Slashdot Mirror

Apple Pay is much worse than the NFC payments the rest of the world uses.

The US has had NFC payments for years. However, it never caught on here... I think people are paranoid about RFID. But Visa, MasterCard, and Discover all had contactless cards for a while, but it seems that the experiment was deemed a failure and they're phasing them out now.

Because no lender in their right mind would loan students money to begin with.

If there has been a "bold-faced lie" in this thread, you are it. Banks were making them and even continue making them today, despite government competition. Here is one example — from a credit-card issuer — and a simple Google-search returns many more.

No lender would take that kind of risk, especially at a measly 7% interest rate - typical unsecured loans are closer to 20-30% (you know them as credit cards).

That this is bovine excrement is already established. Here is why... Unlike those "typical unsecured loans", which are spent on quickly-depreciating merchandize or completely worthless vacations, education usually increases the person's money-earning abilities. They earn and they do pay back — a large enough portion to keep lenders in the green.

Government's student loans is the solution searching for problem at best. At worst it is the first step towards nationalizing higher education the way schools are nationalized already — while affording the government better control over citizens by attaching various strings to the approvals (you can't get a loan without registering for Selective Service, for example).

It is (or can quickly become) an instrument of oppression and needs to be rejected and ridiculed, not celebrated...

Define 'protected'.

Well, according to the Visa and MasterCard contracts you sign, you, the consumer, are not liable for fraudulent or unauthorized usage of your credit card credentials. Here's Visa's statement and here's MasterCard's. Just for fun, here's Discover and American Express's, both of which promise zero liability if you act like a rational human being. And since 1998 the FDIC covers about $250,000 in losses relating to your bank account, including unauthorized use of your ATM card. So looking at all of those liability statements, since the data breach was not the result of gross negligence on the part of the cardholder, the cardholder is not liable for any fraudulent charges made in their name.

Furthermore if anyone steals my credit card, bank card, ATM card or card information, or if something happens to the bank, like a robbery or the bank folds (provided my bank is FDIC insured, of which nearly 7,000 banks are): I, the consumer, am not liable. Either my credit card company knocks it off my bill (in the case of credit card fraud) or the Federal Government covers the losses up to $250,000 per bank (in the case of ATM card fraud or bank losses).

Those are all legally binding contracts in the United States. The European Union has similar systems in place, and has had deposit insurance since 1994, though that just covers the minimum coverage mandated under EU regulations (current minimums are €50,000, as of 2008, more information here). Most countries cover up to €100,000, including Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and Slovakia (among others). The UK covers up to £85,000 in a rather complicated scheme of percentages, and the Irish government will guarantee all the money in your bank accounts.

Certainly seems safer than putting your money in an escrow account controlled by a marketplace known for its illicit drug trade, and whose predecessor was taken down amidst a murder-for-hire scandal.

https://www.discover.com/credit-cards/member-benefits/security/secure-online-account-number.html

>The reality is this: The population density of the New World was incredibly low compared to Europe.

Only if you believe 19 to 22 million people, in just part of what is now known as Mexico, was low density compared to anything. After 60 years, there where only 2 million natives left.

How much carbon dioxide does a single tree consume in a year of respiration and how many trees could be planted for $25 million?

He and his Tokyo Institute of Technology colleagues say that in a billion years the Earth could be dry as Mars. Basically, we've been losing water since 750mya because the mantle cooled enough to trap water. First read about it in Discover Magazine, but the second link has the best summary I've found.

http://www.discover.com/issues/dec-99/rd/newsofsci encemed1735/
http://www.agiweb.org/geotimes/dec99/newsnotes.htm l#note6

Skepticism is not the "lazy person's default position." Skepticism is the result of actually looking at the claims of global warming proponents and looking at simple, readily-available data and determining that the two are incompatible. If human CO2 emissions are the cause of climate change, then explain why global temperatures dropped from the mid 40s to the mid 70s. Or even better, explain why, according to statistics compiled by the same research group that compiled the statistics for the graph linked to above, there was no measurable increase in global temperatures from 1998 to 2005. There was no concurrent decrease in human CO2 emissions during either of those two time periods. In fact, CO2 emissions rose steadily during both. And yet global temperatures did not follow suit. This is not conjecture, this is fact, and this information is available to anyone who takes the time to look. But it is the lazy people who took the time to look. Sure.

