Waching daily Jul 3 2018

Hi everyone, I'm Lynn.

Thanks for watching my video.

Today, I'm gonna be telling you about how to learn new English vocabulary

and use it in everyday conversation.

This is a very important video.

So keep watching.

A lot of my students are studying the TOEFL, TOEIC, IELTS, or other English tests.

And I understand.

They have to learn a lot of new words in a very short period of time.

But let me tell you something

Memorizing vocabulary lists is not a good way to learn English.

The best way - the very best way to learn English is by reading.

Reading anything that you can.

Books in English.

Magazine articles in English.

Even comic books.

Whatever you like - read - and read as much as you can.

This is really going to help you improve your English much more than memorizing long vocabulary lists.

It just doesn't work.

But, the thing is, how can we use this vocabulary in everyday conversation?

The most important thing to do is as soon as you learn a new vocabulary word or even a phrase,

Use it! right away!

Make yourself a note

or something to help you remember to use that in conversation.

Even the same day would be good.

Using the vocabulary right away is going to help you memorize it

and stick in your brain.

And you know what, you might be afraid that you're gonna use it wrong or incorrectly

That's okay.

If you use it wrong or incorrectly - not a problem,

that's part of the learning process.

And using what you read is going to help you memorize the English words a lot faster.

By actively using new vocabulary every day, you're going to really memorize that

and it's gonna help you become a better English speaker much faster.

Memorizing vocabulary lists is not a good way to learn English.

If you don't use the new words, then you won't master pronunciation and you might forget the words.

So remember. Read it and use it.

Thanks for watching.

If you can think of any other useful ways to memorize and use new vocabulary,

let me know in the comments and don't forget to Like and subscribe.

See you next time

For more infomation >> Reading Improves Your English Vocabulary | Learn English Conversation - Duration: 3:00.

-------------------------------------------

4 gegen 2 - UNBOXING I KeeperTV - Duration: 2:46.

Hey guys, today I´ll unbox gloves branded by goalkeeping42/4gegen2

that´s a pretty new, so also unknown brand. I guess not many have heard of it before

But enjoy! :)

So guys, that was it for this video

Tell me your first impressions in the comments, leave a like if you enjoyed and subscribe, if you want to see more :)

Link to the gloves is in the description for sure!

Thank you for watching!

Till next time, goodbye;)

For more infomation >> 4 gegen 2 - UNBOXING I KeeperTV - Duration: 2:46.

-------------------------------------------

V.vhs - Duration: 5:00.

For more infomation >> V.vhs - Duration: 5:00.

-------------------------------------------

La manif - Like-Moi ! - Duration: 2:43.

For more infomation >> La manif - Like-Moi ! - Duration: 2:43.

-------------------------------------------

GTA 5 CapGod's Life #3 (BIKE LIFE) - Duration: 10:38.

For more infomation >> GTA 5 CapGod's Life #3 (BIKE LIFE) - Duration: 10:38.

-------------------------------------------

Accounts Payable vs Accounts Receivable - Duration: 5:08.

hey it's patti scharf CPA and co-founder catching clouds the leader in e-commerce

