ Andrew Wheeler‚ the former EPA administrator who initially set the deadline‚ has concerns about whether the agency will eventually phase out animal testing. “I felt like things were moving in the right direction‚” said Wheeler. “Without a deadline‚ we’re not going to make progress.”Frey has contested that‚ stating that the EPA’s commitment has not changed. “Fully phasing out animal testing is the goal‚ and we will always have that goal‚” said Frey. “But I don’t want to get ahead of our scientists.”The EPA uses thousands of animals per year for chemical testing; according to an agency report‚ testing a single pesticide can require anywhere between 100 and 9‚000 animals‚ though how many of those are mammals is unclear. Back in 2016‚ an amendment to the Toxic Substances Control Act created a stipulation to phase out animal testing.Whilst this amendment didn’t come with a deadline‚ the EPA set one for itself: 2035. The agency also pledged to reduce mammal testing by 30 percent by 2025. The plan was met with mixed reviews.“I definitely think we should be investing more in [nonanimal alternatives]‚” Tracey Woodruff‚ professor at the University of California‚ San Francisco’s school of medicine and former EPA staff told The New York Times at the time. “But it’s really not ready for making decisions yet — at least the way that E.P.A. is making decisions.”Whether or not the readiness of alternatives to animal testing will change will be a matter of time and research‚ but some are hopeful. “The transition from animals to in vitro test systems will happen in the next decade‚ whether there’s a deadline or not‚” said Kim Boekelheide‚ a toxicologist at Brown University.As for what the EPA’s plans will look like if that is the case – we’ll just have to wait and see.

What’s your love language? Are you particularly receptive to words of affirmation? Or maybe you appreciate spending quality time with your partner‚ or cherish physical touch‚ or splashing out on a gift to express your love. Whatever your love language is‚ it has one thing in common with the others: none of them are supported by empirical research‚ according to a new study.The notion of love languages has become deeply entrenched in society these days. In fact‚ the idea that people express and receive love in specific ways has become so popular that it has featured in various memes and as lyrics to songs.The concept was first introduced by Gary Chapman in 1992‚ when he published his influential The 5 Love Languages: The Secret to Love That Lasts‚ where he explained how there are five unique categories related to communicating love. The development of these categories was based on his experience in marriage counseling and linguistics. Since then‚ Chapman’s book has been translated into 50 languages and sold over 20 million copies worldwide.The idea has spread far and wide; a casual Google search will offer you a glut of advice pages‚ charts‚ and quizzes‚ not only to help you identify your own love language‚ but also to offer tips on how to communicate it to your partner. There are even government initiatives that have been influenced by Chapman’s principles‚ including a $20 million relationship education and counseling programme that the Australian government has backed.But while the idea may be cute‚ is it accurate? Well‚ as with all popular psychological ideas that try to compress complex social behaviours into easily digestible and identifiable categories‚ there are skeptics. And now a new study has poured cold water on Chapman’s ideas by finding very little empirical data to support it.“Although there is only a limited body of empirical research on love languages”‚ the authors write‚ “the work that does exist does not provide strong support for the validity of the love languages’ core assumptions.”Firstly‚ contrary to the prevailing idea that we all have our own specific form of love expression‚ our “primary [love] language”‚ research has consistently shown that people tend to “endorse all five love languages as meaningful ways of expressing love and feeling loved.”This is a bit of a blow to one of the main principles of the love language system. If individuals do not actually have a preference for a specific language‚ then everything the idea is built on starts to wobble.The second assumption‚ that there are only five forms of love language appears to be equally shaky. According to the researcher’s review of the existing literature‚ there are more ways to express love‚ including supporting a partner’s personal growth and autonomy. In addition‚ incorporating your partners into your wider social networks and developing conflict management strategies are also key.Finally‚ Chapman’s third key assumption‚ that couples who “speak” the same love language report greater relationship quality‚ has also failed to show any meaningful evidence to support it. When testing whether couples who share the same languages (vs. those who don’t) claim to be more satisfied‚ the results were not empirically significant. In contrast‚ the evidence seems to suggest that receiving any form of love is associated with greater relationship satisfaction.Responding to the study‚ Chapman has said that his book’s success speaks for itself. As he told the Washington Post‚ “I think the fact that so many millions of people have read the book‚ so many people have found it to be helpful in their relationship‚ that I’m convinced it can have a tremendous positive impact on a marriage.”How can over 20 million people be wrong? Well it wouldn’t be the first time in history a large body of people believed and endorsed something that has little basis in reality.Love as a diet?So how do the researchers recommend we think about our love expressions and relationships if they have now toppled the romantic Tower of Babel? They recommend viewing relationships as a kind of balanced diet:“We offer an alternative metaphor that we believe more accurately reflects a large body of empirical research on relationships: Love is not akin to a language one needs to learn to speak but can be more appropriately understood as a balanced diet in which people need a full range of essential nutrients to cultivate lasting love.”The explain that‚ just as we need a varied diet providing all the key nutritional ingredients‚ such as carbs‚ protein‚ fats‚ vitamins‚ and minerals‚ so too do our love lives.“[A]lthough people might be able to successfully maintain their relationships even if they are missing a particular ingredient (e.g.‚ lack of physical touch in long-distance relationships)‚ the best relationships will be ones in which partners spend time together (quality time)‚ express appreciation (words of affirmation)‚ show affection (physical touch)‚ help and support each other (acts of service)‚ and make each other feel special (which is presumably the intention behind gifts)‚ among other behaviors (e.g.‚ support for personal goals and autonomy) not captured in Chapman’s five love languages.”The study is published in Current Directions in Psychological Science.