As to the consensus amongst scientists, this is simply not true. There are plenty of respected researchers who disagree with the panicked conclusion that human CO2 emissions are about to destroy us all.

One final subject on which I'd like to touch, and that is how the proponents and skeptics of global warming relate to one another. Search for information on the views and opinions of the global warming skeptics, and you'll find that they (for the most part, there are always exceptions) deal in data. When they attempt to refute claims by the proponents, they use research, they use statistics, they use facts. The proponents, on the other hand, seemingly have no problem resorting to personal attacks and skirting the issues entirely. For example, Michael Mann (creator of the infamous hockey stick graph) versus McIntyre and McKitrick. For those unfamiliar (shame on you!) with the hockey stick graph and the controversy surrounding it, a brief primer. The hockey stick graph is the result of research by one Michael Mann, purporting to show historical global temperatures over the past 1000 years. The graph shows a stable, steady temperature until the beginning of the 20th century, when temperatures spike. This was the impetus behind the Kyoto Protocol. McIntyre and McKitrick performed research debunking this graph and the statistical methods used in its creation. They point out any number of flaws, such as the absence of the so-called "little ice age", and its general incompatibility with known historical temperatures. To debunk this bad science, they used facts, they used reality, and they did not resort to attacking Mann's character and credibility. Do a quick google search about their research, and you'll see that they stick to the science. Now, do a search about those who disagree with them. It's full of personal attacks, irrelevant statements, and some claims that border on libel. It should say something that the skeptics are sticking to the science, and their opponents are, in return, attacking them like this was a political campaign (which, in many ways, it has become). Hell, just read how Gore, the poster boy for the global warming crowd, characterizes the skeptics. Came right out and said that they are in the same category as people who think the moon landing was staged. Scientists don't need to attack the character of other scientists. They stick to research, and the facts.

Is global climate changing? Yes, of course it is. The history of this planet's climate is a history of dramatic changes, from i

Also stumbled across this which is short and intersting, and quite gross (worth a quick read).

I don't really understand why fish is supposed to be so healthy for us (though clearly there is much advise that it is).

Omega-3s evidently help raise HDL cholesterol, lower triglycerides, and are known for anticlotting effects. (Ethnographers have remarked on an Eskimo propensity for nosebleeds.) These fatty acids are believed to protect the heart from life-threatening arrhythmias that can lead to sudden cardiac death. And like a "natural aspirin," adds Dewailly, omega-3 polyunsaturated fats help put a damper on runaway inflammatory processes, which play a part in atherosclerosis, arthritis, diabetes, and other so-called diseases of civilization.

I do know you can get serious liver problems from say eating lots of red meat, which is what I was thinking of - one of the reasons why medical practitioners often caution against things like the atkins diet (even though it has a really high success rate, it can also cause other problems and isn't sustainable, especially if you drink a fair bit, for example, as it puts huge strain on the liver).

This I find to be very interesting...a large number of the guys that I work with always seem to be on some form of bizarre "beer & meat" diet, or alternatively, regularly fast! They're all highly intelligent (in a slashdot sort of way), but I've wondered if this really makes for good common sense. Although, I have to say that the latest issue of Scientific American Reports has expounded upon the benefits of both alcohol and fasting, and the Sienna Miller liquid potato diet is amusing.

Your link mentions a thickness increase in the interior only; there's a decrease on the margins.

No. If you could read, you'd see that my article, published in Oct 2005, clearly states that there is an overall average thickening to the tune of 54 cm over an 11 year period.

Another study and that NASA report points to an overall decrease in ice.

An unpublished study according to the link you provide. Really, I'd love to see that study, but all you've provided is an article in National Geographic. Of course, we can all remember National Geographic led the global cooling craze in 1975. But now, I suppose, they are an authoritative source. Much moreso than a peer reviewed scientific journal...

