Slashdot Mirror

As the body count continues to rise, a shaken nation is struggling to cope in the wake of the mass deaths sweeping the world population. With no concrete figures available at this early stage, experts estimate at least 250,000 U.S. citizens have died in the last month alone, with death tolls across the globe reaching into the millions.

The wave of deaths has left a brutal aftermath, rocking survivors with feelings of loss and horror, traumatizing the American cultural landscape to its core and leaving behind emotional devastation some say may take years to heal.

What's worse, experts say, the crisis shows no signs of letting up any time soon.

"Oh, my God," sobbed Edina, MN resident Elizabeth Kendrick, 42, whose father, retired insurance actuary Gilbert Ploman, 68, lost his life last Thursday at Shady Villa Nursing Home. "He was a good man, a kind man who never did anything to deserve this terrible fate. Why did something like this have to happen? Oh, God, why?"

If I may suggest some more modern papers, then I would point to these ...

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006A&A...454..201G

These are Birkeland Currents in space -- where the mainstream says they should not be.

http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1367-2630/9/8/263/njp7_8_263.pdf

The idea that DNA might have electrical roots is nothing new to EU Theory. In fact, it's to be expected within their theory.

http://www.astrobio.net/news/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=2504&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

This is actually a validation of one of Hannes Alfven's predictions, from what I've been told.

http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn12652-milky-way-keeps-a-light-grip-on-speedy-neighbours.html

These galaxies are quite filamentary.

http://chandra.harvard.edu/press/06_releases/press_060106.html

Another filament where we didn't expect it.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v448/n7155/abs/nature06003.html

Once again, a filament. You know, there is more than one way to make a repeating flash of light, as happens for pulsars. Is it a rotating beacon with a bowshock? Or, is it two stars electrically connected? People need to think very carefully about what holds these filaments together. Also, how does the filament remain illuminated for 30,000 continuous light years all at once?

There are multiple explanations for these things that people are not taking into consideration ...

There was a pretty interesting article in New Scientist in June that discussed the potential for "other" forms of life, and considered the environment that commonly proposed life bases would require: http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg19426071.200-life--but-not-as-we-know-it.html (subscription required)

Non-carbon-based life has some pretty difficult-to-overcome hurdles.

First contact with the Vulcans will not be possible.

well let's put it this way, while mining the moon for HE3 will be intractably expensive for decades and possibly a century or more, shooting a couple hundred tons of radioactive waste to a barren lifeless rock or the sun is much more feasible.

I don't know if mining the moon for HE3 would ever be economically feasible or not but I bet travel to the moon will be before the end of the century, unless a catastrophe occurs before then. At first only the rich may go but as with many other things the rich will pave the way for cheaper travel. But again why use nuclear power at all when non or low polluting alternative energy sources along with conservation provide all the energy needed?

so, every 35 years or so we gather the nuclear waste and send it off our planet, there we go no "environmental harm" from nuclear waste.

BS! Where is all the fuel to come from? Mining that's where and mining is very environmentally harmful. That's one area people don't think of when it comes to nuclear power though admittedly coal is dirty, especially Mountain Top removal. And what fuel will be used to send the waste into the sun, or anywhere else off planet? It might actually be more feasible to put nuclear waste in a hole drilled into a subduction zone but as this "New Scientist" article says injecting the waste into the mantle in the ocean or sea may be better. However as I see it there is no need for nuclear power plants what so ever.

challenger's crew capsule survived the catastrophic shock of a point blank detonation of several kilotons of liquid and solid fuel

I don't even want to think of the Challenger. When it launched a group of us students were out on a patio to watch the launch, campus was about 50 miles from the cape and though distant offered a good view of launches. To watch the launch 3 of us decided to be a few minutes late to our physics class. A minute after we saw it go up we knew something was wrong so after another minute we dashed into the student lounge to check the TV and they announced it had exploded. Eventually we made it to class where we announced what happened. The professor basically said so what, we could watch it later on the TV. Since it was a physics class he could have turned the accident into a physics lesson, but instead he showed indifference to the lives lost, saying "So what?". Sorry but it still bugs me.

