Slashdot Mirror

The VW engines produce less nox per mile than a gasoline engine, but more per gallon

Inaccurate. NOx is measured per mile, not per gallon, and Diesel engines produce more NOx per mile.

http://www.technology.matthey....
https://www.dieselnet.com/tech...
somewhat less technical: https://www.quora.com/Why-does...
http://www.livescience.com/522...

global warming and sea levels are rising -- I think we need to look at where we are constantly building concrete and pavement structures that does not allow rain water to be absorbed. Instead we are building surfaces that exceed 200+ degree and that divert water to run off faster to streams that run into the ocean. California is sinking ( http://www.livescience.com/519... ) because of less ground water. If we can build water collection areas we can reverse the rising sea levels and address the hotter water going into our oceans. Just think, if a building has been around for 50 years then the water that would normally be absorbed into the ground has had to be diverted for entire existence of the building (50 years at 20 inches of water per year comes up to 100 inches of water that has to go somewhere) now lets try to imaging over four million km of pavement in the US alone (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2085.html ).

Although you can't get there on a dating site (yet) there's evidence that women are attracted to some men by smell. Maybe that's also why so many men like to spend their weekends in a boat fishing.

Your gait may not be able to tell you anything about your emotional health, but it certainly can tell you something about how long you'll probably live.

http://www.livescience.com/104...

I'm not sure about uncooking and egg, but you can unboil them.

http://www.livescience.com/49610-scientists-unboil-egg.html

http://www.livescience.com/507...

You do realize the US had the longest hurricane drought in it's history.

Serotonergic psychedlic drugs can also reset some filters in your brain.

http://www.iflscience.com/brai...
http://www.livescience.com/485...

I used to be unable to see video tearing when VSYNC was disabled on a computer.
Then I took LSD and watched a film. I suddenly could see it clearly.
This improvement was persistent.

Sunsets and clouds also gained tremendous detail, permanently.

The East Coast is in the "longest hurricane drought in recorded history," something the "climatologists" got 100% wrong when they attributed Katrina to "global warming" and predicted "more extreme weather." The media, their fear-mongering "science correspondents" with their AGW group-think and their preferred celebrity climatologists were wrong then and they're wrong now. We can no more explain why no hurricane has made landfall in the Gulf in 10 years than we can explain why their is an outlier sequence in the Pacific today.

As to the source of the statistics, no that is your only source of statistics that CORRELATES a set amount of power plants/mega watts/tons of chemical X with some number of cancer cases.

That is LITERALLY your source. You can cite all the studies you like... I've seen a lot of them... and inside each of them that could be used to make your argument, you'll find that that is EXACTLY what they did.

And given that that is your information source what you have is a ROUGH correlation.

On that basis you can't tax me. You need CAUSATION.

People that don't grasp the distinction between correlation and causation shouldn't cite statistics AT ALL.

As to power plants being dangerous to workers etc... don't be obtuse. It makes you sound petty and quarrelsome which is not helping you.

As to internalizing costs, you cannot do that unless you can nail down causation on a case by case basis.

You can't. So you can't.

As to your statistics... they're correlative.

As to 29%... we're talking about PM2.5 in San Francisco actually if you read the source. And the amount of air pollution in San Francisco is pretty fucking low.

So 30 percent of just about nothing... is just about nothing.

Let me make this clear, you know there is arsenic in many natural water sources right? That's something we often use as RAT POISON. But it is very commonly found in natural springs and lakes. Dangerous? Nope. As any doctor will tell you, dosage is very important when determining if something is actually even a poison in the first place. And most medicines are themselves only medicines at specific dosages. Exceed the dosage and they can themselves become poisons. The old eating a bottle of asprin and then drinking half a liter of scotch suicide method.

So you say 29 percent... 29 percent doesn't mean anything from a health stand point without having some sort of scale to understand exactly how much PM2.5 San Franciscans are sucking down.

if its just about nothing... and 29 percent of that just about nothing is from china... who cares.

There's a certain amount of insect parts in your food. A certain amount feces in the air. A certain amount of urine rubbed into your hands when you get a hand shake. A certain amount of semen on your pillow when you lay down on a hotel bed. It doesn't matter if they washed and bleached it... Some remnant is there. Its just no one cares because its below a threshold where it matters to you.