The economics are vastly different from what they expected them to be (big surprise). They have to buy the feedstock in this case, whereas in most other developed countries, they would be paid to take the feedstock (the US allows turkey offal to be fed back to turkeys, whereas most developed nations have banned cannibalistic feeding), and until the beginning of this year, they didn't get any form of tax break for biodiesel. A follow-up article suggests multiple plants could be operational in Europe in the next few years, including one optimistic viewpoint of a $70 per barrel profit margin (significantly higher than I think it will be, but even a third of that would be respectable).

The efficiency comes from the fact that the feedstock contains significant quantities of water, which of course have to be removed from the final oil product, lowering the apparent efficiency (in this case by perhaps half) yet still realizing a profit, according to recent articles, of a few dollars per barrel. The final output may differ significantly from what was expected and have it still be a viable process.

...while all that ice melts, it lowers the salinity of the oceans, thus displacing warm currents from where they are to somewhere else, thusly altering the global train of weather systems, thusly contributing to a "little ice age", reinforced by CO2 in the stratosphere?

Sounds paradoxical, but that could be one outcome of losing the polar ice cap... an ice age.

http://www.discover.com/issues/sep-02/cover/

Personally, I think we'll see just that -- a little ice age lasting a century or two. The scary part is, according to some, we could see this in our own lifetimes.

Oh well. I used to live in North Dakota. Bring it on.

BTW, his predictions on the 2006 Atlantic Hurricane Season quoted in your article were wrong.

Dr. William Gray, hurricane researcher out of Colorado State University, has suggested that his funding may have been cut due to his unwillingness to accept the common view of anthropogenic global warming, which he calls "grossly exaggerated." He suggests in the same interview that many of his colleagues who have been around for a long time have similar feelings and experiences.

http://www.discover.com/issues/sep-05/departments/ discover-dialogue/

Just another contrarian viewpoint because he's too stuck to see it? Or someone whose experience provides the nuances required to see that global warming is a house of cards?

Yeah. I was wondering about that too. I can see the amusement in putting Lisa Simpson in there but it also sorta points out that the entire list is pretty bogus. I'd suggest reviewing a list put out by Discover Magazine about a year ago. It honored contributions by women to science.

http://www.discover.com/issues/nov-02/features/fea t50/?page=1

Cally

And to top it off, he's a repeat offender:
In fact, Yaffle was exiled to the cornfield for three days for reverse engineering a bit of computer code to steal virtual items from a vendor in Second Life. "The cornfield is not used often, and it is only for white-collar crimes," explains Catherine Smith of Linden Lab, the San Francisco-based company that created and maintains the Second Life site. "It is supposed to be funny more than anything.

I know that two must be a difficult number for you to count to, but it's around 7 orders of magnitude smaller than the number of things in Earth orbit. Around 10,000 of those are tracked continuously to prevent collisions.

There have been several attempts to develop electricity generators using the tide, such as these:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/04/business /main2153298.shtml
http://www.nature.com/news/2004/040322/full/040322 -7.html;jsessionid=E3647E0B96B907DE7AF07B7FC3B0361 4
http://www.discover.com/issues/dec-05/features/oce an-energy/
I'm skeptical of the original article's device because it apparently is from "New Scientist," which recently reported on an Amazing Antigravity Device (not that I trust Discover much these days). But the wave energy gadgets have been proven to generate electricity (11kV for the third one), and you can use that for conventional desalination. See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_power .

Presumably it can't be used for cooling, though -- can't simultaneously equip the Wave Beam and the Ice Beam. 8)

As I understand it, about half the world's desal capability is located in the Middle East, mostly in Saudi Arabia, and there it's oil-powered, done by high-pressure sprays against a grating. Even in the Middle East it makes up only maybe 3% of the water supply.

Long-term, we should be looking at greatly reducing the need for freshwater by making irrigation more efficient -- it makes up about half of our demand -- and that means drip-irrigation systems and maybe gengineering of plants for salt tolerance.