Kind of reminds me of the Augments from Star Trek. Combine that with the mutation that drops myostatin levels, increases muscle mass and also happens to decrease aggression. Hopefully, you'd have a super strong and fast creature/person with normal aggression.

Call me crazy, but I'm gonna take a wild ass guess that the guys doing this for a living know a little bit more about it than you do.

Paraphrased from http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/ap_060803_exp13_fpmu.html

The space station picks up electrons and ions as it flies through a thin layer of the Earth's atmosphere, said professor Charles Swenson, who had a key role in developing the Floating Potential Measurement Sensor Unit.

"It's similar to picking up a charge and getting extra charge particles on your body," he said. "If you touch a doorknob they jump off your body."

NASA is concerned that charges on the solar panels of the space station will jump to another side of the station or even to an astronaut's suit, Swenson said.

The suit could be damaged, or an astronaut electrocuted, if a charge jumped from the station to the metal rings on a suit.

"They are in a sweaty, wet garment inside the suit, not very conducive to working in a high-voltage environment," Swenson said.

More detail on what happens, and steps NASA takes to mitigate the risk.
http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn9669

A quick Googling unearthed some interesting articles about "super strength" effects in humans:
"Mighty mouse" gene found in humans
Rare condition gives toddler super strength

See this:

3D printer to churn out copies of itself

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7165

Because there were two programs. The international call tapping program at least has historical defense, if not constitutional defense (remember, the person on this end of the line is in the US, unless you can explain how telephones magically teleport people out of the country), but the other program is what this article is referring to: the "dragnet" operation whereby all communications are logged and screened by computer for establishing connections such as whether or not you called the same pizza parlor as a known terrorist. Or that your calling pattern "looks like" a terrorist cell calling pattern, whatever that may be.

Actually, DDT isn't as safe to use indoors as you think. Setting aside conservation of matter,
there was some research awhile back indicating that it does affect humans.

>(2) The majority of Christians do not see a conflict between evolution and the Bible.
You might want to revise that insightful statement. Where did you get those poll results from?

No, I stand by that statement. You can read this article and especially look at this graphic from the article. Out of all 32 countries surveyed the US and Turkey are the ONLY two where acceptance of evolution dips below 50%. And obviously you can drop Turkey being a Muslim country.

Those polls are not restricted to Christians, but in most of those cases it would be *mathematically impossible* for the Christian results to fall below 50% even if you were to assume the non-Christian portion of the population to be 100% pro-evolution.

Not only is Christianity not about majorities, if you look at the Bible, it does contradict evolution.

I am simply going to stick with the statement that a majority of Christians disagree with the view of Christianity you offer, and that they do not see a contradiction in accepting both the Bible and evolution.

As I said, I'm not looking to get into a debate over the theology. I am not going to argue a Sunni-Christian view vs a Shia-Christian view of what the Bible means and why. I am simply going to state what the majority view is, and hope that you will admit that yes that is indeed the majority Christian view even if you happen to disagree with majority Christianity.

Have you considered, that maybe, it's us humans who have made errors in our findings.

Sure. Science welcomes and actively seeks out such errors. What it does not welcome is people who have no education in Relativity and no evidence against Relativity and no understanding of what Relativity actually says, and who go on uniformed rants that Relativity is wrong just because they want it to be wrong. Science does not welcome people who have no interest in understanding. It is entirely reasonable and appropriate to ignore, ridicule, or insult a troll who engages in such behavior and refuses any productive discussion on Relativity. The same goes for Quantum mechanics or any other field of science.

no theory of evolution is set in stone
based on evidence we have here and now.

Yep.
However it is entirely unreasonable to deny the earth going around the sun, or to deny chemistry, or to deny evolution, or to deny relativity, and on and on and on.

It is possible for new knowledge to revise the theory of chemistry, however any replacement would have to be effectively indistinguishable from chemistry in everything that chemistry already successfully covers.
It is possible for new knowledge to revise the theory of evolution, however any replacement would have to be effectively indistinguishable from evolution in everything that chemistry already successfully covers.

If evolution is not the historical process that produced the DNA of all species on earth, whatever process that did generate the DNA of all species on earth has to be functionally indistinguishable from evolution.
If evolution is not the historical process that produced all of the fossils we have found, whatever process that did generate all of the fossils we have found has to be functionally indistinguishable from evolution.

