Slashdot Mirror

High-quality science [is] struggling to get out," Francesca Grifo, of the watchdog group Union of Concerned Scientists, told members of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. A UCS survey found that 150 climate scientists personally experienced political interference in the past five years in a total of at least 435 incidents. "Nearly half of all respondents perceived or personally experienced pressure to eliminate the words 'climate change', 'global warming' or other similar terms from a variety of communications," Grifo said.

Source, 2007.

FACTS.

FACTS.

FACTS.

FACTS.

Pro-Nuke news is out there, it's just nobody will report on it, because it won't attract as much viewers/readers.

I agree that were a natural disaster to strike a nuclear plant (you seem to have misspelled this, by the way), there is a possibility of radiation leakage, and possibly even casualties.

However, a coal fire power plant is continuously pumping soot, CO2, and a whole host of other unfriendly substances into the atmosphere. A report from last year estimated that coal power kills roughly 13,000 Americans each year.

So, yes, nuclear power is not perfect, but the perceived risk is far greater than the actual risk. This can be blamed, in part, to the scaremongering of the media, but mostly stems from the the fact that the general public does not understand radiation, so is naturally scared of it.

(Source)

... planetary-scale hazardous installations ...

Are you aware that nuclear power is safer, in terms of death toll and environmental impact, than both fossil fuels and hydroelectric power? Source

Sony is just looking for a way to install a DRM rootkit on your nervous system.

Remember that article from a week ago about being able to turn memories on and off in rats with electrical signals? Now the next time you hear/view copyrighted media you'll immediately forget what you saw if you stop paying subscription fees for those memories.

Whatever happened to just carbon fuel cells?

from 2005: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7891-coalpowered-fuel-cell-aims-for-efficiency.html

and some unknown date: https://www.llnl.gov/str/June01/Cooper.html

1) Go to prison or jail. Not the best care, but beats nothing

No always. Take a look at California's prison healthcare issues. This guy will probably be charged by the state (instead of federal) and the state may even deal with him as a non-violent offender who gets house arrest (and has to pay for his own monitoring). The DA & prosecutor aren't stupid - they'll want to discourage this type of activity.

Hypothetically, what would he have to lose by leaving house arrest (or if he's homeless)? He actually wants to be in jail.

1) Go to prison or jail. Not the best care, but beats nothing

No always. Take a look at California's prison healthcare issues. This guy will probably be charged by the state (instead of federal) and the state may even deal with him as a non-violent offender who gets house arrest (and has to pay for his own monitoring). The DA & prosecutor aren't stupid - they'll want to discourage this type of activity.

You mean, aside from the fact that the last forty or fifty years we were in a grand maximum of solar activity, the highest seen on earth since the very beginning of the Holocene? And that, given the unknowns and the egregious speculation that has occurred in lieu of actual research concerning the feedback, this is a confounding factor that has been more or less completely ignored by the AGW zealots?

Completely ignored? So responses like the three explanations listed here, as well as all of the discussion in the comment section, is "completely ignoring" the issue? Or how about this article, featuring Stanford University "completely ignoring" the impact of solar activity. New Scientist also "completely ignored" solar activity in this article as well.

For something that the "AGW zealots" have "completely ignored", Google seems to find a hell of a lot of sources discussing how solar activity has some effect on global warming, but is not the primary cause.

As my AI prof often said, "AI is whatever we haven't taught a computer to do yet."

Actually it worked in the submission (I saw it after I'd submitted an unintentional dupe.) From memory it was Cosmos.

My own links were via NewScientist: This story.
A story about the discovery of radiation eating bacteria by the same team.
And a long article from '96 about what this all means for the search for life on (or in) Mars.

Actually it worked in the submission (I saw it after I'd submitted an unintentional dupe.) From memory it was Cosmos.

My own links were via NewScientist: This story.
A story about the discovery of radiation eating bacteria by the same team.
And a long article from '96 about what this all means for the search for life on (or in) Mars.

Actually it worked in the submission (I saw it after I'd submitted an unintentional dupe.) From memory it was Cosmos.