accounting today I'm gonna help you demystify accounts payable and accounts

receivable so let's just jump in with an example and get started

all right so we've got Bob here Bob is selling some stuff okay in order for him

to sell some stuff he needs a buyer so we've got Tom over here who's buying

some stuff okay Tom has some cash sitting in the bank or wherever he

doesn't want to just trade cash for the stuff or he doesn't want to write a

check or something like that he wants to actually pay on account or on terms so

what this means is he's gonna set up an account with the seller Bob and Bob and

Tom are just gonna agree hey I'm gonna pay you in 30 days instead of today and

bob is like cool that's cool with me in fact what I'm gonna do is I'm going to

sell it not just net 30 which means he would have to pay in 30 days I'm gonna

sell it to 10 net 30 and that means he will get a 2 percent discount on the

purchase if he pays within 10 days otherwise if he doesn't pay in 10 days

he just pays the full amount by 30 days okay so Bob sells the stuff to Tom see

now Tom's got this stuff in his hot little hands and Bob has a sales invoice

so the invoice is basically the same document whether you are the seller or

the buyer it just kind of depends on its interpretation depends on who you are

so for Bob it's a sales invoice he records a sale and he has this asset on

his books called accounts receivable it's because it's an account and he's

expecting to receive some money okay so not so crazy and then for Tom he has a

bill also called an account payable because he is supposed to pay it to Bob

and he works so he records it as supplies and now he has this liability

on books that he will need to pay so it's a

debt to pay okay now Tom decides to pay Bob so he takes

some of his cash and the bill becomes no more he sent some cash over to Bob Bob

gets paid in full and voila there's no more account payable no more account

receivable because they have been paid off and at the end of the day Bob's got

got sales on his books and Tom's got stuff in his hands supplies that he's

going to use in his business and he has a little bit less cash because he gave

that to Bob okay that's all it is it's it's nothing crazy it's pretty

straightforward so if you have accounts receivable it means your customers owe

you money if you have accounts payable it means you owe some other people money

let me give you a little example at the end of every month what we'll do for our

clients is we will send them a list of what's called the aged payables this is

basically just a list of any of the payables that have not yet been paid

okay and this report this just came out of

zero shows a list of all of their different vendors that they owe money to

so ABC furniture they owe eleven fifty smart agency they owe forty five hundred

of this forty five hundred two thousand came from April twenty five hundred came

from May so on and so forth so you can see how much money is still owing to all

the different vendors and specifically who they owe money to so we actually

will send this to our clients at the end of each month and ask them to review

this and just make sure that it makes sense because we're not the ones who are

actually engaging the smart agency so we don't know what bills should necessarily

be on there we only know what we've got and we only know what we've recorded so

if there's something drastic that might be missing or something that is on here

that they know they've paid that can open up a dialogue between our

accountants and our clients and just go wait no something went wrong somewhere

and we can troubleshoot that and fix it and then here's an example for aged

receivables so say thing we send a list and this is a list

of all the customers who haven't paid yet so we can see hey you know city

limousines they have not paid since March or earlier so maybe don't loan

them any more money maybe cut off their terms don't give them credit anymore so

that's the whole point of accounts payable and accounts receivable I hope

this helped if you like this video please like comment and share if you

haven't already please subscribe and we'll catch you later

For more infomation >> Accounts Payable vs Accounts Receivable - Duration: 5:08.

-------------------------------------------

Here & Now Monday July 3 2018 - Duration: 1:03:09.

For more infomation >> Here & Now Monday July 3 2018 - Duration: 1:03:09.

-------------------------------------------

Pool goers claim they left Coney Island covered in paint - Duration: 1:33.

For more infomation >> Pool goers claim they left Coney Island covered in paint - Duration: 1:33.

-------------------------------------------

FAQs From Our First Year - Duration: 10:02.

Hey.

We've been together for a long time now.

A year, as a matter of fact!

But if it feels like we've known each other for slightly longer than one year, it's probably because,

over the course of the first season of PBS Eons, we've explored the history of Earth from the very

origins of life right up to the Cenozoic Era which is what we're in right now.

And along the way, you've asked some really excellent questions.

We've tried to address some of them in the comments.

But some of the most common questions we've gotten turned out to have some interesting

and complicated answers.

Others … were just about why we pronounce things the way we do.

Either way, we'd like to celebrate our first anniversary together by answering some of

your most frequently asked questions.

One of our most f a'd q's came from our episode on the Great Snake Debate, and the

conflicting theories about snake evolution.

In the episode, we noted that, somewhere around 200 million years ago, snakes diverged from

lizards.

But were they aquatic or terrestrial?

And both fossil anatomy and modern genetic evidence seem to add support to both theories.

So many of you asked: Why not both?

Well, all snakes need a common ancestor.

If snakes evolved from two different lineages of lizard, and both became "snake-like,"

that would be an example of convergent evolution.

And this has happened!

It's why there are such things as legless lizards today, as well as true snakes.

Both animals converged on the same body plan that helped them survive and reproduce.

But it's unlikely that some lineages would come from marine reptiles,

and others would come from

terrestrial reptiles, and then they all wound up being snakes.

That's not how evolution works..

usually.

There is a rare phenomenon known as despeciation or reverse speciation, in which two

lineages converge and form a hybrid.

But this has only been observed in modern species like the common raven and stickleback

fish.

Teasing this out of the sparse fossil record of snakes would be a challenge...if not impossible.

However I should mention that our understanding of the evolutionary history of snakes, as

well as so many things, is still a work in progress.

Now, let's move on to our episode about Spinosaurus, which we described as the only

known semi-aquatic dinosaur.

To which many of you responded: What about Halszkaraptor?

Well, it was only in November of 2017 that, Halszkaraptor, a new Dromaeosaurid dinosaur,

was described from the Late Cretaceous of Mongolia.

After confirming the specimen was genuine -- it has a shady past -- the researchers

found it to be semiaquatic.

The specimen was collected by poachers, smuggled through China and into Europe.

Luckily it was rescued by a paleontologist at the Royal Belgian Institute of Natural

Sciences and will be returned to Mongolia once researchers are finished with it.

We probably should have mentioned Halszkaraptor in the episode, but we didn't due to the

newness of the specimen.

There hasn't been much time for the scientific community to review the conclusions put forth

in the report, and as you'll learn in a little bit, there's a LOT about Spinosaurus

that people are still arguing about.

But if you'd like to check out the manuscript and do your own peer review, it can be found

in the description.

And of course, I'd be remiss if I didn't mention a question that has come up time and

again in the past year, especially in our episode on Triassic animals:

Nitch or neesh?

Well, we consulted the online Oxford english dictionary to see how to pronounce this word,

and it lists both nitch and neesh as acceptable pronunciations.