And even if evolution is somehow not historical fact, it does not change the fact that evolution works and and that it has been both mathematically proven and practical-application-proven that evolution can and does create information and structure and complexity.

You should probably revise the There are only two possibilities statement. You're only guessing there wasn't some other event/s that may have caused it, whatever that might be.

Either the Grand Canyon was carved by a multimillion year slow stream of water, or some arbitrarily powerful intelligence has g

>(2) The majority of Christians do not see a conflict between evolution and the Bible.
You might want to revise that insightful statement. Where did you get those poll results from?

No, I stand by that statement. You can read this article and especially look at this graphic from the article. Out of all 32 countries surveyed the US and Turkey are the ONLY two where acceptance of evolution dips below 50%. And obviously you can drop Turkey being a Muslim country.

Those polls are not restricted to Christians, but in most of those cases it would be *mathematically impossible* for the Christian results to fall below 50% even if you were to assume the non-Christian portion of the population to be 100% pro-evolution.

Not only is Christianity not about majorities, if you look at the Bible, it does contradict evolution.

I am simply going to stick with the statement that a majority of Christians disagree with the view of Christianity you offer, and that they do not see a contradiction in accepting both the Bible and evolution.

As I said, I'm not looking to get into a debate over the theology. I am not going to argue a Sunni-Christian view vs a Shia-Christian view of what the Bible means and why. I am simply going to state what the majority view is, and hope that you will admit that yes that is indeed the majority Christian view even if you happen to disagree with majority Christianity.

Have you considered, that maybe, it's us humans who have made errors in our findings.

Sure. Science welcomes and actively seeks out such errors. What it does not welcome is people who have no education in Relativity and no evidence against Relativity and no understanding of what Relativity actually says, and who go on uniformed rants that Relativity is wrong just because they want it to be wrong. Science does not welcome people who have no interest in understanding. It is entirely reasonable and appropriate to ignore, ridicule, or insult a troll who engages in such behavior and refuses any productive discussion on Relativity. The same goes for Quantum mechanics or any other field of science.

no theory of evolution is set in stone
based on evidence we have here and now.

Yep.
However it is entirely unreasonable to deny the earth going around the sun, or to deny chemistry, or to deny evolution, or to deny relativity, and on and on and on.

It is possible for new knowledge to revise the theory of chemistry, however any replacement would have to be effectively indistinguishable from chemistry in everything that chemistry already successfully covers.
It is possible for new knowledge to revise the theory of evolution, however any replacement would have to be effectively indistinguishable from evolution in everything that chemistry already successfully covers.

If evolution is not the historical process that produced the DNA of all species on earth, whatever process that did generate the DNA of all species on earth has to be functionally indistinguishable from evolution.
If evolution is not the historical process that produced all of the fossils we have found, whatever process that did generate all of the fossils we have found has to be functionally indistinguishable from evolution.

And even if evolution is somehow not historical fact, it does not change the fact that evolution works and and that it has been both mathematically proven and practical-application-proven that evolution can and does create information and structure and complexity.

You should probably revise the There are only two possibilities statement. You're only guessing there wasn't some other event/s that may have caused it, whatever that might be.

Either the Grand Canyon was carved by a multimillion year slow stream of water, or some arbitrarily powerful intelligence has g

...a strobelight/flash gun?
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2219.html

I know parent is a joke but of course lots of money has been spent researching how to make such AI programs less annoying.Here's one example and another one. If they take advantage of some of this stuff it could work quite well.

I'm willing to bet that you occasionally shopped at the garden center.

Some but I also saved seeds. Where I live now, in Minnesota which shares a border with Canada, I pretty much have to buy seedlings. Now if I had a greenhouse I could start seeds perhaps a month before the last frost date in the greenhouse then I wouldn't need to buy seedlings. Or I could garden hydroponically all year, there's a hydroponic garden store within a few blocks of me. Fertilizer? I compost everything I can, I even add old food or peels such as from bananas and grind any bones to add. I have 2 cats and the corn based litter I also put in the compost. Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle.