As to the geo engineering... if you're not familiar with the proposed methods of geo engineering than you're not well read on climate change. Period.

Here is some more on the sulfer dioxide concept:
http://www.livescience.com/160...

Here is a bit more on the boats spraying salt water:
http://www.scientificamerican....

The cost structure for these plans is well under a billion dollars for either one. And either would entirely negate the effect of global warming. Understand... ENTIRELY negate the warming. ALL of it.

The carbon credit scheme will do nothing of the kind whilst costing trillions.

if you want the warming to stop, support a plan that will ACTUALLY work.

And then take the MASSIVE savings and sink a portion of that into funding research for new technologies. Contrary to what you might think, funding for new technologies to replace coal etc are not actually that high.

We spend a lot of money on wind farms and solar farms but we don't spend anywhere near that kind of money on research into the technology that will actually get rid of coal.

As to conflating all subsidies as equal... *sigh*... please try to watch the fallacies. You seem to operate almost entirely in them and it makes it tedious to correct simple logical errors. There are small subsidies and there are fucking massive subsides. Saying "we subsidized somethin

I've always figured it was both simple life developing here, then complex life hitching a ride and spicing things up when it landed. http://www.livescience.com/280...

The way it happens is that sea level rises slowly, so slowly it's barely noticeable. Then, literally overnight, a storm causes specific sections of land to go underwater. It's very expensive, even if we plan for it. But we never do seem to plan for it adequately, do we?

CO2 emissions will go down as fossil fuels become harder to obtain and the cost of alternative energy decreases. It's inevitable to reduce CO2 emissions, because fossil fuels will simply be exhausted. All we can do is speed up that process by imposing a carbon tax. We came together to reduce CFC emissions and sulfur emissions to alleviate the ozone hold and acid rain, so why not CO2 emisisons?

Unless you're a non-human. Then the world is a very dangerous place.

http://www.livescience.com/335...

There was actually one person who was cured of HIV who received a marrow transplant from an HIV resistant donor.

Later two more people who had HIV with a non HIV resistant donor who showed no signs of the disease for about a year, and then it returned, and often when you hear about the first story, people confuse it with the second one where the two individuals recurred with the disease, and thus believe that the first guy still has HIV, but he doesn't.

It seems that the process of irradiating the body of its own marrow also destroys HIV, but it will return if the t-cells aren't resistant to the virus because there are certain areas of the body where the virus can survive the radiation treatment.

http://www.livescience.com/480...

They have to be really careful because the amount of toxins that gets released while fasting can get dangerously high.

That is a myth - there's no evidence that fasting releases any "stored toxins," in fact I have yet to meet anyone who can tell me exactly what these toxins supposedly are.

Here you go, a whole slew of articles:

http://www.livescience.com/364...

http://www.bing.com/search?q=s...

There's this thing called a search engine but since you're just spewing rather than understanding or able to do your own research I've done it for you. Enjoy.

We didn't evolve to eat pizza, pasta, donuts and all the rest of the crap that the average person brings home from the store.

Yeah, and that makes everyone fatter.
http://www.livescience.com/468...

Damn right we didn't evolve to eat all that crap.

People always get that backwards. We never evolve to eat something, we evolve from eating something.

So the question is, what evolutionary changes will a pizza heavy diet produce in humans.

We didn't evolve to eat pizza, pasta, donuts and all the rest of the crap that the average person brings home from the store.

Yeah, and that makes everyone fatter.
http://www.livescience.com/468...

Damn right we didn't evolve to eat all that crap.

Sorry about that. I didn't format them correctly.

Treating Pedophiles: Therapy Can Work, But It's a Challenge
It's time to reconsider how we treat pedophiles
Pessimism about pedophilia

They are victimized again when someone views it. Imagine if you were abused and had those photos spread around. How would you feel? Even if production were made illegal if it weren't already so, someone would just have to make it once, perhaps in a country with looser laws.

Because it's sexual in nature, it makes it worse. We don't find people filming murders for sexual gratification. If that were the case, then that could very well become illegal too.

If that argument isn't good enough, consider if the copyright were held solely by the victim. Then at the very least, it could be illegal in the same way someone has a bootlegged video of a movie.