So there

I'd like to answer a question that's related to Kallie's.

Not the niche thing, the other one.

Was Spinosaurus bipedal or quadrupedal?

Turns out there's more than one controversy about this animal.

Not only is there some debate about whether Spinosaurus was the only semi-aquatic dinosaur,

there's also not a real consensus about how many legs this thing walked on, and when.

It may have walked on two legs, or four, or switched back and forth, depending on whether

it was on land or in water.

As with so many things in this field, it depends on who you ask.

For example, if you're the person who first found and named Spinosaurus -- that would

be Ernst Freiherr Stromer von Reichenbach -- then you'd say it walked on two legs.

Because, one thing that everyone pretty much agreed on was that Spinosaurus was a theropod,

and that's one of a theropod's defining features.

So, in his reconstruction of Spinosaurus, he drew it on its hind legs.

But, if you're the person who found the most recent and complete fossils of Spinosaurus,

then you'd say otherwise.

Nizar Ibrahim revolutionized our thinking about Spinosaurus when he found fossils of

it from Morocco in 2008.

And in 2014, he and his colleagues published a paper suggesting that spinosaurus was an

obligate quadruped, meaning that it had to walk on all fours, at least on land.

They based this on the size of its hindlimbs, the location of its center of mass, and the

orientation of its hips.

But this model has gotten a lukewarm reception from other researchers.

Some have taken issue with the measurements used in the study.

Others pointed out that even Ibrahim's exquisite specimen was still incomplete, including the

legs.

OH but, if you're Jurassic Park, then Spinosaurus is definitely a biped.

But that's mainly because Jurassic Park III came out before Ibrahim's paper.

And anyway, we try not to use Jurassic Park movies a whole lot in our research

Another common question came from our episode on the Cenozoic era, the era that leads right

up to today.

And that question was basically variations on: "Is the Anthropocene a thing?"

The answer here is a very clear: Not yet.

To give you some background here, back in 2000, two scientists -- atmospheric chemist Paul

Crutzen and aquatic biologist Eugene Stormer -- proposed that the current epoch of geologic

time that we're now in, be given a new name, the Anthropocene.

They argued that humans have had such a dramatic impact on the planet that -- just as with

any other game-changing event -- that impact should mark the beginning of its own epoch.

And yes I pronounce it "epoch."

You can say it in your head however you want.

Now, even though this proposal is nearly 20 years old, it's still not an official part

of the Geologic Time Scale.

But it has stirred a really interesting debate, not just about what our impacts are on the

planet, but how we can actually measure them.

For instance, if we're gonna create a new epoch, then which of our many marks on the

land would signal its beginning?

Crutzen and Stormer first proposed that the Anthropocene should begin in the late 1700s.

That's when ice cores begin to show a rapid rise in concentrations of CO2, as the burning

of fossil fuels first became widespread during the Industrial Revolution.

But others have suggested that more visible boundaries might be useful for future geologists.

Like, some have proposed that concrete and cement be the markers, because they started

to come into widespread use in the late 1800s.

Others have suggested plastics, which have been filling our landfills since the early

20th century.

And one paper, which Crutzen co-wrote, proposed that the Anthropocene should begin exactly on July

16th 1945, when the first nuclear bomb was detonated in New Mexico.

Because decades of nuclear testing have left an unmistakable concentration of isotopes

like plutonium-239.

Now, some experts have argued that the whole thing is a bad idea.

They point out that the concept itself is kind of human-centric instead of geology-centric,

and that human impacts have escalated at different times in different parts of the world.

In any case, the fate of the Anthropocene Epoch now rests with the official keepers

of the Geologic Time Scale, a group known as the International Commission on Stratigraphy.

The proposal was submitted in 2016, and since then the commission has been … thinking

about it.

As you can imagine, decisions about geologic time do not happen quickly.

Ok. And here's another question that I personally would like to address.

It's this one:

Now, that's not really a question.

It's more of an equation.

But for what it's worth, Merriam Webster lists the pronunciation of that word as either

"nitch," or "neesh".

Finally, one of our most frequently asked questions came from our episode about the

Mesozoic Era, the so-called Age of Reptiles.

And since the Mesozoic was the heyday of the dinosaurs, a lot of you asked: Are dinosaurs

reptiles?

And does that mean that birds are also reptiles?

And the answer is: yes and no.

But also, yes and yes.

It depends on what system you use to classify organisms.

The system that's been around the longest is the Linnaean system, named after Swedish

biologist Carl Linnaeus.

It classifies living things based on their physical characteristics, and then ranks them

based on how similar they are, from the general to the specific -- from domain to species.

And in this system, the class Reptilia includes air-breathing animals with backbones and scales.

To be a reptile, you had to have those things.

And birds do!

But the thing is, technically, the class Reptilia does NOT include birds.

Instead, they're part of another class called Aves.

This is partly because Linnaeus defined the classes of modern animals in the 1700's,

long before we understood the evolutionary relationships of things.