My own links were via NewScientist: This story.
A story about the discovery of radiation eating bacteria by the same team.
And a long article from '96 about what this all means for the search for life on (or in) Mars.

Sea level rise wiping out coastal cities, droughts, flooding due to excessive rainfall, to name the most important problems with warmer temperatures.

I would *love* to see you live on only or mostly GM foods for a year or so.
Then, if you're still alive, you can come back and tell your story.
Good

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/jf200456j This article debunks your article.
From the linked article

Other animals than mice have been exposed to RAI from transgenic peas. Rats, pigs, and chickens were fed raw, transgenic peas at around 30% or more of their diet in short feeding trials. The only effects on their health could be attributed to dose- dependent reductions of the digestion of starch due to amylase inhibition rather than immunological effects, diarrhea in the case of pigs, and a reduction of weight gain in the case of chickens.2022
We found no evidence for increased immunogenicity of the transgenic RAI, and we note that immunogenicity is not sufficient for allergenicity.

Conclusion some people are allergic to peanuts. This shows no concerns over GMO crops.

Luck.

Lets see an advertisement for lecture of a guy that doesn't perform any current research anymore.

Oh, and when you've got time for it, go see a movie called "The World According To Monsanto".

When you start posting articles from scientific peer review journals I might start to take you seriously.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MImg&_imagekey=B6T6P-4C004D3-3-C&_cdi=5036&_user=409620&_pii=S0278691504000444&_origin=&_coverDate=07%2F31%2F2004&_sk=999579992&view=c&wchp=dGLbVzW-zSkzS&_valck=1&md5=ef423dc2441395950524ecce3b73afcc&ie=/sdarticle.pdf

This is real science.

Traditional plant sources of food with a long history of use have not been evaluated for safety in a systematic way. Typically, it was by trial and error where the plant was incorporated into the diet, often after some form of processing, e.g. cooking, to make it acceptable from both a taste and safety point of view. Traditional vari- eties of food crops are known to contain both beneficial components (nutrients and other compounds), as well as compounds with a toxic potential (natural plant tox- ins, allergens, and anti-nutritional factors, which reduce the availability of nutrients). However, the toxic poten- tial (hazard) will only be expressed (as risk) if the person consuming the foodstuff is exposed to amounts that are sufficient to cause toxic effects.
An additional consideration is the balancing of risk of possible harm against the known nutritional benefits of consuming the plant food (as part of a balanced and diversified diet). Such balancing for traditional foods has taken place over the years in a subliminal way (again by trial and error) and is more recently becoming enshrined in nutritional and dietary guide- lines. Therefore, with the introduction of a novel or modified plant into the food supply, it is essential to view its safety in the context of what is already safely used in food.
As explained in previous chapters, crop breeding by both conventional means and by genetic modification has theoretically the potential to modify the plant com- position beyond that particular trait that was intended, thus resulting in ‘unintended effects’. To analytically determine all possibilities of unintended effects is a huge undertaking with many technical challenges. A further challenge is to determine the real significance of any unintended effect on consumer health. Unintended effects do not automatically imply a health hazard. Hazards may be considered if the nutritional profile of the plant has been altered, if proteins have been altered in such a way so as to affect their allergenic potential, or if new or increased levels of potentially toxic secondary metabolites are produced. However, unintended effects may have absolutely no impact on health, or may even be beneficial by reducing potentially toxic substances.

I would *love* to see you live on only or mostly GM foods for a year or so.
Then, if you're still alive, you can come back and tell your story.
Good Luck.

Oh, and when you've got time for it, go see a movie called "The World According To Monsanto".

I would say that insisting that global warming can't be caused by CO2 is hubris.

Interesting. Stating that our current state of knowledge is insufficient to definitively assert that CO2 is the primary driver of climate changes is prideful? Or perhaps I wasn't clear -> I'm not insisting that global warming absolutely cannot be caused by changes in CO2 levels, I'm expressing doubt that the proposition is true. I could be convinced, if every change in CO2 levels, both contemporary and historical, preceded a similar change in temperature. As far as the data shows at this point, this burden of proof has not been met, so I express what I would consider well founded skepticism.