The only contention we should have is what kind of punishment it should be. I don't think lengthy prison sentences does anyone good assuming it's not a deterrent for pedophiles seeking child abuse images. Voluntary treatment in exchange for a shorter sentence or probation for possession of child pornography should be considered. The same thing could probably be said for the war on drugs.

Treating Pedophiles: Therapy Can Work, But It's a Challenge
It's time to reconsider how we treat pedophiles
Pessimism about pedophilia

If the drone gets sucked into the engine it could cause serious damage. Conceivable it could destroy the aircraft either through explosion of making the aircraft crash. Birds do cause aircraft to crash: http://www.livescience.com/323...

The whole idea that cow burps could produce enough carbon to destroy the planet is why so many people deny even the possibility that emitting industrial quantities of carbon can change the climate. It just makes the whole issue sound ridiculous. Methane may be 20 times as powerful a greenhouse gas as CO2, but because of its reactivity it does not persist in the atmosphere in the same way.

There's some insight in that comment-- compared to the 40 trillion kilograms of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere by combustion of coal, the amount of warming by cows is small. However, although it is smaller effect, it is not negligible contributes. According to the original article:

Each year worldwide, the methane produced by cud-chewing livestock warms Earth’s climate by the same amount as 2.1 billion tons of carbon dioxide, a little more than 4% of the greenhouse gas emissions related to human activity.

So, here's a way to affect 4% of the problem (not solve, but affect), with no effect on standard of living whatsoever-- it's a small step, but with essentially no cost: cow methane production is of no economically value.

What bothers me, however, is that the article is talking about burps, while the problem is cow emissions. Not all cow methane emissions are burps.

Won't be long.
The Last Time Oceans Got This Acidic This Fast, 96% of Marine Life Went Extinct

Worst Case Climate Change (2008 TED Talk)

Long story short:
350 tonnes per second of CO2 being absorbed by the ocean is acidifying it.
If we don't stop 96% of ocean life dies.
Dead life rots. Rotting life in water emits nasty toxic gases.
Also melting permafrost releases giant amounts of methane dwarfing climate warming gasses releases by humans, this causes run-away warming.
Methane clathrates under ocean also melt and release billions more tonnes of methane.
Resulting gases make air unbreathable, humans and 95% of life on earth die.

^none of this stuff is included in IPCC models YET.

Global warming is clearly happening, the permafrost is already melting, the sea is already acidifying. The human species days could well be numbered.

Acid Test: Rising CO2 Levels Killing Ocean Life | Conservation Climate

99.996% of climate scientists now say global warming is happening, not 97%.

I'm pretty sure I read this morning that these interstitials are what wiped out the wooly mammoth.
http://www.livescience.com/516...

And in 2010 researchers from Deakin University in Melbourne already wrote in the British Journal of Nutrition about that same.

Men and women have fundamentally different brains.

From the same post where you cherry picked that quote to make a really sad attempt at strawmanning me:
"Anything gets competitive... where men start trying really hard... the women sit down. They don't even try. Not because they can't but because they're programmed to not try."

Here's the thing, pudding... I'm a seasoned campaigner... I forget more about rhetoric on the john every day than you'll ever know. I know... Dick measuring... listen to me whip out my big throbbing e-peen and compare sizes. But you see, that's the point again. This is how it goes.

As to girls in little league... a relatively minor subset. And it doesn't help you because its only one place. There are a zillion other examples i can throw at you that would bury your occasional exception. And really none of it matters because the facts aren't even remotely in dispute.

Boys are more aggressive... more competitive... more assertive. And even the "kill all men" feminists agree. You can't fight it, sport. Its just sad.

As to canton, I can't evaluate that without access to their databases. I can't see individual student scoring. All you're showing me is that there are women on the team. When they compete, they're only allowed to send FOUR of the students to the meet. Which means the vast majority of those kids stay home.

So who do did they send and what did they score? Impossible to know isn't it?

As they say in math "show your work". :)

Your link about japanese exchange students didn't touch on competition so I don't know what you're talking about there.

As to the Naperville thing... you didn't actually read any of this did you? That isn't how you win, bucko! You're not going to get the virtual pussy at this rate.