On each rover there is a color-calibration target which is used to determine 'true color correctness' (my words, not theirs). This article from Discover talks about how NASA determines what is the true color of each Mars picture using the color target. A picture of the target, an identical copy of which is kept on Earth and is compared against a picture from Mars in which the target on the rover is present in the picture, is shown in the article.

Discover magazine has a much more poetic article on the same subject-- and there's a picture!
http://www.discover.com/issues/feb-05/features/ear th-without-people/
It really blows the other stuff on the topic away, IMO-- it's definitely the first article in Discover to actually bring tears to my eyes.

People are working on this. See this article in Discover magazine.

Nearly 6 years ago this was discovered. Wow is this ever late. Btw, didn't anyone think of the T. Rex? Think of the children, the T. Rex was pregnant!

But what about the discoverer of this? How is she doing with this controversy?

From Schweitzer's Dangerous Discovery article in Discover Magazine published in April of 2006 you get some new information.

What is intresting is that the discoverer of this, Mary Higby Schweitzer, is an evangelical Christian in addition to being a paleontologist. That has got to do a number on you mentally.

I find it amusing that this was all discovered because someone thought the place smelled of cadavers and not stone. Add to that the name of the place, Hell Creek.

Nearly 6 years ago this was discovered. Wow is this ever late. Btw, didn't anyone think of the T. Rex? Think of the children, the T. Rex was pregnant!

But what about the discoverer of this? How is she doing with this controversy?

From Schweitzer's Dangerous Discovery article in Discover Magazine published in April of 2006 you get some new information.

What is intresting is that the discoverer of this, Mary Higby Schweitzer, is an evangelical Christian in addition to being a paleontologist. That has got to do a number on you mentally.

I find it amusing that this was all discovered because someone thought the place smelled of cadavers and not stone. Add to that the name of the place, Hell Creek.

If a bottle of asprin results in her passing away but the bypass gives her 20 years more life, then (adjusting for inflation, etc) she merely has to generate $1,000 more wealth each year than she consumes for the operation to be "worth it".

Except for the fact that, more often than not, bypass surgery kills the patient. I clipped an article about a newspaper guy who died three weeks after his bypass surgery. One medical researcher says that bypass surgery belongs in the medical archives. Bypass surgery is so common not because it's effective, but because it's flashy (a real power trip to hold someone's beating heart in your hands), financially rewarding for the surgeon, and the patient doesn't have to pick up the tab (uninsured people don't have bypass surgery).

We're human beings; we take care of each other because we sympathize and empathize.

When my grandmother had cancer, I helped take care of her... Which included regular visits to the clinic for "treatment". By that time, my 87-year old Grandmother had lived her life, and was simply "going through the motions", pretending that she was trying to get better for the sake of her husband and children. Of course, Grandma didn't care what her treatment cost because Medicare and her supplemental insurance were paying for it. Mayo Clinic didn't care what their services cost either, because the federal government was picking up most of the tab.

Grandma's stint with conventional (pharmaceutical) cancer treatment lasted six months, exactly the time that her doctor said she would survive without his therapies. Perhaps the treatment gave her a few extra months, perhaps it killed her off even quicker (by destroying her immune system). Since I was around so much, I know she was miserable for most that time. Never heard a final figure, but it was probably between $50k and $100k - quite a bill for no benefit whatsoever.

Medicare picking up the tab was not compassionate, sympathetic, or empathetic. These are personal qualities, of families caring for each other. I argue that, because Medicare pays for high-tech medicine, and not "proper nutrition", the suffering of my grandmother was increased. (Grandma's doctor sent her to a nutritionist at the outset. "She wanted me to eat five servings of vegetables a day. She's CRAZY!").

My grandfather's in a similar situation: had a seizure/"heart attack" of some sort three years ago. Doctors decided he'd benefit from a defibrillator. His bill for that episode totaled around $100k... Three years later he's still alive, but now that Grandma's gone he's just waiting to die. His heart would've given out, if not for the artificial pacemaking functionality. He's anxiously waiting for the day that the defibrillator's battery is depleted.