Do you really think the more than 95% of climate scientists [uic.edu] who accept the consensus of CO2 causing global warming would risk that?

Yes. I think that that promise of funding and financial security is a corrupting influence on results. I believe that prima facie evidence for this can be easily found in the Climategate emails, which showed a cabal of climate scientists defending their turf not with data or argument, but with politics and editorial influence.

Furthermore, I would look closer at that 95% assertion:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/25/where-consensus-fails/

March 2000 to February 2010 is 10 years of data.

My apologies, misread that - still, my point holds, as you note: "He also said they need more data for longer periods to improve the conclusions."

The transfer of heat between the surface of the ocean and the depths isn't very fast.

True, which makes for variability based on a situation based 1600 years ago rather than variability based on the past 150 years. Now, you might make the case that there is heat we've pumped out for the past 150 years that is now entering the ocean system, and in 1600 years from now it'll come home to roost, but it sounds like you've got a significant time buffer there.

Perhaps you're also trying to make the case that besides being a slow transfer, it is also an insignificant transfer? That is to say, are you asserting that not only does it take 1600 years for currents to well up and affect the surface, but that the effect after 1600 years is negligible?

I'd point out again the gulf stream warming England, and ask the question if we should believe that it is england's warm atmosphere that causes the water to be warm, rather than the other way around.

there is no evidence of enough undersea volcanic activity to make a difference.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/19/undersea-volcanic-eruption-in-tonga/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/25/surprise-explosive-volcanic-eruption-under-the-arctic-ice-found/

"A major part of Earth’s volcanism happens at the so-called mid-ocean ridges and, therefore, completely undetected on the seafloor. There, the continental plates drift apart; liquid magma intrudes into the gap and constantly forms new seafloor through countless volcanic eruptions. Accompanied by smaller earthquakes, which go unregistered on land, lava flows onto the seafloor. These unspectacular eruptions usually last for only a few days or weeks."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12218

"The true extent to which the ocean bed is dotted with volcanoes has been revealed by researchers who have counted 201,055 underwater cones. This is over 10 times more than have been found before.

The team estimates that in total there could be about 3 million submarine volcanoes

It's this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjMVsTFVX10

I don't think we can slashdot youtube :).

Anyway, I find if I shift some attention to the dots while looking at the centre dot, even though the whole thing rotates I can still notice that the dots are changing colour.

It is normally more important for the brain to notice that the "whole thing is rotating together" than the dots changing colour. The big picture is more important.

That said, I'm not so sure about how the "loch ness aftereffect " one works (3rd place): http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/nstv/2011/05/best-illusions-turning-wheel-seems-to-jump-backwards.html

I don't have flash player 9 so I'm linking to the one that works for me :).

Maybe the sudden change that is untrackable causes the brain to guess that the rotation is the other way.

I find this illusion interesting (not a winner for this year): http://www.psy.ritsumei.ac.jp/~akitaoka/illnews7e.html

Because some older people can't see the illusory motion effect!

Not exactly....

Orgasms touch the reward center of the brain, releasing strong amounts of dopamine. Dopamine is essential for living what is essentially a "happy" and "normal" life, positively affecting social behavior, cognitive function, etc

Perhaps here: http://www.newscientist.com/special/best-new-illusions-2011

When was ball lightning explained?

Wiki's summary states: "the true nature of ball lightning is still unknown".

There was an article going around about a year ago theorizing that some ball lightning may be "magnetically induced hallucinations".

Doesn't seems very explained to me. Am I missing something?

" It FLEW. It didn't crawl or roll."

Hot air balloons fly too "using no fuel" and I'm sure they could be propelled forward using solar too.

Flight distance from Switzerland to Belgium is only 320 miles (487 km). That's only 26 mph (40 kph). A solar powered car is over twice as fast.

At an average speed of 26 mph this isn't an airplane, it's a glider, as you can see from this extremely slow speed take-off

The $94 million wasted on this would have been better spent on improving solar powered cars rather than a 26mph glider.

I was about to submit this from New Scientist:

If this newly discovered messaging method is a surprise to western intelligence, however, it means they may not have been monitoring the recipients of his USB-facilitated missives - possibly because Al-Qaida is thought to be using short-lived email addresses after an earlier trick of theirs was rumbled.