""
Senior Tom Gannon of Downers Grove set the tone early in the day by winning the state championship in the Oral competition with 48 out of a possible 50 points. Later in the day, in a large jam packed auditorium, Tom and Junior Brendan Caseria of Naperville finished 2nd in the State in the Junior-Senior 2-person competition. To wrap up a terrific day, Tom capped it off with an 8th place finish in the Pre-Calculus written competition. The senior team of Rachel Berry of Naperville, Sabrina Lichon of Naperville, Brian Meier of Downers Grove, Robbie Stanley of Warrenville, Jeff Sweeney of Downers Grove and Gannon finished in 4th place, their highest finish ever at the State Math Meet.
""

From your citation.

The champ was Tom Gannon, followed by Brendan Caseria, then tom won something else... and apparently some collection of people with no apparent individual scoring that was the only segment with the females got 4th.

Just saying, bucko... I think this means my pubic hair is slightly glossier than yours.

As to being wrong... okay... Fine... you want me to bury you in science? You asked for it. :-D

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
http://www.epjournal.net/wp-co...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
http://www.livescience.com/380...

The point of the citations was not to support my thesis. It was so you understood you weren't arguing against some guy that is more fit for breeding with the internet females than you. The point was rather to show you that you're arguing against an entire field of science and citing some anecdotal refer

Humans are animals. Humans also have the concept of "social justice" (which is, in fact, neither social nor justice, but rather a perversion of both). Yet other animals do not have this concept.

The adherence to "social justice" by many of its proponents also follows many of the symptoms of autism, most importantly a complete willingness to overlook irrational and hypocritical behavior.

If autism is found in other animals, why do we not see these animals also suffering from "social justice"?

That must have been hard to phrase your angry off-topic rant in the form of a question.

I'd also question your claim that animals don't have social justice. If we ignore your incoherent definition (ie any moral judgement you disagree with) and look at actual social justice things like concepts of fairness and policing social norms it's clear animals do have social justice.

Seriously, most Australians and Brits probably have no idea how pointless it is to bring up stuff like this:

The U.S. has some problems that Australia doesn't have. It's got a lot more racial crimes, it's got a lot more gun-related crimes, but I don't think that is going to drive a whole bunch of ultra-rich Americans out of their country,

What most foreigners consistently get wrong when looking at our crime stats is failing to note that the overwhelming majority of our gun deaths either have a criminal or a suicidal person on the receiving end of the bullet. Since it's illegal in all 50 states and DC to shoot someone over a non-violent offense or even a violent misdemeanor, that almost invariably means that when a criminal is shot it's either by someone who by definition doesn't respect the law (fellow criminal) or someone about to be on the receiving end of a violent felony.

I can't blame them for this misunderstanding. Our gun control lobby is notorious for manipulating stats by doing stuff like putting gangbangers near the age of majority, who are both eligible to be prosecuted as adults and involved in serious crime when killed, as "children" under the death stats. That's about as bad as most countries refusing to count the death of premature babies on their mortality rates and mocking us for our higher mortality rate because we record those as infant deaths.

Your example of being "notorious for manipulating stats" by clasifying people "near" the age of majority as children seems pretty disingenuous. Are these people younger than the age of majority or older? If they are in fact younger than that age and only "eligible to be prosecuted as adults", why would it be "manipulating stats" to clasify them as children? If they are older than the age of majority, and thus presumably not even eligible to be prosucuted as children, why wouldn't you state that?

It is interesting that statistics can be difficult to compare when dealing with things like crime or death stats. It is also interesting how easy it is to dismiss uncomfortable conclusions. I wouldn't say we are being "mocked" by other countries and I doubt very much that anyone is "refusing" to count things - they just do their statistics different (despite our feelings of importance, most countries are too busy worrying about their own troubles to spend much energy over ours). In any case, any careful look at the state of afairs does reveal that we certainly have room for improvement. Our full term mortality rate is higher than it should be.

http://www.livescience.com/479...

"...the U.S. infant mortality rate for babies born at 37 weeks or later (considered "full term") was actually the highest among the 12 countries, and about twice the rates in Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland."