Scientists in China have successfully cloned a rhesus monkey that has managed to survive for more than two years after its birth. Off the back of this feat‚ the researchers claim their newly refined methods could provide a “promising strategy for primate cloning” in the future. His name is “ReTro”‚ named after one of the techniques used in his creation: trophoblast replacement.It’s not the first time a rhesus monkey has been “cloned.” In 1997‚ a cloned rhesus monkey called Tetra was created by US scientists using a technique called "embryo splitting"‚ whereby an early-stage macaque embryo was split into multiple parts‚ creating a set of genetically identical twins. This "relatively low-tech" means of cloning is sometimes called artificial twinning.In this latest study‚ scientists from the Chinese Academy of Sciences and the University of Chinese Academy of Sciences managed to successfully clone a healthy male rhesus monkey through a more complex technique‚ known as somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT). SCNT is the same technique used that’s been used to clone numerous species of mammal‚ including “Dolly the sheep”‚ as well as mice‚ ferrets‚ rabbits‚ dogs‚ pigs‚ goats‚ cows‚ and the ill-fated Pyrenean ibex.It involves inserting the nucleus of a somatic cell (any cell other than a sperm or egg cell) into an egg cell that has been stripped of its nuclei. The reconstructed cell can then be stimulated to undergo cell division and develop into a fully-fledged organism that is genetically identical to the donor of the somatic cell nucleus.Another photograph of "ReTro" in the lab.Image credit: Qiang SunThis cloning technique has been attempted on rhesus monkeys before – but it ultimately failed. A study in 2022 claimed the birth of a somatic cell cloned rhesus monkey and it died less than 12 hours after its birth.However‚ SCNT has been demonstrated in another similar species of monkey. In 2018‚ researchers created two cynomolgus monkey clones‚ named Zhong Zhong and Hua Hua‚ marking the world’s first successfully cloned primates through SCNT. The new study aimed to clone a rhesus monkey to better understand the mechanisms of primate reproductive cloning techniques and refine the processes. Through the creation of ReTro‚ the team managed to highlight abnormalities in the way genetic information can be read by the developing cloned embryo and its placenta. They overcame this problem by developing a new method that ensures the cloned embryo develops with a healthy placenta.It almost goes without saying that the cloning of primates – an order of mammals that includes humans – raises a host of ethical questions. With every new study like this‚ critics will often ask whether we are on a slippery slope toward human cloning.The new paper does not touch on these thorny moral conundrums. Scientifically speaking‚ there are several steps to make before human cloning can even be contemplated. For instance‚ scientists have yet to clone any member of the great ape genus‚ such as a chimpanzee or gorilla. Nevertheless‚ the rapid advancement of primate cloning techniques is reaching a point where the world needs to ensure robust ethical frameworks are set in stone before Pandora’s box is opened. The study is published in the journal Nature Communications.

