Slashdot Mirror

Here's the National Academies link.

Simply put:

the sea surface temperature in the mid-atlantic is now 1 deg F higher on average than it has ever been since we started measuring it.

Topical Storms derive their energy from the surface waters.

This means that more energy is now available to the storms and any given storm is likely to be larger. Just like a fire, more fuel doesn't always mean a bigger burn, but it lifts a limiting factor.

Now even if you take the number of tropical disturbances in any given year to be constant over time, both the frequency and intensity of hurricanes will increase given higher SST. The frequency increases because what we call a hurricane (64kt sustained) is an arbitrary threshold and if each tropical storm is say 5% more intense, then for any given year more tropical storms will graduate into the "hurricane" class.

This increase in sea surface temperature combined with the fact that sea level on the US east coast has been rising by one foot per century since the end of the last glaciation, due to tectonic tilting of the continental plate, in themselves mean that we are much more vulnerable to catastrophic storm surge events. They don't just have to happen at high-tide anymore, +/-2 hrs from high-tide might do the same damage, and smaller storms (say cat-3) might do the same damage as a historical major storm (say cat-5).

That is already extant hard data, as is the worldwide retreat of land based glaciers and ice caps. (Kilimanjaro's snow cap will be gone for the first time in 11,000 years. The Larsen-B ice shelf which is just as old is now gone too..) This has already happened. Can't argue with that. Less surface ice means a change in the Earth's albedo and further warming at high latitudes. Hard to argue with that one to.

Now if you buy the greenhouse gas / climate change scenario that the vast majority of climatologists are so worried about* (or if you are not so self-delusional to at least consider the precautionary principal) you might want to add future sea level rise into that equation. The models say that in the next 100 years the sea level rise due to the melted ice-water and thermal expansion of a warmer ocean will be between 0.1 and 0.9 meters. So say 1/2 a meter or 1.5 foot on top on the historic rise. Also consider that the gradient on the east coast is about 1 in 30, so a 2.5' rise means the sea now goes 75 foot further inland. Also consider that about 50% of Florida is something like less than 15 feet above sea level and that hurricane storm surges are often on the order of 14 feet above SL.

+_____________

This is something to be worried about.

[*] http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf
http://www4.nationalacademies.org/onpi/webextra.ns f/web/climate
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/570 2/1686

I won't even mention western boundary currents affecting the sea level or the methyl hydrate doomsday scenario (if the deep ocean gets up to 4deg C, an exothermic reaction will take place and we're all fuct)

Simply put:

the sea surface temperature in the mid-atlantic is now 1 deg F higher on average than it has ever been since we started measuring it.

Topical Storms derive their energy from the surface waters.

This means that more energy is now available to the storms and any given storm is likely to be larger. Just like a fire, more fuel doesn't always mean a bigger burn, but it lifts a limiting factor.

Now even if you take the number of tropical disturbances in any given year to be constant over time, both the frequency and intensity of hurricanes will increase given higher SST. The frequency increases because what we call a hurricane (64kt sustained) is an arbitrary threshold and if each tropical storm is say 5% more intense, then for any given year more tropical storms will graduate into the "hurricane" class.

This increase in sea surface temperature combined with the fact that sea level on the US east coast has been rising by one foot per century since the end of the last glaciation, due to tectonic tilting of the continental plate, in themselves mean that we are much more vulnerable to catastrophic storm surge events. They don't just have to happen at high-tide anymore, +/-2 hrs from high-tide might do the same damage, and smaller storms (say cat-3) might do the same damage as a historical major storm (say cat-5).

That is already extant hard data, as is the worldwide retreat of land based glaciers and ice caps. (Kilimanjaro's snow cap will be gone for the first time in 11,000 years. The Larsen-B ice shelf which is just as old is now gone too..) This has already happened. Can't argue with that. Less surface ice means a change in the Earth's albedo and further warming at high latitudes. Hard to argue with that one to.