I suspect that you probably misunderstand the feelings of foreigners when thinking about the USA. While you might not care that "the overwhelming majority of our gun deaths either have a criminal or a suicidal person on the receiving end of the bullet", it is at least possible that those foreigners are appalled that we seem to think that it is acceptable that criminals and suicidal people are being killed. It can be seen to speak to the value that our society places on human lives. The USA is exeptional in many ways. Unfortunately not all of those ways are things we shold be proud of.

I think you mis-translated.

MIT and others have been working on self-healing software for decades. For example,

http://people.csail.mit.edu/st...

http://www.livescience.com/589...

We send spacecraft on comparable missions all the time. And it doesn't really take a spectacularly large payload to destroy (yes, destroy) an asteroid a few hundred meters in diameter. 1/2-kilometer-wide Itokawa could be blown into tiny bits which would not recoalesce, via a 0,5-1,0 megatonne nuclear warhead, a typical size in modern nuclear arsenals (in addition, the little pieces would be pushed out of their current orbit).

I know it's a common misconception that "nuking" an asteroid would simply create a few large fragments that would hit Earth with even more devastation, but that's not backed by simulation data. And anyway, even if it didn't blow the asteroid to tiny bits (which simulations say it would) and even if it didn't push the remaining pieces off trajectory (which they say it does), anything that spreads an Earth impact out over a larger period of time is a good thing - it means the higher percentage of the energy that's absorbed high in the atmosphere rather than reaching the surface (less ejecta, lower ocean waves, a broader (weaker) distribution of the heat pulse, etc), the weaker the shockwaves, the weaker the total heat at any given point in time, and the more time for Earth to radiate away any imparted energy or precipitate out any ejecta cloud. If the choice is between 15 Chelyabink-sized impactor (most of which will strike places where they won't even be witnessed) or one Meteor Crater-sized impactor (same total mass), pick the Chelyabinsk ones. 50 10-megatonne meteor crater impactors or one 500-megatonne Upheaval Dome impactor? Pick the former. The asteroid impacts calculator shows the former generating a negligible fireball and 270mph wind burst at 2km distance, while the latter creates the same winds 25km away (156 times the area) and a fireball that even 25km away is 50 times brighter than the sun, hot enough to instantly set most materials on fire.

But that's all irrelevant because, quite simply, simulations show that nuclear weapons do work against asteroids.

What we need is enough detection lead time to be able to launch a nuclear strike a few months before the impact date (to give time for the debris to disperse). There is no need to "land" or "drill" for the warhead. There is no pressure wave; instead, an immense burst of X-rays is absorbed through the outer skin of the asteroid on the side of the explosion, causing it to vaporize (unevenly) from within, especially near the ground zero point, and creating powerful shockwaves throughout its body. In addition to ripping it apart, the vaporized material and higher energy ejecta flies off, predominantly on the side where the explosion was detonated, acting a broad planar thruster.

Mothers of unborn babies use Wi-Fi to download apps related to pregnancy, such as My Pregnancy Today and I'm Expecting.

Medical apps!

Isn't it a problem that you do not have a long list to put Marie Curie on? And that you wouldn't have the same problem with Hedy Lamarr?

I have to say, I'm not certain what you mean. They would both be on my same list. Curie is certainly the more scientificof the two, but Lamar was no slouch.

Regardless, there are a lot more women to put on the list of successful women in science and technology.

But a large part of why Lamarr might be emphasized is that many young women these days have been brought up in a hypersexualized context.

http://www.livescience.com/216...

And I'm just not certain how you can turn that into men's fault, a normal guy finds that stuff creepy. And it isn't guys who are putting their little girls into these beauty contests, or twerky dance schools.

But I digress.

But if these young women who have apparently been taught that their only asset is their power of sexual attraction can see that a woman like Lamar, who was beautiful, smart, and had a very good background story, perhaps they might consider getting into the science/tech biz.

If they want to.

And of course, we might have discussions of just who plants those stupid ideas in their heads in the first place. I suspect not though, because it doesn't paint a good picture of the women that raise those poor girls. And that doesn't fit the narrative.

Stereotypes exists because they reflect natural gender differences. Yes, boys and girls are different. All research show this.

"Research" means nothing to the folks, who confuse the Universe that is with the Universe that should be. And, unlike the former, the latter is malleable and subject to change without notice.