Scientists in China have successfully cloned a rhesus monkey that has managed to survive for more than two years after its birth. Off the back of this feat‚ the researchers claim their newly refined methods could provide a “promising strategy for primate cloning” in the future. His name is “ReTro”‚ named after one of the techniques used in his creation: trophoblast replacement.It’s not the first time a rhesus monkey has been “cloned.” In 1997‚ a cloned rhesus monkey called Tetra was created by US scientists using a technique called "embryo splitting"‚ whereby an early-stage macaque embryo was split into multiple parts‚ creating a set of genetically identical twins. This "relatively low-tech" means of cloning is sometimes called artificial twinning.In this latest study‚ scientists from the Chinese Academy of Sciences and the University of Chinese Academy of Sciences managed to successfully clone a healthy male rhesus monkey through a more complex technique‚ known as somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT). SCNT is the same technique used that’s been used to clone numerous species of mammal‚ including “Dolly the sheep”‚ as well as mice‚ ferrets‚ rabbits‚ dogs‚ pigs‚ goats‚ cows‚ and the ill-fated Pyrenean ibex.It involves inserting the nucleus of a somatic cell (any cell other than a sperm or egg cell) into an egg cell that has been stripped of its nuclei. The reconstructed cell can then be stimulated to undergo cell division and develop into a fully-fledged organism that is genetically identical to the donor of the somatic cell nucleus.Another photograph of "ReTro" in the lab.Image credit: Qiang SunThis cloning technique has been attempted on rhesus monkeys before – but it ultimately failed. A study in 2022 claimed the birth of a somatic cell cloned rhesus monkey and it died less than 12 hours after its birth.However‚ SCNT has been demonstrated in another similar species of monkey. In 2018‚ researchers created two cynomolgus monkey clones‚ named Zhong Zhong and Hua Hua‚ marking the world’s first successfully cloned primates through SCNT. The new study aimed to clone a rhesus monkey to better understand the mechanisms of primate reproductive cloning techniques and refine the processes. Through the creation of ReTro‚ the team managed to highlight abnormalities in the way genetic information can be read by the developing cloned embryo and its placenta. They overcame this problem by developing a new method that ensures the cloned embryo develops with a healthy placenta.It almost goes without saying that the cloning of primates – an order of mammals that includes humans – raises a host of ethical questions. With every new study like this‚ critics will often ask whether we are on a slippery slope toward human cloning.The new paper does not touch on these thorny moral conundrums. Scientifically speaking‚ there are several steps to make before human cloning can even be contemplated. For instance‚ scientists have yet to clone any member of the great ape genus‚ such as a chimpanzee or gorilla. Nevertheless‚ the rapid advancement of primate cloning techniques is reaching a point where the world needs to ensure robust ethical frameworks are set in stone before Pandora’s box is opened. The study is published in the journal Nature Communications.

A pod of fossilized eggs has been found in John Day Fossil Beds National Monument in east-central Oregon‚ helping to solve a mystery of what creature had laid them (and others like them) millions of years ago.Eggs had previously been found at the site‚ but only as individuals‚ and had been misidentified as ant eggs. After a nest filled with eggs was discovered in 2016‚ the eggs were identified as belonging to grasshoppers‚ partly due to the similarity in the shape of the eggs to modern grasshoppers‚ which lay them underground.The fossil of an ootheca (a type of egg capsule produced by stick insects‚ cockroaches‚ praying mantises‚ grasshoppers‚ and other animals) was imaged using a micro-CT scanner‚ helping the team to get a better look at the eggs. Different species make their oothecae in a variety of ways‚ creating different varieties of the egg pod. Praying mantises lay eggs into a frothy mass produced by glands in their abdomens‚ which then hardens‚ protecting the eggs.       The team found‚ according to the study‚ distinctive oothecae belonging to ancient grasshoppers "highly organized egg mass comprising a large clutch size of approximately 50 slightly curved ellipsoidal eggs arranged radially in several planes is preserved‚ enclosed in a disc-shaped layer of cemented and compacted soil particles".Many grasshopper species‚ but not all‚ lay their eggs by inserting their abdomen into the soil‚ before making excretions that mix with the soil and then harden. The result is an ootheca that takes on the shape of the surrounding soil."Based on the morphology of the overall structure and the eggs‚ we conclude that the specimen represents a fossilized underground ootheca of the grasshoppers and locusts‚" the team continued‚ "also known as an egg pod."The find is believed to be the oldest and most unambiguous evidence of grasshopper pods‚ with the fossil dating back 29 million years. Separate finds in the area indicate that populations lived stably in the region‚ likely supporting a range of predators in the Oligocene era.The paper is published in Parks Stewardship Forum.