Compassion is caring for your own familiy member when they're sick, or volunteering at a charity hospital for the poor. Charity took care of the poor's medical needs before the government stepped to the plate with Medicaid, otherwise known as "wellfare for doctors and medical equipment manufacturers" (an MRI machine costs $1-4 million).

Medicare is cruel to old people, and has made medical services for the rest of us exhorbitantly expensive. The high prices won't last forever, the healthcare system will collapse soon enough of its own accord, and we will return to a system that is affordable for most. Robert Zieve, M.D., has written some books on this coming transition to effective, affordable care.

Granted, a chart at wikipedia that doesn't include this new data.. but..

Many people look at the data and charts like this one and say, "see, CO2 levels seem to correspond with increased n temperature.. there, it's a fact that global warming is being caused/increased by humans!" But really, look at the chart. reading from right to left (since it's graphed today on the left and goes into the past as you go right).. I see what look like more cases of the temperature rising (or falling) before CO2 levels rise or fall. This would seem to indicate that perhaps CO2 levels are effected by temperature, not the other way around (or more likely, there's a symbiotic relationship). Notice that most of the highest (and lowest) points of temperature deviation are to the right of the corresponding CO2 points.

I still think that, while humans are having an effect on global temperatures, I don't think anyone has truly proven that we're the main (or even a significant) cause of global warming. There are plenty of people that have worked in climate fields for 40-50+ years that think the same way (like William Gray and many of his colleagues. Why I should listen to their opinions on things like Hurricane predictions yet ignore other things they're saying is beyond me. Most articles I've read where human induced global warming proponents try to get you to ignore people like Gray, simply dismiss their claims, or try to claim they don't know what they're talking about (despite 50+ years in the field), seemingly because they don't consider them "true" "climate scientists" vs meterologists.

What it really comes down to is that the global climate is a very complicated system, and I don't think we truly know enough about it to be making claims as fact regarding things like human induced global warming.

See this article http://www.discover.com/issues/may-04/departments/ cryptography-of-voting-machines/?page=2

The current issue of Discover magazine (with a large face shot of Einstein "The Einstein Dilemma") on the cover. The article on point is Shiny Happy People. "Can you reach nirvana with the aid of science?".

And...(OT)..."Will Wright (Sims et al., for those who have been living in a bomb bunker), The master of the "god game" tackles alien life and dreams up a world that would make Darwin drool".

The current issue of Discover magazine (with a large face shot of Einstein "The Einstein Dilemma") on the cover. The article on point is Shiny Happy People. "Can you reach nirvana with the aid of science?".

And...(OT)..."Will Wright (Sims et al., for those who have been living in a bomb bunker), The master of the "god game" tackles alien life and dreams up a world that would make Darwin drool".

The current issue of Discover magazine (with a large face shot of Einstein "The Einstein Dilemma") on the cover. The article on point is Shiny Happy People. "Can you reach nirvana with the aid of science?".

And...(OT)..."Will Wright (Sims et al., for those who have been living in a bomb bunker), The master of the "god game" tackles alien life and dreams up a world that would make Darwin drool".

Slashdot wants more characters per line Sky above 37Â375"N 122Â2222"W at Sat 2005 Jul 2 20:11 Slashdot wants more characters per line ScienceDaily Magazine -- News Summaries Slashdot wants more characters per line BBC NEWS | Science/Nature Slashdot wants more characters per line Science News Online Slashdot wants more characters per line Molecule of the Day Slashdot wants more characters per line The Loom Slashdot wants more characters per line Cosmic Variance Slashdot wants more characters per line Scientific American news Slashdot wants more characters per line Sciencegate Slashdot wants more characters per line New Scientist Slashdot wants more characters per line LiveScience Slashdot wants more characters per line Science And Politics Slashdot wants more characters per line Chris C Mooney Slashdot wants more characters per line symmetry Magazine Slashdot wants more characters per line Discover Magazine Slashdot wants more characters per line Mathematician OTD Slashdot wants more characters per line Mars Exploration Rover Mission: Home Slashdot wants more characters per line Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter: Home Slashdot wants more characters per line ESA - Cassini-Huygens Slashdot wants more characters per line NASA - Cassini-Huygens: Close Encounter with Saturn Slashdot wants more characters per line HiRISE Operations Center -- HiROC Slashdot wants more characters per line Cassini Saturn Slashdot wants more characters per line CICLOPS: Cassini Imaging Slashdot wants more characters per line Saturn Today Slashdot wants more characters per line HubbleSite - NewsCenter Slashdot wants more characters per line MESSENGER Web Site Slashdot wants more characters per line Deep Impact: Your First Look Inside a Comet! Slashdot wants more characters per line Pluto, Charon, and other Kuiper Belt Objects including, Sedna, 2003 UB313, as well as Asteroids and Comets. Slashdot wants more characters per line Nature Slashdot wants more characters per line Pharyngula