But still, dinosaurs were closely related to -- and they shared traits with -- animals

that are un-arguably reptiles, like crocodiles.

So, according to Linnaean Taxonomy, dinosaurs are in class Reptilia; they're reptiles.

But birds aren't, mainly for historical reasons.

Now, many biologists and paleontologists today want to name things in a way that reflects

their shared evolutionary history.

This system classifies organisms into clades, and it's called cladistics.

and in this system, since dinosaurs derived directly from reptiles and share a close evolutionary

relationship with them, they're still considered reptiles, because they belong to the reptile

clade.

And, so are birds!

Because birds descended from dinosaurs, so they belong to the dinosaur clade, which itself

belongs to the reptile clade.

This makes birds both dinosaurs AND reptiles.

Which is weird, I know.

But a lot of science comes down to arguing about things -- like, whether Halszkaraptor

was aquatic, or whether we should name a new epoch after ourselves, or who belongs in what

clade.

The things to remember is that there can be many different, conflicting, proposed answers

to a single question.

And by arguing with each other over the facts, we just might sort some of them out.

Oh, and when it comes to how you pronounce this word?

I pronounce it: "jif."

Thanks for joining us today!

And in case you didn't know, Eons is now on Patreon!

Patreon is a voluntary subscription service that helps keep these videos coming.

So if you'd like to support our show, head over to patreon.com/eons and sign up at any

level you want!

Now let me know what you want to learn about!

Leave a comment down below, and if you haven't already, go to youtube.com/eons and subscribe.

We want to thank all our patrons who help make these videos possible,

and we want to really thank our eontologists, Duncan Miller and David Rasmussen.

Thank you so much for your support!

If you'd like to join them, head over to patreon.com/eons and pledge for some cool rewards.

For more infomation >> FAQs From Our First Year - Duration: 10:02.

-------------------------------------------

O STF vive o seu pior momento? - Duration: 0:44.

For more infomation >> O STF vive o seu pior momento? - Duration: 0:44.

-------------------------------------------

What we'll learn about the brain in the next century | Sam Rodriques - Duration: 13:32.

I want to tell you guys something about neuroscience.

I'm a physicist by training.

About three years ago, I left physics

to come and try to understand how the brain works.

And this is what I found.

Lots of people are working on depression.

And that's really good,

depression is something that we really want to understand.

Here's how you do it:

you take a jar and you fill it up, about halfway, with water.

And then you take a mouse, and you put the mouse in the jar, OK?

And the mouse swims around for a little while

and then at some point, the mouse gets tired

and decides to stop swimming.

And when it stops swimming, that's depression.

OK?

And I'm from theoretical physics,

so I'm used to people making very sophisticated mathematical models

to precisely describe physical phenomena,

so when I saw that this is the model for depression,

I though to myself, "Oh my God, we have a lot of work to do."

(Laughter)

But this is a kind of general problem in neuroscience.

So for example, take emotion.

Lots of people want to understand emotion.

But you can't study emotion in mice or monkeys

because you can't ask them

how they're feeling or what they're experiencing.

So instead, people who want to understand emotion,

typically end up studying what's called motivated behavior,

which is code for "what the mouse does when it really, really wants cheese."

OK, I could go on and on.

I mean, the point is, the NIH spends about 5.5 billion dollars a year

on neuroscience research.

And yet there have been almost no significant improvements in outcomes

for patients with brain diseases in the past 40 years.

And I think a lot of that is basically due to the fact

that mice might be OK as a model for cancer or diabetes,

but the mouse brain is just not sophisticated enough

to reproduce human psychology or human brain disease.

OK?

So if the mouse models are so bad, why are we still using them?

Well, it basically boils down to this:

the brain is made up of neurons

which are these little cells that send electrical signals to each other.

If you want to understand how the brain works,

you have to be able to measure the electrical activity of these neurons.

But to do that, you have to get really close to the neurons

with some kind of electrical recording device or a microscope.

And so you can do that in mice and you can do it in monkeys,

because you can physically put things into their brain

but for some reason we still can't do that in humans, OK?

So instead, we've invented all these proxies.

So the most popular one is probably this,

functional MRI, fMRI,

which allows you to make these pretty pictures like this,

that show which parts of your brain light up

when you're engaged in different activities.

But this is a proxy.

You're not actually measuring neural activity here.

What you're doing is you're measuring, essentially,

like, blood flow in the brain.

Where there's more blood.

It's actually where there's more oxygen, but you get the idea, OK?

The other thing that you can do is you can do this --

electroencephalography -- you can put these electrodes on your head, OK?

And then you can measure your brain waves.

And here, you're actually measuring electrical activity.

But you're not measuring the activity of neurons.

You're measuring these electrical currents,

sloshing back and forth in your brain.

So the point is just that these technologies that we have

are really measuring the wrong thing.

Because, for most of the diseases that we want to understand --

like, Parkinson's is the classic example.