Well, GMO'd work animals would still be beneficial. If you could get the local disease resistance of the zebra with the domestication and utility of a mule - that could be very useful.

In the Andes of South America many people such as Native American Indians use llamas for this, no GMOs needed. They are used much like mules for hauling cargo. Some places in Africa and Southeast Asia use elephants for the same thing. If instead of slaughtering elephants for the ivory more were domesticated they could be used the same way.

imagine wild animals constantly getting into your garden - monkeys and other such things.

At one tyme I used fox urine to control deer where I lived. It was also good for rabbits. Farmers in Africa are catching on to the use of peppers and other natural methods to control pests. Here's a study on the use of Indigenous Technical Knowledge and Use of Forest Plant Products for Sustainable Control of Crop Pests in Ogun State, Nigeria.

If it wasn't for conflicts and politics many would be have enough food without GMOs or chemical inputs.

I strongly disagree. Even the West would have trouble feeding itself without chemical fertilizer - and even that would require giving up most meat and grains. Grain in particular is very dependent on chemical fertilizer. In the West we could survive, though, because we can afford it.

Do you have any evidence? Here's some links, including scientific studies, to support my position: A study, "Comparisons of organic and conventional chemical farming systems" shows that organic farming can be just as productive, if not more so, as conventional western farming. Another shows organics can produce 3 tymes as much as conventional. An article from "New Scientist" is about how "Organic farming could feed the world."

And I must suppress those regions that get optimistic when I submit a New Scientest article (yesterday morning) and expect it to get posted, instead of someone else's submission of the decidedly unnerdishly AP's geekless take on the matter.

The optimist says "the glass is half full". The pessimist says "the glass is half empty". The scientist says there is .314159 litres. The realist says "it's .00237 litres shy of what we need." Klutzo the Clown squirts it in your face.

(link text is a real newspaper article about Klutzo the Clown, former police officer and Christian minister arrested for child porn. I thought you guys might be amused.)

-mcgrew

1. EHT (Extended Heim Theory) allows to easily calculate particle masses using only some physical constants. You can check this Heim Mass Calculator: http://www.daimi.au.dk/~spony/HeimMassFormula/HeimCalculator
2. Succesful prediction of masses of neutrinos.
3. Prediction of Heim-Lorentz force which most likely is being observed in ESA experiments performed by Dr. Martin Tajmar. During these experiments artificial gravity is being created.
   • ESA news about Tajmar experiments http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GSP/SEM0L6OVGJE_0.html and some other news.
   • M.Tajmar recent papper which references EHT (Droscher&Hausner): http://arxiv.org/pdf/0707.3806
   • Theoretical explanation of Tajmar Gravito-Magnetic experiments by Droscher&Hausner: http://www.hpcc-space.de/publications/documents/LauncherSymPaper2007-0-42JHCorrected22April.pdf
     This paper also contains proposal of modified experiment which will allow to verify if EHT is true and also allow to build very effective propulsion engine for spaceships. See this article: http://www.newscientistspace.com/article/mg18925331.200
4. Reasonable explanation why CMB Cold Spot appears to be cold without mumbling about Dark Matter/Dark Energy, thanks to Heim's corrected gravitional law.
5. EHT explains why it appears that there is not enough mass observable in the Universe without using Dark Matter concept.
6. EHT most likely explains weird effects measured during Gravity Probe B experiment, see: http://www.hpcc-space.de/publications/documents/FieldPropulsion.pdf.
   These effects are in agreement with Martin Tajmar findings, see: http://arxiv.org/pdf/0707.3806
7. Droscher&Hausner paper about space propulsion based on Heim theory http://www.hpcc-space.de/publications/documents/aiaa2004-3700-a4.pdf was awarded by AIAA in 2004.

For what it's worth, Alex was named in most other coverage of this story, e.g. on BoingBoing, where there was also a link to an article in New Scientist that also included a little biographical information on him.

Nice one, Alex!

New Scientist has an coverage http://technology.newscientist.com/article/dn12826-simplest-universal-computer-wins-student-25000.html

Can you point to Greenpeace taking any of the communist governments to task for their appalling environmental record?

How about any peep of protest when Saddam Hussein ordered the burning of the Kuwaiti oil fields?