Molesting a few children and taking pictures of it is definitely nowhere NEAR as bad as killing hundreds of people (including dozens of children). But crimes against children evoke a far more visceral revulsion in people than just pushing a button that blows some people up. In fact, the difference in how people respond to immoral acts has been studied with interesting results.

http://www.discover.com/issues/apr-04/features/who se-life-would-you-save/

Basically it seems to come down to how directly someone is involved in an immoral act. A suicide bomber is somewhat more removed from their crime than someone who's right in there hurting children with their bare hands. Similarly, a politician who initiates military actions that cause tens or hundreds of thousands of deaths (by, say, ordering the firebombing of a city) probably wont be held to even the slightest level of accountability, because he is so incredibly far removed from the acts. He certainly wont be considered as evil as someone who had torched that city in person. And a hypothetical arsonist who burned down a city wouldn't be considered as evil as someone who personally lit even just one or two people on fire -- even though the former caused a vastly greater number of deaths. It's a funny little quirk of how our moral instincts work, and it highlights the importance of applying reasoning to our moral judgements.

It was the diseases from the Europeans filthy way of life that did them in

Discover Magazine currently has a cover article that suggests that a change to that exact formula is required: "a change to F = ma/a0 when accelerations fall below one 10-billionth of a meter per second every second".

Not surprisingly, the physicist is facing a lot of resistance to the change, a good deal of it just due to the fact that F=ma has lots of historical precedent, not strictly becuase of the merits of the theory. Even scientists, it appears, are resistant to changing their assumptions.

Aw, c'mon. At least give him a "funny" mod!

C'mon, look at the pictures! It's obvious that it landed somewhere on Earth...

(Explanation--at least in regards to the PathFinder pictures--is here.)

Actually it was first proposed by a Russian scientist mid 20th century and has been around since then.

And although while it may not be common knowledge, it does indeed make more sense than the biogenic theory of petroleum. First off, we know that life can live at extreme temperatures, at extreme depths, and at extreme pressures. Ever see any footage of volcanic vents in the Pacific? Secondly, we know that substances found in petroleum are indeed a byproduct of natural processes on other planets. Third, we can produce a synthetic form of petroleum in a lab using turkey guts (or any other organic/hydro-carbon lifeform).

Having a peak oil mindset allows the oil companies to have a stranglehold on the "scarcity" of petroleum much in a very similar way that DeBeers has a stranglehold on "scarcity" of diamonds.

And you are correct, even if it is not being generated at the same rate that it is being pumped, then the origins are trivial to an extent. If we can understand however where it comes from and how it is created, then we ourselves can replicate that process. This as a matter of fact has already been done. http://www.discover.com/issues/may-03/features/fea toil or Google for "Anything Into Oil".

But really the idea of "fossil fuel" or "dino oil" or the notion that our society is powered by dead dinosaur guts is really rubbish and is an archaic 20th-century mindset.

I hate to tell you, but 'peak oil' is a fraud. Most reputable scientists believe in the abiogenic theory of oil. In other words, it's a natural process within the earth that produces petroleum in a very similar way that natural gas is produced.