In Parkinson's, there's one particular kind of neuron deep in your brain

that is responsible for the disease,

and these technologies just don't have the resolution that you need

to get at that.

And so that's why we're still stuck with the animals.

Not that anyone wants to be studying depression

by putting mice into jars, right?

It's just that there's this pervasive sense that it's not possible

to look at the activity of neurons in healthy humans.

So here's what I want to do.

I want to take you into the future.

To have a look at one way in which I think it could potentially be possible.

And I want to preface this by saying, I don't have all the details.

So I'm just going to provide you with a kind of outline.

But we're going to go the year 2100.

Now what does the year 2100 look like?

Well, to start with, the climate is a bit warmer that what you're used to.

(Laughter)

And that robotic vacuum cleaner that you know and love

went through a few generations,

and the improvements were not always so good.

(Laughter)

It was not always for the better.

But actually, in the year 2100 most things are surprisingly recognizable.

It's just the brain is totally different.

For example, in the year 2100,

we understand the root causes of Alzheimer's.

So we can deliver targeted genetic therapies or drugs

to stop the degenerative process before it begins.

So how did we do it?

Well, there were essentially three steps.

The first step was that we had to figure out

some way to get electrical connections through the skull

so we could measure the electrical activity of neurons.

And not only that, it had to be easy and risk-free.

Something that basically anyone would be OK with,

like getting a piercing.

Because back in 2017,

the only way that we knew of to get through the skull

was to drill these holes the size of quarters.

You would never let someone do that to you.

So in the 2020s,

people began to experiment -- rather than drilling these gigantic holes,

drilling microscopic holes, no thicker than a piece of hair.

And the idea here was really for diagnosis --

there are lots of times in the diagnosis of brain disorders

when you would like to be able to look at the neural activity beneath the skull

and being able to drill these microscopic holes

would make that much easier for the patient.

In the end, it would be like getting a shot.

You just go in and you sit down

and there's a thing that comes down on your head,

and a momentary sting and then it's done,

and you can go back about your day.

So we're eventually able to do it

using lasers to drill the holes.

And with the lasers, it was fast and extremely reliable,

you couldn't even tell the holes were there,

any more than you could tell that one of your hairs was missing.

And I know it might sound crazy, using lasers to drill holes in your skull,

but back in 2017,

people were OK with surgeons shooting lasers into their eyes

for corrective surgery

So when you're already here, it's not that big of a step.

OK?

So the next step, that happened in the 2030s,

was that it's not just about getting through the skull.

To measure the activity of neurons,

you have to actually make it into the brain tissue itself.

And the risk, whenever you put something into the brain tissue,

is essentially that of stroke.

That you would hit a blood vessel and burst it,

and that causes a stroke.

So, by the mid 2030s, we had invented these flexible probes

that were capable of going around blood vessels,

rather than through them.

And thus, we could put huge batteries of these probes

into the brains of patients

and record from thousands of their neurons without any risk to them.

And what we discovered, sort of to our surprise,

is that the neurons that we could identify

were not responding to things like ideas or emotion,

which was what we had expected.

They were mostly responding to things like Jennifer Aniston

or Halle Berry

or Justin Trudeau.

I mean --

(Laughter)

In hindsight, we shouldn't have been that surprised.

I mean, what do your neurons spend most of their time thinking about?

(Laughter)

But really, the point is that

this technology enabled us to begin studying neuroscience in individuals.

So much like the transition to genetics, at the single cell level,

we started to study neuroscience, at the single human level.

But we weren't quite there yet.

Because these technologies

were still restricted to medical applications,

which meant that we were studying sick brains, not healthy brains.

Because no matter how safe your technology is,

you can't stick something into someone's brain

for research purposes.

They have to want it.

And why would they want it?

Because as soon as you have an electrical connection to the brain,

you can use it to hook the brain up to a computer.

Oh, well, you know, the general public was very skeptical at first.

I mean, who wants to hook their brain up to their computers?

Well just imagine being able to send an email with a thought.

(Laughter)

Imagine being able to take a picture with your eyes, OK?

(Laughter)

Imagine never forgetting anything anymore,

because anything that you choose to remember

will be stored permanently on a hard drive somewhere,

able to be recalled at will.

(Laughter)

The line here between crazy and visionary

was never quite clear.

But the systems were safe.

So when the FDA decided to deregulate these laser-drilling systems, in 2043,

commercial demand just exploded.

People started signing their emails,

"Please excuse any typos.

Sent from my brain."

(Laughter)

Commercial systems popped up left and right,

offering the latest and greatest in neural interfacing technology.

There were 100 electrodes.

A thousand electrodes.

High bandwidth for only 99.99 a month.

(Laughter)

Soon, everyone had them.

And that was the key.

Because, in the 2050s, if you were a neuroscientist,

you could have someone come into your lab essentially from off the street.

And you could have them engaged in some emotional task

or social behavior or abstract reasoning,

things you could never study in mice.

And you could record the activity of their neurons

using the interfaces that they already had.