Some couple of years later I met my first privately owned computer: a "pong" game a friend had. Yawn. Yes, Pong was as mindlessly boring in 1978 as it is in 2005.

Not just Americans, but most people across the world don't believe in evolution.

I don't know the figures for asia and africa, but as far as the western world goes you are wrong.

In fact out of 32 western nations only the US and Turkey were below 50% in actively accepting of evolution. I find it quite embarrassing that you have to turn to TURKEY to find a nation failing worse than the US to provide a basic science education to our students. It is astounding that there are so many Americans so ignorant of basic science as to make the absurd assertion that there is no evidence establishing evolution, not to mention the appalling hubris to presume "My teacher never showed us X, I've never seen X, therefore I will positively INSIST that X does not and cannot exist."

Usually I'd spend the next two pages showing that yes X does in fact exist and does in fact prove evolution true, but you didn't actually bother arguing against evolution. You made a simple direct statement about what people believe about evolution, and I demonstrated that statement false. So in the current instance I consider it task completed.

Or are you deluded enough to think that America is *the* religious nation on the planet?

No, you're the with the peculiar notion that evolution=atheism and having difficulty with the fact that the majority of Christians accept evolution and that (at least in the west) the overwhelming majority of those who accept evolution are Christian.

Heck, to a rather good first approximation you could say evolution=Christianity. That is the single overwhelming majority. Atheism and non-evolution-Christianity are mere kooky minority footnotes.

-

We need to combine this new gaming vest with these technologies:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/06/08/electric_shock_game_controller/
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn831-shocking-games.html
So at last the world can finally experience "Domination" (as played by 007 and Maximilian Largo in "Never Say Never Again"): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Never_Say_Never_Again#Domination_within_the_film
(Now we just need some interactive game 3D holography...)

New Scientist spoke to the guy from Jane's who literally wrote the book on land-based air defence - he says the gun involved is categorically not a robot. It was most likely a mechanical failure.

http://technology.newscientist.com/article/dn12800-lightharvesting-nanowire-could-drive-tiny-devices.html

If theory says that black holes beyond 10 solar masses cannot form, how do they explain the conjectured supermassive black holes

Like This.

Or, more pedantically, black holes may never form at all from the point of view of an observer outside the event horizon.

Uh, this looks like the same thing that came out from Spheral Solar Power, that was bought (and later divested) by Automation Tooling Systems:

http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn3380

No one is saying that the world is going to "end"

Really?
http://www.iema.net/news/envnews?aid=4056
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn443.html
And so on . . .

There will never be an end to the number of people who will fight any mention that humans are causing climate change. No one is saying we are the ONLY factor. But we are a big part of it, and we can control our actions, compared to trying to control other natural factors. Shouldn't we do so... just in case?

I always notice that in my local paper, when they publish articles from global warming skeptics... these individuals are often the heads of various organizations and groups, professors, history buffs, basically anything but actual climatologists or environmental scientists. Not always, but often. I find that interesting.

The MAJORITY of climate scientists agree that humans are contributing to warming. I'm going to go with that conclusion because it's better to be safe than sorry, and because I can see the proof with my own eyes.

Climate Myths Examined: http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462

As for Mr. Gore and the IPCC winning the peace prize... good for them. Someone is standing up and shouting about this. Yes, I feel Mr. Gore is a bit of a phony in his personal life, but his message isn't. If I had the choice I would have recognized Canada's Dr. David Suzuki ( http://www.davidsuzuki.org/ ) for his work educating the public about all kinds of environmental issues... and he does so in a more science based rather than hollywood-dazzle kind of way. He recently toured across Canada giving talks and raising awareness in a very locally focused down to earth way and he's been doing this for DECADES. He deserves this prize as much if not more than Gore.

Either way, I'm glad environmental issues get a nod of recognition here.

So, it's a crock because the hurricanes never appeared (thank God) and that's all the proof you need right? And the fact that the North-West passage has opened due to record sea ice melting... well, that doesn't prove anything? *sigh*

Go ahead and latch on to anything you need to. I'll go with the majority opinion of climate scientists. Since I'm not one. Source: http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462

These myths never end! Your claim has been debunked here:
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11642

I really didn't need to know that stuff like this even existed. I swear to the expanding gianormous black hole which our universe is within that I will never open a Troll rated post again. Drat. That would mean I couldn't meta mod. Sigh. Destined to see crap like this.