Now if you buy the greenhouse gas / climate change scenario that the vast majority of climatologists are so worried about* (or if you are not so self-delusional to at least consider the precautionary principal) you might want to add future sea level rise into that equation. The models say that in the next 100 years the sea level rise due to the melted ice-water and thermal expansion of a warmer ocean will be between 0.1 and 0.9 meters. So say 1/2 a meter or 1.5 foot on top on the historic rise. Also consider that the gradient on the east coast is about 1 in 30, so a 2.5' rise means the sea now goes 75 foot further inland. Also consider that about 50% of Florida is something like less than 15 feet above sea level and that hurricane storm surges are often on the order of 14 feet above SL.

+_____________

This is something to be worried about.

[*] http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf
http://www4.nationalacademies.org/onpi/webextra.ns f/web/climate
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/570 2/1686

I won't even mention western boundary currents affecting the sea level or the methyl hydrate doomsday scenario (if the deep ocean gets up to 4deg C, an exothermic reaction will take place and we're all fuct)

So a joint statment by 11 national academies of science (including the U.S.), or the IPCC doesn't represent a consensus? It's not just a matter of counting abstracts. Keep in mind you can never get every self-proclaimed scientist to agree on everything - so there will always be a few contrarian voices that you can dig up (with enough money), but the overwhelming majority of climate scientists hold the view that human greenhouse gas emissions are causing climate change.

Actually, no. You are wrong. On several accounts. Probably not on the US-USSR things however.

anyways:
Perhaps there would have not been a second bombing if they had surrendered. But I'm convinced that, with a certain amount of diplomacy, this surely would have happened. In any case: these were Japanese, not Americans, there is lots of honor involved. I know, its difficult, but it is a different culture. There was lots of talking needed. They did not refuse to surrender, but I guess Truman did not want to wait. Or perhaps, as other claim, wanted to give Fat man a try.

Then the part were you are wrong, or you know something I do not know: there was no letter with the Hiroshima bomb.There was, however, a letter attached to some measuring machines dropped in the vicinity of Nagasaki by a second bomber, two minutes before the bomb. It was writted by Luis Alvarez, Philip Morrison and Bob Serber, and addressed to Prof. Ryukochi Sagane who studied with them in California.

AFAIK the letter was received at the Japanese high command but I think it is unknown if it played a role in the surrender.

The third bomb was not on its way to the pacific. I think Gen. Groves ordered it to stay in the US.

Then we could talk at length about whether or not the bomb was necessary, but others here have done that extensively so I will not go into that. For me, I think it was a war, the winner writes history and determines what was good or bad. I just hope it never happens again.

Please try to get your facts correct next time and provide some links (or at least specifics for googling).

A copy of the letter can be found at the end of this document:

http://www7.nationalacademies.org/cisac/Panofsky_T rinity.pdf

If we do nothing and the environmentalists turn out to be right, we're screwed.

Robert Park and the American Physical Society have long been foes of both the Shuttle and the ISS.

First off, the American Physical Society has no stance for or against the Shuttle and the ISS. They are a professional society for physicists. They occasionally perform studies or issue statements based on areas of their expertise. The only statement about the ISS that I am aware is Statement 91.2 and was released in 1991. Basically it said that the APS feels there is no current credible scientific justification for the proposed ISS and that the scientific value of the ISS has been greatly overstated and can be done better and cheaper on Earth and/or in the shuttle. I think 14 years later it is hard to argue that statement has not proven accurate.

Bob Park writes a weekly one-page commentary work What's News pertaining to physics and general science folly. He is rather opinionated on many subjects and is not shy to state them (it is, after all, an opinion column). He does not speak for the APS any more than a political commentator speaks for any newspaper on the Sunday editorial page. Park's disclaimer at the bottom (at the time the link in question was posted) was:

THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY and THE UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND
Opinions are the author's and are not necessarily shared by the American Physical Society or the University, but they should be.

The "unique result" statement you criticize is taken from a report by the National Research Council (at NASA's request), which basically states (and Park reiterates) that nothing on protein crystal research has been done that has not been done on Earth. In fact, the exact statement taken from the Executive Summary is:

The task group heard a great deal about experiments to date in NASA 's macromolecular crystallography program. The results so far are inconclusive, and the impact of microgravity crystallization on structural biology as a whole has been extremely limited. At this time, one cannot point to a single case where a space-based crystallization effort was the crucial step in achieving a landmark scientific result. In many of the cases that have so far been listed as successful, the improvements obtained have been incremental rather than fundamental. In addition, the difficulty of mounting simultaneous efforts to produce the best possible crystals both on the ground and in space has limited the ability of researchers to make the comparisons between microgravity and Earth crystals that would be necessary to demonstrate that the microgravity environment can produce superior crystals.