That trick? Before 9/11 some of the attackers evaded email surveillance by not sending email. Instead they used webmail services but saved messages as drafts - and then shared their logins with their co-conspirators.

Mow they just store it on their private facebook profiles.

I was about to submit this from New Scientist:

If this newly discovered messaging method is a surprise to western intelligence, however, it means they may not have been monitoring the recipients of his USB-facilitated missives - possibly because Al-Qaida is thought to be using short-lived email addresses after an earlier trick of theirs was rumbled.

That trick? Before 9/11 some of the attackers evaded email surveillance by not sending email. Instead they used webmail services but saved messages as drafts - and then shared their logins with their co-conspirators.

BTW, wasn't Britain supposed to get drier winters with no snow because of 'global warming', not wetter ones? When did that change?

citation needed

> The fact is, unless you're within 6 or so blocks(not counting the ocean) of the Fukushima plant, there is no dangerous level

readings taken by the Japanese government shows that is plainly not true (which is why the evacuation zone is in place):

"An analysis of MEXT's data by New Scientist shows just how elevated the levels are. After the 1986 Chernobyl accident, the most highly contaminated areas were defined as those with over 1490 kilobecquerels (kBq) of caesium per square metre. Produce from soil with 550 kBq/m2 was destroyed.

People living within 30 kilometres of the plant have evacuated or been advised to stay indoors. Since 18 March, MEXT has repeatedly found caesium levels above 550 kBq/m2 in an area some 45 kilometres wide lying 30 to 50 kilometres north-west of the plant. The highest was 6400 kBq/m2, about 35 kilometres away, while caesium reached 1816 kBq/m2 in Nihonmatsu City and 1752 kBq/m2 in the town of Kawamata, where iodine-131 levels of up to 12,560 kBq/m2 have also been measured. "Some of the numbers are really high," says Gerhard Proehl, head of assessment and management of environmental releases of radiation at the International Atomic Energy Agency."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20305-caesium-fallout-from-fukushima-rivals-chernobyl.html

In reality, Japanese officials already have caused a few 10'000 cancer deaths beyond what was unavoidable. The increased allowable dosage for Children (who are hugely vulnerable to radiation) is just the last batch of randomized death sentences they are implementing.

Lets start here, because this is the biggest flaw in your post. There are several websites where you can view the actual radiation reported in various areas. Except within a few kilometers of Fukushima Daiichi, the radiation levels fall to biologically insignificant levels.

At this point, the nature of the disaster is that it is hugely expensive, is leaking radioactive, hard-to-clean-up water, and is rather difficult to bring to a "probably wont catch fire or explode anymore" state. But there are no deadly radioactive clouds floating around, there is no substantial increase in the radiation in milk in the US, there is no plutonium floating around in the atmosphere, and as of now the most severely irradiated individuals (some of the workers) have received a dose that is roughly equivalent to what they would normally receive in a year, anyways-- of concern, but unlikely to cause them to keel over and die.

Further, just because we have an actual, real, substantial crisis on our hands, doesnt mean we need to lose all perspective and start comparing it to Chernobyl or (heaven forbid) Hiroshima. Its a problem, yes, and there is a lot of blame to apportion; but losing our heads and falling for all the hyperbole running around is unlikely to make matters any better.

Im not entirely sure what the dosage received by those in the immediate vicinity of the plants was; but as the area of "concern" around the plants was evacuated pretty rapidly (within about 36 hours), I have trouble believing such emphatic statements as "Japanese officials have already caused a few 10,000 cancer deaths beyond what was avoidable"; especially when the MIT Nuclear Science blog seems to indicate that in total, if you were at the plants perimeter, you basically recieved 2-3 whole body CT scans-- this less than 3km away from the plant, when the evacuation zone is 30km. That blog seems to be one of the BEST sources of information, as it plainly presents the facts without any breathless panic or fearmongering; they state that there is some danger, where it comes from, how to protect yourself, and how to get more information-- but it doesnt state "Tens of thousands of you are likely to die of cancer" or "beware floating radioactive clouds".