As of 2003 we have even been able to produce 'synthetic' petroleum in a lab through a process called 'thermal depolymerization' - http://www.discover.com/issues/may-03/features/fea toil

For more information on abiogenic petroleum here are some resources:
Black Gold Stranglehold - by Jerome R., Ph.D. Corsi, Craig R. Smith
WND Books (October 14, 2005) ISBN: 1581824890

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_oil

I hate to tell you, but 'peak oil' is a fraud. Most reputable scientists believe in the abiogenic theory of oil. In other words, it's a natural process within the earth that produces petroleum in a very similar way that natural gas is produced.

We have even been able to produce petroleum in a lab through a process called 'thermal depolymerization' - http://www.discover.com/issues/may-03/features/fea toil

For more information on abiogenic petroleum here are some resources:
Black Gold Stranglehold - by Jerome R., Ph.D. Corsi, Craig R. Smith
WND Books (October 14, 2005) ISBN: 1581824890

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_oil

A two-week-old sea horse can consume 3,600 baby shrimps in one dayup to 25 times its body weight.

When a mosquito sucks blood from a human, it will take in twice its body weight in blood. To decrease this added weight, the mosquito urinates on its victim to release fluids.

at Discover Magazine:
http://www.discover.com/issues/sep-93/features/ofp arasitesandpo264/

I'm always skeptical of claims that hundreds or thousands of supposedly respectable scientists hold a non-mainstream view but can't express it because some shadowy cabal is forcing them to stay quiet.

Are your funding problems due in part to your views?

G: I can't be sure, but I think that's a lot of the reason. I have been around 50 years, so my views on this are well known. I had NOAA money for 30 some years, and then when the Clinton administration came in and Gore started directing some of the environmental stuff, I was cut off. I couldn't get any NOAA money. They turned down 13 straight proposals from me.

I wouldn't mind seeing a reference on a claim like that. I call BS. See http://www.discover.com/issues/may-92/features/aqu estionofsize42/

You should read the article you cited, where it begins to discuss the endocrinological differences between pygmies and average people, their extremely low birth size, their lack of an adolescent growth spurt, and so on. It seems your article actually supports me. Actually, essentially every reference I find which is newer than 1980 supports me. Mercedes de Onis is responsible for a great many studies you can look into if you're interested, but the canonical reference is TJ Merimee's paper in the New England Journal of Medicine, NEJM issue 316, pp906-91. That's in 1987, if you actually intend to look it up, and want to call your library to make sure they have it first. That paper discusses insulin-like growth factor (you can read more about that on the internet as IGF, not ILGF.) Studies show that the Bantu, Ituri, Efe and Mbuti - the peoples we refer to as pygmies from the Congo forests of Zaire - stop growing at between 10 and 12 years of age, have no postpuberty endocrine phase at all (the 13-15 year old omg how tall did you get last summer thing.)

More detailed studies have since been made, though they're not as easy to read. Another reasonable paper is RC Bailey's, from Annals of Human Biology, issue 18 pp113-20, which is from 1991. That paper focuses specifically on the near-total lack of IGF-1, which is the most common reason for non-dysplasic dwarfism (that is, the stuff that isn't about your skeleton binding early.) The group of conditions circling around IGF-1, IGTD and similar chemicals is known as GHD. In the pygmy peoples there's also been a demonstrated lack of ICF-I by Renaldo Martorel, and there are several statistical studies which suggest (we're not sure yet) a resistance to Partial Growth Hormone, presumably due to damage in GHBP's ectodomain. Alternate isolated peoples show problems in other parts of the growth sequence, such as the Mountain Ok, Aeta and Mamanwa, who are lacking Growth Hormone Binding Protien but who do not show the resistance to GH.

A more important paper, but one which is almost impossibly for a layperson to read, is E.Z. Tronick S.A. Winn's paper in the Journal of Pediatric Developmental Behavior, issue 13, pp421-4, from 1992. That paper addresses the complete lack of other problems, most notably reduced vision, mental retardation, brittle skeleton or fragile tendon disorders which would be expected if the lack of growth was based on dietary fault. In fact, the only dietary health problem commonly attributed to the pygmies is hypoglycemia, which is suspected to be largely due to the major and frequently unreliable usage of honey in their diet and trade relationships with surrounding peoples.