Bone marrow transplants have already caused some confusion in criminal cases, see e.g. http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg18825234.600-bone-marrow-donors-risk-dna-identity-mixup.html

Thank you, I think I will learn the difference. Maybe you should learn too, so we can put myths to rest?

Animals Exposed THC Will Self-Administer

Why teenagers should steer clear of cannabis

Addiction is addiction. People always split hairs about it, as if one type is not as bad as another so it's okay, but what I see from people is a bunch of baloney about how their drug of choice is not addictive like crack, but it's all they can talk about, and it's all they want to do, and they become crazy drug preachers that cry foul whenever someone mentions a negative about drugs. Like how about research that says that marijuana is actually addictive, or that there's a 41% increased risk of developing psychotic illnesses in people with no history of mental illness.

Oh, but tobacco is SO BAD FOR YOU AND ADDICTIVE. And no one disputes that, but marijuana is totally harmless, and don't you dare say anything about it, because you're part of the vast government conspiracy.

So if drugs can make you so, that, then as far as I'm concerned, they make you addicted and CRAZY.

I think it is this you're having in mind: http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2732

I found a bit more info at http://dir.salon.com/story/tech/feature/2004/08/12/evolvable_hardware/index.html?pn=2 - including some info about antenna design using this technique.

I like how this important scientific information came from a site which is also featuring an article about "hot stinky plant sex" - http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn12739-ancient-plant-has-hot-stinky-sex.html

NewScientist published an article a while back about chimps in the Congo using spears to kill bushbabies. Thrusting the spears into hollow trees and checking the tips for blood.

Pretty interesting stuff.

hell, didnt some tests show that as long as the first and last letter of the word was in the right place, the other letters could be all over the place and not affect readability?

Just to clarify, but the "tests" that so many people like to refer to didn't actually happen in the way that many people think they did. People are referring to a letter that was published in New Scientist making reference to the phenomenon. Some of the claims made in the portion of text that circulated around the Internet are clearly false; see this page for more information (he has some examples of sentences that are "scrambled" according to that rule, but are mostly unreadable).

What I was referring to was something that would be closer to a replicator.

I would be interested in knowing what wavelengths they are using since I am sure anything close to the midwave will be blocked by the car's windows and there won't be much blackbody radiation emitted in the near IR.

A similar product uses 1550nm light. Fiber telecommunications band. Still near IR. I figured it had to be something like that to keep the laser costs down.

http://www.vehicleoccupancy.com/ http://technology.newscientist.com/channel/tech/motoring-tech/dn12384-infrared-vision-promises-more-road-tolls.html

Here's a blurb from back in July.
http://www.newscientist.com/blog/invention/2007/07/betavoltiac-batteries.html

This actually makes sense for their target market:

Males who are old enough to have that much money to spend on todays. Sony is relying on the blue drop-out to compensate for the effects of Viagra.

That is one way to look at it. However, I'd argue there's a lot more than nostalgia at stake here. I'm no linguist, but it seems fairly self-evident (and something that is backed up by linguistics) that different languages give rise to different ways of thinking about things. Certain concepts just don't exist in language X, but do in Y and Z. This can have a profound effect on higher level thinking in the language, as well as providing for curiosities, like that language that only has words for one, two and many.

Also, there's a lot of linguistic and anthropological history at stake. When languages go extinct, you lose a great resource for understanding the evolution of that language, as well as all the others that are related to it.

It's great that they can scan my dna without leaving the scene and all, but wouldn't it be cool if it did it with a modified standard cdrom drive, like this chemical scanner?

The US, however, has a ban on reprocessing because of proliferation concerns.

Not any more. Carter's idiotic presidential order was overturned by the present Bush's presidential order.

Link 1
Link 2

Check out here to cast doubt that even the laws of physics are invariant.

Hmm. C changing kinda sucks when you think about it. What else has changed? Gravity? Mass of an electron? Plancks constant?

Yuck.

Someone needs to link to science site and not a general news site.

OK, but it costs money.