Finding: The results from the collection of experiments performed on microgravity's effect on protein crystal growth are inconclusive. The improvements in crystal quality that have been observed are often only incremental, and the difficulty of producing the appropriate controls limits investigators ' ability to definitively assess if improvements can be reliably credited to the microgravity environment. To date, the impact of microgravity crystallization on structural biology as a whole has been extremely limited.

A more descriptive statement Park made was in a link in the link. They aren't comments to be taken with salt but rather a listing of damning facts regarding selling the ISS for growing protein crystals. There isn't any way to put a good spin on that.

That NRC report statement about protein crystals can be made for just about most of the research attempted on the ISS. You can argue all you want about the political and/or societial reasons for having or not having the ISS, but you cannot just

According to the National Academies press release announcing the report, they won't be making it available on the Web. Printed copies will be available for sale for $40. So not only will it be out of date at the time it is released, it will also be inaccessible to most of the peopele who might be interested!

Guys,

They say a little science will draw a man away from God and a lot of science will bring him back. Just as unstudied scientists may not know the teachings of the Accadamy of Science very well, unstudied christians may not know the teachings God very well. The solution is obvious, study more.

There are many great minds teaching in the Acadamy of Science and many great minds teaching in churches across the world. Indeed I would expect you'll find many more beliving scientists than either of you would expect. You'll probably even find some teach at both the Academy of Science and in the churches across the world.

Seeking the truth should be a practice of every intelegent person on the planet. Believing in God will only come when He calls you (study this scientifically and academically in scripture and you'll find this to be true both ways).

Evolution is a very misrepresented word. It's akin to saying a bird flies through the air and rocks fly through the air too. A rock falls through the air, but because when it's thrown it falls like a flying bird it's refered to in a similar manner. And all the evidence to prove a bird flies doesn't support the idea that a rock flies. It's also like seeing beaver tracks on both sides of a river and saying the beavers can fly. And if beavers were all dead, how could you prove it wasn't true?

Micro evolution is observable. All the other forms of evolution are unsupported theories. Many seeking to earn a name for themselves or promote their beliefs have fabricated lies to support evolution. The same is true in christian circles teaching things like the OT is irrelevent since Christ came and died for our sin. This in does discredit some of the honest teachers in both circles, since they trust these sources until they learn the truth.

I have not met a person yet who belives the entire theroy of evolution as expressed by Darwin (or any other form of it since). They speak in terms of maybe and could have been when they get to parts they don't agree with. I myself was an avid evolutionist and taught others about how the theory works. I find myself in crowds explaining how evolution is not as stupid as many christians say it is (giving explainations to explain those statements) and not as smart as many non-christians say it is (also with evidence to explain those statements).

I have met people who belive every word of the bible is true, even though they don't understand how it can be. Indeed I am one of these people. I know there is an explaination, even if I don't know what the explaination is. Never be afraid to confess you don't know.

The overwhelming evidence to support things that are in scripture leads to the obvious conclusion that if it's right about all those things it must also be right about the other things I don't understand. And so begins the search for an explaination. Yes Jesus walked on water, Yes God parted the Red Sea for the nation of Israel to pass through. We've found the walls of Jerico fallen straight down. The flood happened, many many cultures have veriations of the story including Noah and his boat full of animals (Native Americans, Chinese...)

Do you see how neither science nor religion are belief w/o evidence, but rather, belief based on the trustworthiness of the source.

For more information on evidence and theories check these sites:
http://www.nationalacademies.org/
http://www.answersingenesis.org/


William at phodex.dot.us

Furthermore, as the National Academy of Sciences panel, and other panels before it, have said, the difference in safety (or chance of disaster, which ever way you want to look at it) of a single shuttle mission to Hubble is essentially the same as that of a single mission to the space station. The astronauts, when asked, all were in favor of going to fix Hubble. And they're much more likely to get the job done than the robotic mission, which is rather unlikely to work (read the NAS press release)

Of course, the plan is for 25-30 missions to the ISS, so the chances of horrendous disaster doing that is far higher cumulatively.