This is precisely why this information IS harmful, and if it shouldnt be censored because of the tyrannical tendencies of anyone given such a power, that does not mean that anyone should go spreading FUD and misinformation about a crisis while people are trying to deal with it.

There are hundreds of fossils of extinct primates, including dozens (or more) of hominans, that is humans and our extinct relatives. Take a look at the Smithsonian's page, The Institute of Human Origins, archaeologyinfo.com, The New Scientist, or good old talk.origins for some examples. Also humans and chimpanzees split off from each other about 6 million years ago, and the apes (or superfamily hominoidea which includes humans, chimps, orangutans, gorillas, and gibbons) split off from old-world monkeys about 25 million years ago. The split between old- and new-world monkeys occurred about 35 million years ago. We didn't evolve from monkeys any more than monkeys evolved from us. We share a common ancestor, just like on a much smaller scale my cousin and I share a common ancestor.

Coal particulates in exhaust from coal-fired power plants kills 13,200 people in the US alone every single year. That's a more useful statistic than simply mining, which as has been pointed out affects both coal and uranium.

Scientific output normally refers to cited papers (even though it could be seen wider).

http://www.scimagojr.com/countryrank.php?area=0&category=0&region=all&year=2009&order=it&min=0&min_type=it

Narrow down to the last year. Also interestingly Iran has the highest growth rate in all countries (11 times he average of the World) and Asia is the future scientific growth region.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18546-iran-showing-fastest-scientific-growth-of-any-country.html

I thought that was a really good question so I researched it a bit. I would have speculated that it could have been pure chance. For both L and R to exist the processes that created the more advanced molecules would have had to have been duplicated for both sets. In a way it almost makes sense that one simply randomly won out.

Here's an article that goes into some more detail but is an equally sound hypothesis, IMHO: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7895-space-radiation-may-select-amino-acids-for-life.html

Thanks, Xacid! Your comment and the article you linked give me some food for thought.

I accept your first hypothesis, and in the absence of any evidence, it makes sense.

However, if I'm correct (any organic chemists want to chime in here?) and there are no structural or functional differences other than "handedness" between left and right handed organic molecules, it seems (at least to me) more logical that life on Earth would have incorporated both types, either within all organisms, or within two types of organisms -- one with left handed and one with right handed molecules.

That is, it seems more logical unless I'm missing something important or my assumptions are incorrect.

The hypothesis proposed by the French team (in the linked article) actually has some experimental evidence to support it.

As such, If additional evidence that circularly polarized light of left or right handedness preferentially destroys amino acids of the opposite handedness is collected, it could explain things quite neatly.

I do have to say that I still find the idea of evil, goatee-wearing, right-handed molecules from an alternate universe rather appealing. :)

I thought that was a really good question so I researched it a bit. I would have speculated that it could have been pure chance. For both L and R to exist the processes that created the more advanced molecules would have had to have been duplicated for both sets. In a way it almost makes sense that one simply randomly won out.

Here's an article that goes into some more detail but is an equally sound hypothesis, IMHO: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7895-space-radiation-may-select-amino-acids-for-life.html

1. The Today in Science listing of birth and death dates of scientists, and notable events. (For example, today is the anniversary of the publication of Einstein's paper on General Relativity, Die Grundlagen der allgemeinen Relativitästheorie.

2. Interactive science simulations from the University of Colorado, Boulder.

3. Science news articles at PhysOrg.com, New Scientist, and Technology Review.

Except that GPS is used for a bunch of other things, one of the biggies being time synchronisation - it's a cheap easy way to know the time. The basically same story from yesterday linked to http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20202-gps-chaos-how-a-30-box-can-jam-your-life.html?page=1 which has this gem:

In 2010, he conducted an experiment in the North Sea, aboard the THV Galatea, a 500-tonne ship. The Galatea is the pride of its fleet, with all the latest navigation equipment. Last wanted to find out how it would cope without GPS. So he used a simple jamming device that overwhelmed the GPS signal by broadcasting noise on the same frequency as the satellites.