Remember the denunciations — both passionately angry and "scientific" — of people, who suggested, "homosexuality is a choice", for example? We were repeatedly told both in print and in schools, that "gays are born that way" and thus it is both stupid and cruel to blame them for their lifestyle.

And maybe it is — I do not know. But the The Current Truth is changing. And, unlike Ben Carson, nobody yells at Miley Cirus for "adopting a more fluid label to her sexuality". Sexuality, you see, is a "social construct" now (and since 2004!) — and whatever a human actually feels is simply a reflection of "stereotyping" to be broken, and "peer pressure" to be resisted. With pride.

Whichever is true, both can not be true at the same time, but the conflict of these two ideas does not bother their proponents whatsoever, such logical rational beings they are. "Research" my tail...

Snark Fail. You're behind the times .... by decades.

Maggots and Leeches: Old Medicine is New
Leeches Cleared for Medical Use by the FDA

Too bad you didn't post under your own name, it would have been nice to associate that snark fail of yours to you. Do try to keep up.

Furthermore religions have very detailed books and laws and traditions built around their faith and how it should dictate behavior. If there was no impact on the material world (the domain of science) then there would be no need for organized religion.

Since when is "dictating behavior" the domain of science? It may be the domain of ethics or morality or philosophy... or perhaps religion. But most "scientists" who have tried to declare that their personal ethical systems were superior have often ended up committing as many atrocities (or more so) than organized religion -- see racial classification schemes and how they claimed to tie into intelligence, or various eugenics projects, for example.

other than stomping out ignorance about how religion actually works.) I'm not saying that religion has superior answers to moral or ethical problems. But science certainly has no greater claim in this area either. Any philosophy -- whether derived from religion or political beliefs or some "gut instinct" about morals -- is going to influence human behavior. And many of the questions raised in ethics are not easily resolved by science.

And yet religion regularly does make claims about things that clearly are falsifiable.

Since this discussion is about the pope, please provide examples of current OFFICIAL Catholic dogma which are "clearly falsifiable" and which you have clear empirical evidence to disprove. (Note that this is a serious philosophical/logical standard I'm asking for here -- you can't extrapolate and say some particular Catholic dogma is "very unlikely" or nonsensical in your worldview or whatever -- you have to ACTUALLY falsify it using clear empirical evidence, obeying strict scientific criteria.)

I'll wait.

(P.S. Said this in another reply, but I'm not a Catholic. I don't have anything invested in this argument; I could care less about Catholic dogma. But I want to see examples of your claims.)

(P.P.S. If you're tempted to go after miracles, as many people might, I'd suggest you read this article about the Catholic Church's official procedure to determine accredited miracles. Basically -- most "miracles" are medical in nature, and they are only approved by the church when scientific authorities conclude that there is no known scientific explanation. You might suggest that these "miracles" are simply errors of statistical analysis in evaluating improbable events, but that's only a guess -- it's not clear falsifiable evidence that the church's interpretation of miracles is incorrect. I personally don't believe in the Catholic Church's interpretative of statistically improbable events as "miracles." You may not personally believe it. But that doesn't mean we have empirical evidence to disprove it.)

of course black children have been studied to death.

including genetic twins raised in different cities.

minnesota twins studies for 20 years since 1959 :
http://www.livescience.com/472... ... proves humans are similar to all other mammals regarding IQ being genetic. 10 billion dollars USA spent on Head Start program also came to same conclusion.

Everyone likes to downvote science and facts on slashdot.

"Science has been seriously undermined by the censorship and alteration of testimony and news releases," said Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. "Science and facts are not a factor in decisions, and ideology dominates."

Guess what you're reading now (assuming you read the first link in the summary)......it's a news release.

You seem awfully fixated on stereotypes which aren't actually important in any meaningful way. History review?

Baby books, new baby announcements and cards, gift lists and newspaper articles from the early 1900s indicate that pink was just as likely to be associated with
boy babies as with girl babies. For example, the June 1918 issue of the Infant's Department, a trade magazine for baby clothes manufacturers, said: "There has been a great diversity of opinion on this subject, but the generally accepted rule is pink for the boy and blue for the girl. The reason is that pink being a more decided and stronger color, is more suitable for the boy; while blue, which is more delicate and dainty is prettier for the girl."