Strange, what comes to mind for me is the tens of millions of uninsured people in the US who have NO health coverage, many of whom die because of it.

Hourly volume is different from AADT (Average Annual Daily Traffic). AADT is the average, over a whole year, of traffic passing a certain point for the whole day, and this figure counts both directions of travel. So I would believe that an 8-lane freeway (4 per direction) could very well have an AADT of 200,000.

I got lots more interesting links where those came from.

"(1) COMMENCEMENT.--Not later than January 1, 2005, the Secretary shall commence offering for sale crude helium from helium reserves owned by the United States in such amounts as would be necessary to dispose of all such helium reserves in excess of 600,000,000 cubic feet on a straight-line basis between such date and January 1, 2015.

As for the details, the most important reform is a change in the incentive structure. It seems like it's easier to get a patent than a municipal parking permit, because the office subsists on application fees. If there were a reapplication fee for every rejected application, the office would change overnight from a Walmart greeter to a Viper Club bouncer.

James Gleick's "Patently Absurd" is a decent post-one-click overview of the topic.

Looking at the track record of private industry (ie: 40 million americans who do not have health insurance, of which 18,000 a year die), as far as I'm concerned the government should get more involved.

There is a list of members elected to the NAE this year.
Scroll halfway down and you would see Bjarne Stoustrup's name and invention of c++ to his credit. neat aint it?

Btw there are 8 indians on the list too. *start the flames*

The result? There were many goals described, some of which may now be in peril as a result of Bush's backhanded hit on science within NASA. Putting a man on the moon or on Mars is not on the list, however. You can read the brief summary here. The entire text of the report is availbale here. Although the entire text is well over 200 pages, there is a lot of material in it that sets it apart from most beauracratic reports, including some 40+ pages of a layman's discussion of the science driving the requests.

Bob

Even more interesting, to me, is that when the National Research Council, at the request of president Bush, included major global warming skeptics on the council, upon reviewing the body of evidence, they changed their minds about it (see the last two paragraphs of the link).

These are the top guys in their fields, and they make good statements based on real evidence, as opposed to the average /. posting :-)

Even more interesting, to me, is that when the National Research Council, at the request of president Bush, included major global warming skeptics on the council, upon reviewing the body of evidence, they changed their minds about it (see the last two paragraphs of the link).

These are the top guys in their fields, and they make good statements based on real evidence, as opposed to the average /. posting :-)

Well, considering that Europa is continuously exposed to intense radiation from Jupiter's radiation belts and from the Sun (no atmosphere to speak of), I doubt a few puny kilograms of Uranium would make any difference. Here's a reference that states the radiation exposure on the surface of Europa as 6,000 rad/hour! If that's right, then it's at least 6000 rem/hour, probably worse. Lethal dose for humans is a couple hundred rem.

There are a lot of temperature graphs that show increases in the last 100 years. There is also a nice graph showing an increase in CO2 levels from coal and oil burning. That's not just a coincidence, given that the physics behind the temperature increase is pretty straightforward (greenhouse effect). in fact, in order for surface tempertures not to rise with increasing CO2 levels requires some rather fancy footwork; you have to invoke the existence of various negatiuve feedback cycles, like increased cloudiness (which may actually have a net warming effect after all) etc. The radiative-tranfer physics behind the greenhouse effect is a lot more solid than our understanding of cloud formation.

To state that the increase in CO2 is undeniably causing the increase in temperature is just bad science.

In science nothing is "undeniable". However, some things are more or less plausible, likely, belivable etc. A good scientist working on something realitively new will always hedge. But sooner or later the evidence starts to build up to the point where only cranks deny it. Hence most scientists think e.g. evolution is pretty solid. The same goes for general relativity, QED, etc. Climate change due to increased CO2 levels is getting to be such a strong theory (or so says the NAS here and here, and the IPCC).

There's no evidence to back it up.