When Last activated the jammer, the ship went haywire. According to the electronic display on the ship's bridge, the Galatea was suddenly flying at Mach speeds over northern Europe and Ireland. Then alarms sounded. The ship's navigation backup – its gyrocompass – crashed, because it uses GPS to provide corrections. The radar did the same. Even the ship's satellite communications failed, because GPS points the antenna in the right direction.

So the backups failed, because they relied on GPS in ways nobody had bothered to think about.

Nope, that's a common climate myth.

The fail is that a scientist went out and said he is "100% sure life exists on this planet".

Really? Who said the scientists said that?

You should stop reading news from that outlet immediately, because it's bullshit that makes the Weekly World News headlines like "Space Whelk Poised to Consume Earth" and "Woman's Varicose Veins used as Treasure Map" seem like responsible journalism.

Though none of these sources are really heavily scientific, they don't dumb "planet found with Earth-like dimensions that's probably in a temperate zone between the freezing and boiling point of water" to "scientist claims 100% knowledge that life exists on a specific exoplanet". You might want to consider them as at least superior news sources to whatever you are currently using.

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2011/02/practical-and-religious-implic.html

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/02/19/6087627-planet-probe-spots-hot-prospects

There's plenty of data out there for anyone who's interested. I suggest you start with an article that explains the basics of AGW.

This was not an accusation. This was not public. This was a private conversation between friends outside of school. The teacher had to force a student to log on to his facebook to even see them.

It was most definitely not a private conversation. 15 Kids involved and the average facebook user has 130 friends. A quick calculation shows this conversation was potentially in front of almost 2000 people not to mention the default Facebook settings leave profiles public.

+1 Right on the Money

I commented upthread, so my marvelous modpoints go unused here. Alas.

If you want to talk about fracturing teh intarwebs, these scenarios, and this incident, and this routing-based DDOS, are the ones to discuss. Not multiple DNS roots.

Cue James Bond Theme:

Do you expect me to talk? No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to die! Besides, there is nothing you could possibly tell me that I don’t already know.

Look at us, here's the stuff we're letting you see so you wonder about the stuff You Can't See

Then there's (FTFA) that flying insect robot from the 70s and I just saw on /. and a lot of other sites this hummingbird that I wouldn't mind playing with myself. (Coming out this year before the holidays from Wowee ?)

Dichloroacetate (DCA) is a cheap, un-patentable, drug (essentially 1vinegar molecule+2chlorine atoms) currently used to treat a rare enzyme disorder in children, but researchers have found it useful in allowing cancer cells to learn how to kill themselves with reasonably acceptable temporary side effects. See "DCA and How It Works" below.

There is almost no funding for this drug study due to it being un-patentable despite quite encouraging results, and reasonably acceptable and reversible side-effects.

Recent human trial reported here:
http://www.medindia.net/news/Dichloroacetate-Effective-Against-Aggressive-Brain-Cancer-68867-1.htm

Initial news from a couple of years ago...

http://www.dca.med.ualberta.ca/Home/index.cfm
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health/mg19325874.700-cheap-safe-drug-kills-most-cancers.html?DCMP=ILC-Top5&nsref=mg19325874.700

Here's an excerpt...
"DCA and How It Works
Dichloroacetic acid versus Sodium Dichloroacetate

Dichloroacetic acid is a small molecule, basically acetic acid with 2 chlorines. The molecular formula is Cl2CHCOOH.

Dichloroacetate is the sodium salt of dichloroacetic acid. Replace a hydrogen with sodium and you get Cl2CHCOONa

If you view the video from CTV you will see a jar of dichloroacetic acid prominently displayed. http://www.depmed.ualberta.ca/dca/vid1.htm is well worth watching. But they used a “cheap ...powder”. Dichloroacetic acid only comes in liquid. The powder is the sodium salt of dichloroacetic acid. It is sodium dichloroacetate. The researchers did not use the acid.

For those of you searching for DCA, do not buy the acid. I posted info on the FAQ about it. The acid is not the same thing as the acetate. The acid is dangerously corrosive.

How does DCA work, briefly?

The Michelakis team reports that DCA turns on the mitochondria of cancer cells, allowing them to commit cellular suicide, or apoptosis.