Aaaand, from NPR:

Before Gatsby, a 1918 trade catalog for children's clothing recommended blue for girls. The reasoning at the time was that it's a "much more delicate and dainty tone," Finamore says. Pink was recommended for boys "because it's a stronger and more passionate color, and because it's actually derived from red."

To our 21st century ears, all this men in pink stuff may sound a bit blushy. "It's so deeply entrenched in us and our culture," says Finamore. "We think of pink as such a girlish color, but it's really a post-World War II phenomenon."

Worms are actually complex little beasties. If you cut it in two "behind the clitellum" the head half will regrow a tail, but the tail half dies. If you cut in front of the clitellum both halves die.

Other things too, from thinking about modern birds: can we assume that theropods had a syrinx rather than a larynx? Then they would be able to have very tonally-complex sounds, including vocalizing multiple different frequencies at the same time.

I assume they had a similar lung layout? Birds have a really brilliant respiratory system. The lungs are rigid and more like tubes for the passage of air rather than storing it. On inhalation, half the air goes directly into one air sac and the other straight through the lung into a different air sac; then on exhalation the sacs reverse so that the "used" air goes straight out and the "unused" air goes through the lung on the way out. So they get fresh air moving through their lungs both on inhalation and exhalation, and they never mix fresh air with used air. This means that the oxygen content of air in their lungs is much higher, which means that the oxygen levels in their blood can be much higher. It helps sustain them during high metabolic activity such as flight; I'm sure their giant predatory ancestors made good use of that oxygen as well.

I wonder if their ancestors had a similar sort of relatively inefficient fast-through digestive system, or whether that's an adaptation their descendents have made for flight? It's known for a fact at the very least that some dinosaurs consumed rocks to aid in digestion (gizzard stones) in the same way birds consume grit. Hmm, so theropods would likely have some sort of a crop then? I mean, there is evidence that at least some theropods cared for their young. Picture a bunch of baby velociraptors reaching their heads into a parent's jaw to get a meal!

It takes no imagination to picture correspondence between the legs / feet, bird legs and feet already look positively dinosaurian.

Even the evidence of fossilized prints of rough scaly skin from some tyrranosaurids (in addition to evidence of feathers, and some completely feathered) shouldn't be a real shock because we see that in modern bird species. For example, look at the head of a bald ibis or turkey vulture.

About 3 beers. ;-)

That would literally be quite a stretch. Actually, it's more like 16 oz. or so for a healthy adult. But it's hard to blow things up with a pint of pee.

Counter example: Tycho Brahe

http://www.livescience.com/248...

I was quoting the percentage off the top of my head. The number is actually lower. Here is an article on the CDC study that the numbers come from:

http://www.livescience.com/256...

I've been living with diabetes for over 12 years now. At one point I had lost 110 pounds through diet and exercise. At first my situation improved, but over time it got worse. I now live life as a type 1 diabetic.

You can certainly live better with diabetes through lifestyle changes, I'm not going to argue that. But for most type 2s, treatment will eventually still include medications and even insulin injections.

I'm posting anonymously because I've already moderated this story.

No known New Testament manuscripts are from before approximately 125 AD. The original authors had probably been dead at least 50 years, and the documents had been copied and edited several times before those oldest documents were written. Please try not to insist on perfect duplication and correct translation for documents being written in the midst of devout religious change, the language is quite likely to get revised in translation and transcription.

A Live Science article from January talks about a possible fragment of the Gospel of Mark which dates back to before the year 90 AD which was used in a mummy's funeral mask. As scientists haven't (yet) been given access to this fragment (discovered in 2012), we only have the word of a handful of people.

All languages have strengths and weaknesses. I study the Scriptures in English (King James Version) and Portuguese (Joao Ferreira de Almeida)

Potential DNA and fresh tissue is being found in dinosaur bones. From what we currently know about DNA and tissue, there is no way it should be able to survive millions of years. The simplest answer is that these bones are not millions of years old.

That's a really interesting discovery, and it has led to some work on what we know about how that stuff breaks down, but are you really sure that's the simplest answer? Given what we thought we knew about tissue, that material shouldn't have lasted thousands or even hundreds of years, so there's clearly something we don't understand at all going on. Simply moving the timeline doesn't do much for you--I don't think that soft dinosaur tissue comports with anybody's model of how old those bones are, so a more robust explanation that doesn't rely on our old assumptions about decay is necessary. It turns out that there are ways to preserve tissue for a lot longer than we thought, which is interesting, and that result makes a lot more sense than throwing out geology and radiometric dating.