That is simply hogwash. There is a lot of evidence for a coupling between CO2 and temperature rise. It may be challenging to directly link CO2 to this particular ice shelf, but I ask you this: if global and regional temperatures are rising due to increasing CO2 levels, are you surprised that we are seeing more ice melt?

We need experiments and more data before any sound scientific conclusion like that can be made.

We always need more data (I'm a scientist after all), but we have the basis to act now, and the longer we wait the harder the problem will be.

In my list I mentioned at least four very plausible reasons for global temperature rise that do not depend on an increase in CO2.

I'm going to hope it is the "alien death ray", personally. Seriously, though, greenhouse gases are about the only plausible ones in your list. The Earths core is pretty stable in it's heat output, not to mention that it's about a factor of 100 lower than the heat input from the Sun. To raise temperatures by the observed amount you'd have to increase the core heat output by a factor of about 4. Not likely.

Is the Sun putting out more energy on some long period that we don't yet know about?

First of all, there is not a lot of evidence for such a change (we can measure the solar constant afetr all). Second, you'd then have to explain how the increasing CO2 wasn't causing a rise, while at the same time the Sun caused a rise that coincides very nicely with the CO2 increase.

The rest of the list is just silly.

While Ben Stein's inflammatory screed gets lots of attention, one is better served reading what the National Academies have to say about this. Also enlightening is the 2002 IEEE Employment Survey, with enlightening facts such as: About one-third (36%) would recommend engineering to their son or daughter; 35% are not sure; and 30% would not recommend it at all.

To add to your excellent link, may I also add a link to a recent study published by the national academies of sciences in the US that indicates nearly 18,000 people die in the USA every year becuase they lack adequate medical insurance. Canada may have some problems with its socialized medical system, but it is nowhere near as bad as the US system.

At the National Science Resources Center's Web site, you can find a variety of hands-on science curriculum materials. The center is operated by the National Academies and Smithsonian Institution to improve science teaching U.S. schools. Teaching units include topics such as measuring time, plant growth and development, food chemistry, electric circuits, and microworlds.

On Thursday, the National Academy of Sciences is convening a two-day conference in Washington titled, "The Role of Scientific and Technical Data and Information in the Public Domain." The link provided is here.

It's more important than a $1M donation because both the Congressional and Executive branches really listen to what the NAS has to say on any given matter. It's also nice to note that the speakers at the conference include Bruce Perens.

On Thursday, the National Academy of Sciences is convening a two-day conference in Washington titled, "The Role of Scientific and Technical Data and Information in the Public Domain." The link provided is here.

It's more important than a $1M donation because both the Congressional and Executive branches really listen to what the NAS has to say on any given matter. It's also nice to note that the speakers at the conference include Bruce Perens.

From their site:" Meanwhile, the impact of the U.S. patent system on innovation is being studied by the National Academy of Science. The academy is expected to issue a report shortly."

Additionally from the National Academy" The question arises whether in some respects the extension of IPRs has proceeded too far. "

Guess I won't patent my perpetual motion device today.

Accidents. Derigibles were phased out because they were a bitch to land. You need mooring facilities, hangars big enough to hold them so moored craft can withstand a storm, and big crews to secure them. Several of the Navy's lighter-than-air fleet had accidents, mostly on landing (one was lost in a storm I think), and the Hindenburg didn't do much for the popularity of civilian derigibles.

The really funny thing is that the United States still manages a strategic Helium reserve! Yes, just as with oil, Helium is hoarded for possible military usage, even though we don't have a military derigible fleet anymore!

They're trying to sell copy. I'm not going to fault pop-sci publications for trying to do that. But from a *PRACTICAL* point of view we understand gravity at large distance scales. Just like we understand mechanics at large distance scales.

Ok, but they got their list from Connecting Quarks with the Cosmos, a report of the National Research Council. Which admittedly didn't use the wording "What is gravity?", but the point is the same.

Besides, I'm not talking about a *PRACTICAL* understanding of gravity. If you want to completely rule out claims like Podkletnov's and label them a scam, you need more than a practical understanding. You need a thorough theoretical understanding,
and we don't have that.