Cancer cells shut down the mitochondria, which is the part of the cell that is involved in metabolism and, incidentally, initiates the cell suicide.

A non-cancerous cell will initiate apoptosis when it detects damage within itself that it cannot repair. But a cancer cell resists the suicide process. That is why chemotherapy and radiation treatments do not work very well and actually result in terrible side effects the healthy cells actually die much easier.

Michelakis and his team discovered that they could re-activate the mitochondria of cancer cells. Not only that, the DCA is very effective in doing it: To quote from the Michelakis paper: “The decrease in [Ca2+]i occurs within 5 min and is sustained after 48 hr of DCA exposure.” The mitochondria are so sensitive to DCA that just 5 minutes of exposure reactivates them for 48 hours.

The metabolic approach to cancer is supported by other research. Inhibition of Glycolysis in Cancer Cells: A Novel Strategy to Overcome Drug Resistance Associated with Mitochondrial Respiratory Defect and Hypoxia is a paper by a John Hopkins research team supporting this approach.

http://www.thedcasite.com/dcaforum/DCForumID1/79.html is a post on our chat room by Willis. giving a prediction as to which cancers DCA might not control, and it is being supported by the reports we are receiving."

More on the left side of this web page:
http://www.thedcasite.com/dca_how_it_works.html

= 9J =

Where to start? I'll start with your "alternative options." A person teaching something like a flat earth or a moon made of cheese is something that would indeed be absurd. Why? Because it has definitively been disproven. We have knowledge that directly contradicts those theories so much so that they could in no way be correct. Why is everyone now acting as though creationism or intelligent design has been disproven? Can you point to something in those theories that is directly at odds with something that is fact? No. And just on a side note, intelligent design uses evolution as the way the world was created. How is that at odds with anything you are saying other than it says God led the way for it to happen?

Considering that neither creationism nor ID are scientific theories, there's nothing to disprove as far as science is concerned. You can't disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster either, but that doesn't mean we should start teaching the truth of Pastafarianism in school.

Now let me get back to evolution. I will leave aside the problem of how the first living thing came into being.

As well you should, since that is not within the domain of the theory of evolution, but you knew that, right?

One of the problems I have with the evolutionary theory has to do with the energy required for new aspects of a species to come about through evolution. Let's start with the first cells. They likely had nothing for locomotion right? How were flagella developed in evolution? A cell with a flagellum moves by flapping the flagellum. How does it do so? It does so through the use of a small motor in its cell membrane. How did the cell get everything needed at the same time? Evolution would require the cell develop the flagellum in stages. Until every piece of the flagellum was present, it simply was using extra energy with zero benefit. Because of this, the cells with primitive flagella would have been at an evolutionary disadvantage than those without. So, how did something so simple as a flagellum evolve? Was it by pure and utter chance that all the parts evolved in the same generation? So, no, evolution has a lot of problems with it.

I encourage you to look into the problems with these theories. They are very enlightening.

So here we have your run-of-the-mill argument from ignorance and/or incredulity. You don't understand how it happened, therefore evolution has gaping holes and is wrong. Of course if you bothered to do even the most basic bit of research, you'd see that this subject has been covered all over the place, ad nauseum. Then you could at least frame your argument as a scientific rebuttal to those explanations. Since you haven't gotten past the hand-waving point, I don't think you're serious about finding answers, because you don't want a real answer. You want your beliefs to be validated. Sorry, but that's not what science is for.

I would recommend doing a basic google search before proposing that evolution's predictions are untestable or unverifiable.

For anyone interested in experimental evolution, one of my favorite long-term and currently running experiments is the E. coli long-term evolution experiment. For more than 20 years the team has been taking regular snapshots (frozen samples) of twelve diverging populations from the same original E. coli culture.

The event that brought this experiment fame was that in 2008, one of the populations evolved the ability to utilize an energy source that is not available to E. coli. The ability to metabolize citrate is used to define species divisions in bacteria, so in effect, members of this population diverged into another species while being watched closely by the researchers.

Quicklaunch doesn't get nearly enough attention.