And then you could also ask them about what they were experiencing.

So this link between psychology and neuroscience

that you could never make in the animals, was suddenly there.

So perhaps the classic example of this

was the discovery of the neural basis for insight.

That "Aha!" moment, the moment it all comes together, it clicks.

And this was discovered by two scientists in 2055,

Barry and Late,

who observed, in the dorsal prefrontal cortex,

how in the brain of someone trying to understand an idea,

how different populations of neurons would reorganize themselves --

you're looking at neural activity here in orange --

until finally their activity aligns in a way that leads to positive feedback.

Right there.

That is understanding.

So finally, we were able to get at the things that make us human.

And that's what really opened the way to major insights from medicine.

Because, starting in the 2060s,

with the ability to record the neural activity

in the brains of patients with these different mental diseases,

rather than defining the diseases on the basis of their symptoms,

as we had at the beginning of the century,

we started to define them

on the basis of the actual pathology that we observed at the neural level.

So for example, in the case of ADHD,

we discovered that there are dozens of different diseases,

all of which had been called ADHD at the start of the century,

that actually had nothing to do with each other,

except that they had similar symptoms.

And they needed to be treated in different ways.

So it was kind of incredible, in retrospect,

that at the beginning of the century,

we had been treating all those different diseases

with the same drug,

just by giving people amphetamine, basically is what we were doing.

And schizophrenia and depression are the same way.

So rather than prescribing drugs to people essentially at random,

as we had,

we learned how to predict which drugs would be most effective

in which patients,

and that just led to this huge improvement in outcomes.

OK, I want to bring you back now to the year 2017.

Some of this may sound satirical or even far fetched.

And some of it is.

I mean, I can't actually see into the future.

I don't actually know

if we're going to be drilling hundreds or thousands of microscopic holes

in our heads in 30 years.

But what I can tell you

is that we're not going to make any progress

towards understanding the human brain or human diseases

until we figure out how to get at the electrical activity of neurons

in healthy humans.

And almost no one is working on figuring out how to do that today.

That is the future of neuroscience.

And I think it's time for neuroscientists to put down the mouse brain

and to dedicate the thought and investment necessary

to understand the human brain and human disease.

Thank you.

(Applause)

For more infomation >> What we'll learn about the brain in the next century | Sam Rodriques - Duration: 13:32.

-------------------------------------------

► Caos en Rusia | Me Confunden con Famoso Futbolista | Mohamed Salah - Duration: 8:50.

For more infomation >> ► Caos en Rusia | Me Confunden con Famoso Futbolista | Mohamed Salah - Duration: 8:50.

-------------------------------------------

HOW TO DO A FRONTFLIP ON A BED AND LAND IT!! - Duration: 2:59.

For more infomation >> HOW TO DO A FRONTFLIP ON A BED AND LAND IT!! - Duration: 2:59.

-------------------------------------------

Countdown to Shark Week: The Daily Bite | Dickie Done Did It! - Duration: 6:09.

♪♪

♪ FEH FEH FEH FEH FEH FEH FEH FEH FEH FEH ♪

♪ FEH-FEH-FEH ♪

♪ UUH, WAH WAH WAH ♪

♪ FEH FEH FEH FEH ♪

HI! YOU CAUGHT ME SINGING.

I'M JORDAN CARLOS, AND THAT'S MY FAVORITE SONG.

IF YOU'VE BEEN COUNTING DOWN THE DAYS TO SHARK WEEK

ON YOUR MARINE LIFE ADVENT CALENDAR, YOU ARE NOT ALONE.

THIS IS "THE DAILY BITE."

WE'LL SPEND THE NEXT 21 DAYS

REMEMBERING THE BEST OF SHARK WEEK

FROM THE PAST 30 YEARS.

YEAH, SHARK WEEK IS THAT OLD.

LOOKING AT EVERYTHING SHARKY IN THE WORLD AROUND US

AND LOOKING FORWARD TO SHARK WEEK 30,

BEGINNING JULY 22nd ON DISCOVERY.

AND THEN THERE'S, LIKE, A GRAPHIC THING THAT HAPPENS.

IT'S SWEET.

Announcer: IT'S TIME FOR "THE DAILY BITE,"

YOUR DAILY COUNTDOWN TO SHARK WEEK.

WE'RE 21 DAYS AWAY AND PACKING EVERYTHING "JAWESOME"

ABOUT SHARKS INTO EVERY EPISODE.

TODAY, A LOOK BACK AT 30 YEARS OF SHARK WEEK HEROES.

PLUS, SOME INSANE MOMENTS WITH SHARK EXPERT

DICKIE CHIVELL.

PLUS, A LOOK AT "THE GREAT WHITE ABYSS."

AND THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU ANSWER ADS ON CRAIGSLIST.

HEROES! THEY'RE ALL AROUND US --

FIREMEN, DOCTORS, SHORT-FORM WEB VIDEO HOSTS.

LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT SOME OF THE LIVES AND LEGACIES

OF SOME SERIOUS SHARK WEEK LEGENDS.

SHARK WEEK HERO!

MY FAVORITE SHARK WEEK HERO IS NOT A HUMAN,

BUT ACTUALLY THE SHARKS THEMSELVES,

BECAUSE THEY'RE THE TRUE HEROES AND TRUE STARS OF SHARK WEEK.

AND IT'S JUST AN INCREDIBLE PLEASURE AND PRIVILEGE

FOR US TO INTERACT WITH THESE SHARKS

AND WATCH THEM DO WHAT THEY DO NATURALLY.

WELL, MY PERSONAL SHARK WEEK HERO ARE THE SHARKS THEMSELVES.

GIVEN THE ROLE THEY PLAY IN THE ECOSYSTEM

IN PROVIDING US WITH A HEALTHY PLANET,

KEEPING EVERYTHING IN BALANCE, IS WHY THEY'RE MY FAVORITE.

YOU KNOW, WITHOUT THE BIG FISH TO BRING US ALL TOGETHER

AND BRING OUT OUR PASSION

AND UNDERSTANDING TO WANT TO DO GOOD

AND SEE HOW OUR OCEANS ARE BUILT ON BEING HEALTHY

BECAUSE OF THIS TOP PREDATOR BEING HEALTHY,

YOU KNOW, FOR ME, THEY GET ALL THE CREDIT

SO WE CAN KEEP DOING THIS, AS LONG AS WE DO A GOOD JOB

PROTECTING THEM.

ONE OF THE LEGENDS OF SHARK WEEK IS DIVER DICKIE CHIVELL.

WHENEVER THERE'S A JOB TOO DANGEROUS, TOO CRAZY,

TOO "OH, NO, I AIN'T DOIN' THAT" FOR THE REST OF THE DIVERS,

DICKIE DOES IT.

LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT SOME OF DICKIE'S CRAZIEST

SHARK MOMENTS IN A SEGMENT WE LIKE TO CALL

"DICKIE DONE DID IT!"

AND WE DO IT LIKE THAT -- WE HIT IT, "DICKIE DONE DID IT!"

♪ OH, WHOA, YEAH ♪

♪ SAILIN' THE SEAS OF LOVE ♪

♪ OH, WON'T YOU THROW THIS BOY A LIFELINE? ♪

♪ NEED A LIFELINE ♪

♪ SAILIN' THE SEAS OF LOVE ♪

J.K., WHAT THE HELL IS THIS THING?

GHOST CAGE. THE SHARK'S GONNA BE ABLE TO SEE YOU IN THIS,

BUT HE'S NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO SENSE YOU,

WHICH MIGHT REALLY BE AN INTERESTING EXPERIMENT.

THERE ARE THREE SHARKS BEHIND ME.

THEY'RE ALL AMPED UP.

Narrator: DICKIE IS GOING IN WITH JUST SNORKELING GEAR.

IN BLACK SUIT AND FLIPPERS, HE LOOKS REMARKABLY LIKE A SEAL.

Man: THEY DON'T WANT TO BE INJURED, THESE SHARKS.

THEY'RE VERY SMART.

THEY'RE WORRIED ABOUT THEIR OWN SELF-PRESERVATION,

AND THERE'S --

Narrator: DICKIE IS IN A FISH BOWL.

THE SHARKS OUTSIDE ARE ON THE PROWL.

Dickie: GUYS, THE DOOR IS BROKEN!

Narrator: WILL THIS PLEXIGLASS AND EPOXY BOX STAND UP

TO A COUPLE OF THOUSAND POUNDS OF VIOLENT SHARK ACTION?

IF IT COLLAPSES, DICKIE IS DEFENSELESS.

Dickie: I'M TRYING TO GET IT -- WHOA!

Man: DICKIE JUST PUSHED A SHARK OUT OF THE CAGE!

THEY'RE TRYING TO GET IN THE DOOR.

DICKIE! YOU ALL RIGHT?

PRETTY INSANE!

COUPLE OF CLOSE CALLS!

WHAT HAPPENED TO YOUR HAND, MAN?

UM, THE GHOST CAGE IS PRETTY SHARP.

DUDE, THAT WAS SUPER SKETCHY.

♪ SAILIN' THE SEAS OF LOVE ♪

♪♪

♪♪

DURING THE BREAK, I STUBBED MY TOE SUPER-BAD,

BUT I DON'T EVEN CARE,

BECAUSE THIS NEXT SEGMENT IS AMAZING,

AND IT'S GONNA MAKE ME FEEL GREAT.

LET'S SEE WHAT YAMANEIKA SAUNDERS

HAS TO SAY ABOUT THE UPCOMING PROGRAMMING

ON SHARK WEEK 30.

CHECK IT OUT.

THE SEGMENT, NOT MY TOE.

THE SEGMENT.