They're trying to sell copy. I'm not going to fault pop-sci publications for trying to do that. But from a *PRACTICAL* point of view we understand gravity at large distance scales. Just like we understand mechanics at large distance scales.

Ok, but they got their list from Connecting Quarks with the Cosmos, a report of the National Research Council. Which admittedly didn't use the wording "What is gravity?", but the point is the same.

Besides, I'm not talking about a *PRACTICAL* understanding of gravity. If you want to completely rule out claims like Podkletnov's and label them a scam, you need more than a practical understanding. You need a thorough theoretical understanding,
and we don't have that.

• This is a sea that hasn't been exposed to anything above the ice for a looong time. We have no idea what effects this could cause....

As a signatory to the Outer Space Treaty, the United States is obliged to ". . . pursue studies of outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies . . . so as to avoid their harmful contamination. . . ". Non-contamination of Europa is already being dealt with

But without some evidence, your post is looking like a rant. Oh, and
http://www.climatehotmap.org/
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/home. html The last decade of the 20th Century was the warmest in the entire global instrumental temperature record
http://www4.nationalacademies.org/onpi/webextra.ns f/web/climate?OpenDocument

Since we don't have any idea how complex the simplest self-replicating molecule is, speculating on the odds of its forming is a bit pointless, don't you think?

However, if we're talking about something that actively seeks out food to convert to more of itself, either a larger ``it'' or more ``its,'' the smallest known (Mycoplasma genitalium) consists of 470 genes (another poster placed this at 400) with a 580,000 base-pair genome, of which about 300 are absolutely essential. Informed speculation has gone as low as 100 genes (which would imply around 130,000 base-pairs), going beyond this requires a hive- or colony-like structure and some means of collating enough genes to start a new group collective organism.

By contrast, each of your cells harbours DNA to the tune of around 3 billion bases. If a strand of this DNA were unwound, it would be several meters long. If your proteins also uncurled you'd look like the dust puppy from UserFriendy. At the other end of the scale, one of the smallest known (parasitic) organisms is the Q-beta virus, at 3 genes totalling about 4500 base-pairs. This is a long, long way from standalone.

This brings to mind the Tierra program (sorry, couldn't find a good link). It was a system that simulated evolution in a simple way.

Until I get real scientists displaying real data everything is just scare tactics of the invironmental publicity Corperations (earth first, and the other scare for profit groups) to get more money.

The nanobacteria subject is fascinating but it's another example of a story that is sometimes associated with extra-terrestrial life - probably to gain publicity.

Hmmmm... interesting take, but I don't follow the logic. Robert Folk ruined his reputation with the original "nannobacteria" proposals, and has only recently been supported somewhat by McKay et al. with the "martian fossils", Kajander and his collegues with nanobacteria as a cause for kidney stones, Miller-Hjelle and her collegues with nanobacteria as a cause for polycystic kidney disease, Uwi ns and her findings on nanobes growing on Triassic and Jurassic sandstones collected from petroleum exploration boreholes offshore Western Australia. The American Society for Microbiology has paid serious attention to the controversy, as might be expected. All in all, it's only been recently that "nanobacteria" findings have provided any good publicity at all; mostly, it's been the ruin of the discoverer (in fact, Folk has been described as "coming out of the closet" with his first papers, some 20 years ago -- strong prejudice exists!).

But now things are changing: there are more findings, and more support for the concept. This might even be a scientific paradigm change... and this was my earlier point, that "common sense" arguments are inherently flawed, because the universe is stranger than we imagine.

When was the tectonic plate theory accepted? They must have been interesting times. Certainly my father thinks it's a lot of nonsense...

Alfre d Wegener proposed the theory in 1912, but it didn't receive much support (in the U.S., at least) until post-WWII. My college geology text has a chapter written in '65, which concludes "Although the subject is now a respectable one in scientific circles of the Northern Hemisphere, the question is still far from settled." (Physical Geology, Leet and Judson, 3rd Edition; Prentice-Hall, NJ, 1965)

Wilson, a Canadian geologist, brought everything together around '65 with his model of seafloor spreading, which happened to explain the Pacific seafloor magnetic anomalies found in '61 by Raff and Mason (these are reversed-magnetic-polarity stripes, which are embedded in the newly-created seafloor by the Earth's magnetic field, which periodically reverses -- creating alternating stripes which aren't explainable except by tectonic plate theory). This all but cinched it, but it took years for general acceptance to happen -- in '67, my geology prof wasn't yet convinced, and spent a lecture period arguing against it (the students, OTOH, tended to see the light right away, based on the evidence presented). In '68, Pinchon worked out the plate positions, and by the mid-70's, plate tectonic theory was accepted as correct by all but a few lingering die-hards. (It's interesting that similar remnant-field reversals have been discovered on Mars, isn't it?)