Another paper from 1992, Zhou Xianjin's paper to Nature in issue 376, pp771-4, suggests that the Efe may in fact have two seperate kinds of pervasive dwarfism, a flaw in the nuclear scaffolding HmGI-c and HmGI(y), which is critical during embryogenic cycle dependant phosphorylation. Awesomely, Nature actually gives the references for their papers online, which saves me a lot of retyping.

You can also look up the Mountain Ok from Papua New Guinea, who show deficiencies in GHRhR. Unfortunately, the Kongkandji, Indindji and Barbaram aboriginal peoples of Australia are essentially extinct, so we have no idea what kept them small; medical science, working largely from photographs, suggests thanatophoric or diastrophic dysplasia, both of which are genetic disorders with a high recurrence in spontaneous mutation, due to the damage being near the end of the appropr

That's why inbreeding is bad. This is what created the pygmies and various other dwarf and midget populations throughout the world.

I wouldn't mind seeing a reference on a claim like that. I call BS. See http://www.discover.com/issues/may-92/features/aqu estionofsize42/

In summary, it is believed to have been a slow evolutionary process. Some of the factors they believe select a smaller size are: temperature (pygmy populations have evolved almost exclusively around the equator - being smaller makes it easier to disipate heat); landscape (they tend to live next to or in dense forest, and being small makes it easier to move between branches etc).

And from WP:
"Pygmies are smaller because in their early teens they do not experience the growth spurt normal in most other humans. This is an environmental adaptation, smaller bodies have evolved independently in non-human species in response to isolation on small islands or dense forest environments."

You don't just hit the brick and transfer all your kinetic energy without feeling it.

I think I was being quite unclear before, recoil and opposite reaction force are not the same thing. The opposite force (F=kx) it put in gradually, over a span of about 5ms*. As the force is applied, the brick, as a spring, is being compressed and is gaining spring energy. (In the form E=kx^2). Now once the spring is fully loaded, the hand is either
a) removed in time, and avoids getting any recoil energy. As a result the brick breaks and you're happy.
b) not removed in time, the brick gives you back lots of energy, your hand hurts, brick is unphased.

The link touches on some of this, might want to check it out.
* ref: http://www.discover.com/issues/may-00/departments/ featphysics/

http://www.discover.com/issues/jun-03/features/fea ttongue/

The flywheels were made out of composites, spun at incredible speeds, were housed in a vacuum and supported by magnetic bearings.

The auto makers didn't pick up on it, but they said stationary power storage was another possible market.

I can references to US Flywheel Systems on google, but no site for it. Curious as to what happened to them.

Battery maintenance is a PITA. Sure would be nice to see something like this work out.

Hmmm. Whatever happened to tuned antennas as an energy collector? You could layer them to catch the entire light spectrum. Of course one could use the ionosphere instead.

Your design (and the author's) wouldn't be able to run very well. According to an article in this month's Discover, humans have adapted to running so well over long distances that we compete favorably with horses.

The link is intro-only so I'll tell you the biggest advantages are sweat glands and long, springy legs. But others include shock-absorbing aspects of the head and free torso movement. Most animals need a tail for balance, but we've evolved out of that one too. I realize your design is a quadruped, but running in humans seems to involve shedding a lot of animal baggage. The fact that a human's stride is longer than a horse's is hard to believe (but documented in the article with a video camera experiment).

But hey, congratulations for beating this guy to the idea.

See if you can just cast aside the opinions of someone that's worked in meterology for 50 years who thinks that global warming being caused by human's isn't likely, and especially that increased weather patterns are not impacted by the measured warming. Note how his NOAA funding has basically been cut off since Gore became VP and started pushing for global warming studies.

Also note that Gray's experience is just fine for people who want to believe his hurricane forecasts.. but somehow his opinion doesn't count when it comes to global warming and it's (non) effect on weather patterns.