2. Lucy (often deemed as one of the first missing links found) has recently been shown to possibly have at least one bone from a baboon.

"At least" is doing a lot of heavy lifting. That's one bone out of 89, which still leaves a lot of the skeleton unaccounted for. It's embarrassing for the researchers, but it's still an overall skeleton of something different. If the question is, "If one was a mistake, could everybody have made 88 more mistakes?" Sure, it's theoretically possible, but at some point you're just assuming that anthropologists can't do anything right.

The age of rock layers are generally determined by the fossils found in them, and the age of the fossils are generally determined by the age of the rock layers.

"Generally" is the key word here. It's not as though the whole process is bootstrapped that way. There are a lot of techniques that combine to create that textbook geological column. Index fossils are one piece of it, but there's also the fact that lower layers were laid down before higher layers and the use of radiometric dating to date layers independent of other references. If you can date a layer with an absolute method, you can be relatively certain that the layer below it is older than that absolute date, etc.

It's worth noting that the patterns in the geological column were noticed before the theory of evolution was ever suggested--there's very real stuff going on there that needs to be explained, and evolution over long periods of time explains it quite handily. Nothing else makes a lot of sense. I've heard claims of hydrological sorting and a worldwide flood, but the evidence against that is staggering. It just doesn't hold up.

It's not just one volcano: http://www.livescience.com/46194-volcanoes-melt-antarctic-glaciers.html/

People like you LOVE to point fingers at America as being the main one here causing this.
1) back in 1992 when we found out about this, Europe's yearly total emissions were actually MORE than America's and had been for a LONG TIME. Europe's gas tax is what brought down Europe's emissions, not the poltics.
2) During the time of W, America did NOT cut back, however, for the last 6 years, we have cut back because of 3 reasons:
a) cheap nat gas here, combined with cheap wind. Both of these are much cheaper to do than coal.
b) W delayed regulations on mercury until 2017. Now it is taking effect and many coal plants have shut down, with more to come.
c) O's regulations are taking hold and is preventing future coal plants, as well as some nat gas plants, and leading towards more AE, along with nukes.
3) America's emission are today BELOW 15%, and dropping. China's emission are estimated at around 33% of global emissions, rising, and that is without data from OCO2.
4) OCO2's emissions PROVE that China's emissions are much higher than anybody elses.
5) Not only is China's yearly emissions double of America's, but as of THIS YEAR, their TOTALED emission from 1850, is greater than America's.
6) And in terms of total emission for the last millennium, China's is greaters than Europes, but both are MUCH MUCH greater's than all of the America's COMBINED.

Yet, idiots like you will focus on 1 nation, rather than focusing on the nation that accounts for more than 40% (OCO2's date is going to prove that China has lied about their real emissions), or the fact that Europe's total emissions is much much higher than America.

It's amazing how articles written by the climate change proponents often fail to include important facts like the volcanic activity underneath Antarctica melting the glaciers: http://www.livescience.com/46194-volcanoes-melt-antarctic-glaciers.html/

Why is a solution needed?

Acid Test: Rising CO2 Levels Killing Ocean Life | Conservation Climate

The Last Time Oceans Got This Acidic This Fast, 96% of Marine Life Went Extinct | Motherboard

WHO | 7 million premature deaths annually linked to air pollution

Air pollution costs Europe $1.6tn a year in early deaths and disease, say WHO | Environment | The Guardian

Abrupt Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future - YouTube

Worst Case Climate Change (2008 TED Talk) - YouTube

The Antarctic is setting records for sea ice. See here: http://www.nasa.gov/content/go...
Yes west Antarctic glaciers are melting. Now how can this be happening? IF it were global warming as you all want to shout from the rooftops then sea ice would also be in decline. Instead of spewing the alarmist line why don't you do a little research for yourselves.
http://www.livescience.com/461...
Being skeptical is not required here, simply applying logic to the situation tells you that this is not global warming in action.

http://www.livescience.com/461... OMG global warming!