Yes, they were interesting times. Overthrow of "established scientific fact" is always interesting, yet it happens often... that's how science progresses, after all. Only some of the time do the revolutionaries get burned at the stake; the rest of the time, they are merely ridiculed in print and reviled in person.

I guess it is the weakest point. When weighing up evidence like this I guess we rely on our own experiences and yours are different from mine. Having worked in string theory related stuff for a few years I know what it is like to have a sceptical audience. But I generally tend to make guarded statements like "Assuming string theory is a good model then...". I would never make a statement like the following from the NASA press release:

METEORITE YIELDS EVIDENCE OF PRIMITIVE LIFE ON EARLY MARS
A NASA research team of scientists at the Johnson Space Center and at Stanford University has found evidence that strongly suggests primitive life may have existed on Mars more than 3.6 billion years ago. (My italics)

I guess that's the difference between your opinion and theirs: they figured they had good evidence, and you figure they don't. Dave McKay (of NASA) still sticks pretty much by the findings, and Kathie Thomas-Keprta (Lockheed Martin) very strongly supports them; time will tell who is right. My point is that science never advances without people going out on a limb with their conviction that a new interpretation is correct, rather than the conventional wisdom. This is not the equivalent of perpetrating a hoax! -- even if they are subsequently proven wrong.

Given the doubt over the interpretation of 'nanobacteria' fossils it seems to me that the most reasonable interpretation of part of this 'evidence' is that it is a demonstration that such 'fossils' can be produced by inorganic processes in a sterile environment but of course you don't get big bucks for a finding like this.

On the contrary: some people are getting funding to disprove the "martian fossil" findings. The ASM link quotes some of them. With any discovery, confirmation or refutation of the findings is critical to its acceptance, and the controversy is the process through which the findings on all sides are integrated by the scientific community; Mari on Anderson's lecture is a good summary of this particular controversy, and concludes (correctly, in my opinion) "The main drawback to this story is the media focus on such sensational news. Media hype may increase public awareness of science, but the problem is that the complexities get lost in the glare of the spotlights." Her last couple of sections are well worth reading.

I think the jury's still out, and I think you're prematurely making up your mind. But, hey, it's your mind -- do with it what you will.

---

NASA has done loads of studies on radiation and astronauts.
There's a really good write-up of it here.

The copyright war, which is still but neonatal, is one aspect of that problem. The National Research Council recently studied copyright and came up with no good solution for the problems Katz mentioned. They did conclude their report with an intriguing thought: perhaps we should rethink the notion of basing our intellectual property tradition on something like "copying" (as in "copyright") since information technologies completely change what copying is. (Click here for their press release.)

Copyright is just one part of something bigger; trademarks and patents, also ways of protecting intellectual property, are drastically changing too.

As far as patents go, consider the efforts of Amazon to patent its one-click shopping process (as has been amply discussed here on /.) and the efforts of companies like Celera, Incyte, HGS and Athersys to obtain thousands of patents on the human genome. (Click here for more on that problem, which is only partly related to information technology.) As someone appropriately said, were Columbus around today, he would try to patent America.

I know less about trademarks, but I understand there are parallel problems in that arena.

The solution doesn't seem to me to be corporation-bashing. (Indeed, having worked in the lobbying department of The McGraw-Hill Companies, I got to see how earnestly corporations care about keeping information accessible while still turning a profit.) Instead, we should do some real hard thinking about how intellectual property can survive in the Information Age -- and we should keep fighting against ridiculous cases, like the DeCSS case, brought on by people who just don't realize what a period of tremendous change this is.

A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society