The heavy, durable stuff should be shot out of a gas cannon and only the squishy humans should ride the rockets.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17931-blasted-into-space-from-a-giant-air-gun.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IXYsDdPvbo

It seems very unlikely that there's anything like a genetic "predisposition" to religion.

It seems very unlikely that there's anything like a genetic "predisposition" to religion.

You might want to read this article.

The team gave questionnaires to 169 pairs of identical twins - 100% genetically identical - and 104 pairs of fraternal twins - 50% genetically identical - born in Minnesota.

The twins, all male and in their early 30s, were asked how often they currently went to religious services, prayed, and discussed religious teachings. This was compared with when they were growing up and living with their families. Then, each participant answered the same questions regarding their mother, father, and their twin.

The twins believed that when they were younger, all of their family members - including themselves - shared similar religious behaviour. But in adulthood, however, only the identical twins reported maintaining that similarity. In contrast, fraternal twins were about a third less similar than they were as children.

"That would suggest genetic factors are becoming more important and growing up together less important," says team member Matt McGue, a psychologist at the University of Minnesota.

Do you have any reputable citations showing professional climatologists engaging in groupthink or responding badly to reasoned criticism? I ask because, once again, your description of the climatology community sounds like a description of a cult... [Dumb Scientist]

You mean like how they circled the wagons around Phil Jones, even when actual bad behavior on his part was discovered? For example: [ShakaUVM]

“This has some similarity to the CRU email theft, where precious little was discovered from among thousands of emails, but a few sentences were plucked out of context, deliberately misinterpreted (like “hide the decline”) and then hyped into “Climategate”.” [RealClimate]

Presumably you meant to say that scientists in general are circling wagons and responding badly to reasoned criticism.

Or you can just read the editor’s comments left in the response sections of RC.org. Just skimming through that above article, here’s an interplay between Pielke and Stefan. [ShakaUVM]

Coincidentally, Pielke Jr. had similar things to say about that interplay. That's the interplay where he asked a bunch of 'questions' like "Was it appropriate for the IPCC to make stuff up about my views?". Then Stefan replied:

Clearly there are different views on this, which is why we called this graph "debatable". But let's keep things in perspective: we're discussing Supplementary Material and a response to one of those 90,000 review comments now, not even the report itself. You've been working hard to scandalize your personal quibbles with IPCC here - how consistent is this with your self-proclaimed role as "honest broker"? Stefan

That link leads to an in-depth comment, and neither seem to constitute "responding badly to reasoned criticism." In fact, it's not clear that Pielke's rant counts as "reasoned criticism" in the first place. As far as I can tell, he's got

Check it out on page 5 of the New Scientist link. Apparently, they think 8 is an odd number, and 9 and 11 are not. So much for the "new math."

QFT

Geomagic squares go 3D

In this square, the target is a 3 × 3 × 3 cube. Note that the polyomino size forms the consecutive series of odd numbers "1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 13, 15, 17" while their shapes are derived from a formula for creating magic squares devised by the 19th-century French mathematician Édouard Lucas.

Check it out on page 5 of the New Scientist link. Apparently, they think 8 is an odd number, and 9 and 11 are not. So much for the "new math."

Maybe that's next after Stuxnet. Program target IP, launch, fire, forget.

You are more likely to die as a result of a gun if you carry one yourself. I can't find the study, but you are also more likely to end up being shot by your own gun than you are to ever shoot a bad guy with it (which makes sense - we hear of accidental self shootings all the time and most people who own a gun never actually use it in self defence).

If those statistics even roughly translated to IP address seeking missiles then we are going to have a problem.

BTW, I think there is a problem with my server. Can you please do a portscan for me? My IP address is 127.0.0.1

Points to things been too good?
The Unabomber manifesto, the use of certain people and devices can point back to/expose groups eg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gladio_in_Italy
The early use of a 'new' plastic explosive, a DNA sequence http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2265-anthrax-attack-bug-identical-to-army-strain.html can all be tested. Could the code in a more perfect, more pure, quality form (as found in the wild) ever really point back to teaching methods or something geographical?
If its still highly effective on some levels, its fine, anything better could the residue of a state actor start to glow?