♪ SHE BE TALKIN' MONEY, LOOKING BOUGIE ♪

♪ DYIN' TO RIDE ON A BOAT ♪

SPLASH!

LET ME CALL MY MAMA.

MAMA, PUT YOUR GOOD WIG ON.

IT'S SHARK WEEK.

"THE GREAT WHITE ABYSS."

EVERY SHOW IS US GOING TO WHERE THESE SHARKS ARE.

NOT ONE SHOW DOES IT SAY,

"SHARK WALKS IN THE LIVING ROOM."

NOT ONE SHOW DOES IT SAY, "SHARK AT THE GROCERY STORE,"

OR, "SHARK SITTING IN THE THIRD PEW AT CHURCH,"

OR, "SHARKS AT THE BEYONCé CONCERT."

THEY STAYED THEY ASS WHERE THEY BELONG --

IN THE DEEP, BLUE SEA.

LOOK AT THE GUY NEXT TO HIM.

HE'S LOOKING AROUND LIKE HE'S NOT EVEN SURE

IF HE SHOULD BE THERE.

THERE'S ALWAYS SOMEBODY EXTRA ON THESE MISSIONS THAT'S LIKE,

"HOW DID I WIND UP THERE?"

AND THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU ANSWER ADS ON CRAIGSLIST.

COME ON, NOW!

TUNE IN FOR "GREAT WHITE ABYSS,"

ONLY ON SHARK WEEK.

WELL, THAT IS IT FOR US HERE AT "THE DAILY BITE."

TOMORROW, WE'LL SHOW YOU SOME CRAZY SHARK FAILS,

AND I'LL TEACH YOU SOME NEW SHARK VOCAB

SO YOU CAN EITHER IMPRESS YOUR FRIENDS

OR HAVE THEM JUST THINK YOU'RE WEIRD.

I'VE BEEN ON BOTH SIDES OF THAT.

SEE YOU TOMORROW.

♪♪

For more infomation >> Countdown to Shark Week: The Daily Bite | Dickie Done Did It! - Duration: 6:09.

-------------------------------------------

DIVINE 5 LINA LC PUDGE VENO KOTL - Duration: 4:03:33.

For more infomation >> DIVINE 5 LINA LC PUDGE VENO KOTL - Duration: 4:03:33.

-------------------------------------------

David Meyler dropped a brilliant tweet after Jordan Henderson was head-butted - Duration: 5:09.

Football News24/7  The nation stood still as England lined up against Colombia for their highly anticipated round of 16 clash

 Not since the days of the 'Golden Generation' had England won a knockout game at a World Cup, yet this summer's tournament presented a tantalising route through the rounds

 Sweden awaited the winners in the quarter-final, while semi-final opponents will either be Croatia or Russia

 A number of shocks throughout the competition meant that England had, on paper, possibly their easiest route to a World Cup final in a lifetime

 Before anyone got carried away, though, the stern challenge of 2014 quarter-finals Colombia awaited

England vs Colombia  The game quickly turned into a cagey affair, both Colombia and England enjoying dominate spells without threatening David Ospina or Jordan Pickford

 In fact, the most dramatic moment of the opening 45 minutes came off the ball when Jordan Henderson looked be headbutted from an England free-kick

 The referee spotted the Liverpool midfielder go to ground in the wall before Kieran Trippier took the set piece, leading to a stoppage and an eventual yellow card

David Meyler wins Twitter  Although the action wasn't exactly Zinedine Zidane in 2006, it certainly looked like a red card offence and Wilmar Barrios will certainly feel lucky he's still on the pitch

 Unsurprisingly, the episode caused quite the reaction on Twitter and despite all the big names reacting, it was David Meyler who posted the finest tweet of the lot

 Meyler has his fair share of experience with heabutts and he nailed his tweet as a result, check it:  Sensational stuff, David

 In one of the strangest moments in recent Premier League history, Alan Pardew was sent off during a Hull City vs Newcastle United match for a headbutt on Meyler

 Newcastle promptly fined Pardew £100,000 and gave him a formal warning for the incident in 2014

 The Henderson-Barrios incident wasn't quite as dramatic, but a different refereeing decision could have completely changed the game

 Thankfully, though, Harry Kane ensured the incident didn't define England's fortunes on the night

 Colombia finally lived to regret their dirt tactics on the night with Kane dispatching his third penalty of the tournament with aplomb

   How far do you think England will make it this summer? Have your say in the comments section below

 Do YOU want to write for GiveMeSport? Get started today by signing-up and submitting an article HERE: https://www

givemesport.com/writeforgms

For more infomation >> David Meyler dropped a brilliant tweet after Jordan Henderson was head-butted - Duration: 5:09.

-------------------------------------------

Gary Neville, Ian Wright & Lee Dixon AMAZING REACTION After England beat Colombia - Duration: 0:33.

and the reaction here is mysterion why she can't walk and that will be mirrored

up and down the land as England finally win a shootout of metal in the wild

running orders getting ripped up confetti everyone into the last glass