Slashdot Mirror

Correction. The study included 381 non-diabetic participants (healthy people). [http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/artificial-sweeteners-linked-to-obesity-epidemic-scientists-say-1.2769196] In that study "Artificial sweetener consumers showed "markers" for diabetes, such as raised blood sugar levels and glucose intolerance." AFTER THAT, seven of those who did NOT consume the Artificial sweeteners "...blood glucose levels rose and the makeup of their gut bacteria changed in half of the participants, just as in the mice experiment." That happened in 4 days... just 4. Artificial sweetener producers have deep hands in government policy. So the hordes of mice that contracted cancer throughout their organs were easily dismissed as coincidental lung infection: http://www.newscientist.com/ar... Then this news came along: http://www.newscientist.com/ar... But this news is troublesome to the profits of Artificial Sweetener producers. A followup article is needed: http://www.newscientist.com/ar...

Correction. The study included 381 non-diabetic participants (healthy people). [http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/artificial-sweeteners-linked-to-obesity-epidemic-scientists-say-1.2769196] In that study "Artificial sweetener consumers showed "markers" for diabetes, such as raised blood sugar levels and glucose intolerance." AFTER THAT, seven of those who did NOT consume the Artificial sweeteners "...blood glucose levels rose and the makeup of their gut bacteria changed in half of the participants, just as in the mice experiment." That happened in 4 days... just 4. Artificial sweetener producers have deep hands in government policy. So the hordes of mice that contracted cancer throughout their organs were easily dismissed as coincidental lung infection: http://www.newscientist.com/ar... Then this news came along: http://www.newscientist.com/ar... But this news is troublesome to the profits of Artificial Sweetener producers. A followup article is needed: http://www.newscientist.com/ar...

Correction. The study included 381 non-diabetic participants (healthy people). [http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/artificial-sweeteners-linked-to-obesity-epidemic-scientists-say-1.2769196] In that study "Artificial sweetener consumers showed "markers" for diabetes, such as raised blood sugar levels and glucose intolerance." AFTER THAT, seven of those who did NOT consume the Artificial sweeteners "...blood glucose levels rose and the makeup of their gut bacteria changed in half of the participants, just as in the mice experiment." That happened in 4 days... just 4. Artificial sweetener producers have deep hands in government policy. So the hordes of mice that contracted cancer throughout their organs were easily dismissed as coincidental lung infection: http://www.newscientist.com/ar... Then this news came along: http://www.newscientist.com/ar... But this news is troublesome to the profits of Artificial Sweetener producers. A followup article is needed: http://www.newscientist.com/ar...

If artificial sweeteners are actually giving some people diabetes by disrupting their sugar absorption, then that is indirectly leading to their weight gain through the problems caused by diabetes or at least a diabetes-like state in their blood stream. It doesn't mean that the artificial sweetener itself is directly causing the weight gain.

Disappointed this submission didn't link to the article in New Scientist which does a better job explaining the paper.

This kind of thing gives access to much more fossil carbon than is considered in most carbon inventories because there is no need for the process to produce energy from the fossil carbon. It can just be an energy transfer from renewable energy that won't run out, to buried carbon that that is too low quality to be a fuel on its own. If we consider using renewably generated hydrogen to mobilize the remaining carbon in spent source rock, there is more than enough carbon to make the earth's surface uninhabitable for mammals nearly everywhere. http://www.newscientist.com/bl...

That's incorrect. Rational philosophies and even evolution provide non-theistic justifications for altruism.

It in fact looks now that altruism is a survival trait that is hard wired in the human brain through natural selection.

http://www.newscientist.com/ar...

So many damn kids these days use the idiotic phrase "Oh, I don't read" whenever I try to recommend a good book.

They may just be trying to avoid an annoying bore.

Are we really living in the age of too much information, or do all generations feel like this?

Good question. It seems like human nature to feel as though what's happening now is unique. But there has been a measurable shift: in 2011, Americans took in five times as much information every day as they did in 1986. During our leisure time alone, we now process on average 100,000 words each day.

http://www.newscientist.com/ar...

Spoiler, they have, and the results are... less than fully informative.

From a purely genetic basis, whereas identical twins have a 95-100% similarity on these things, you might expect a 50% similarity from fraternal twins in a purely genetic environment. Instead, it comes out to 70%, which suggests other factors playing an important role. However, because these are non-isolated from environmental factors(i.e. raised by the same parents), we can't use it to precisely tamp down the amount of a role genetics plays.

Maybe a bigger sample size would help, but conclusions are limited, other than genetics plays some role which we already knew.

Let's drop RoundUp from the discussion entirely and "shift the goalposts" back to where I started - the self-perpetuating nature of GMO. This still unfortunately revolves around Monsanto with a second reference in wikipedia that also notes this case:

In May 2013, glyphosate-resistant wheat (a GMO) that was not yet approved for release was discovered in a farm in Oregon, growing as a weed or "volunteer plant". The wheat was developed by Monsanto, and was a strain that was field-tested from 1998 to 2005 and was in the regulatory approval process before Monsanto withdrew it based on concern that importers would avoid the crop. The last field test in Oregon occurred in 2001. As of May 2013 there was no information as to how the wheat got there or whether it had entered the food supply; volunteer wheat from a former test field two miles away was tested and it was not found to be glyphosate-resistant. Monsanto faced penalties up to $1 million if violations of the Plant Protection Act would be found. The discovery threatened US wheat exports which totaled $8.1 billion in 2012; the US is the world's largest wheat exporter.[208][209] New Scientist reported that the variety of wheat was rarely imported into Europe and doubted that the discovery of the wheat would affect Europe, but more likely destined for Asia. According to Monsanto it destroyed all the material it held after completing trials in 2004 and it was "mystified" by its appearance.

That was just what I could find with a few minutes of searching. I'm sure you're perfectly capable of researching the rest yourself now that it has been shown to have been a problem at least twice.

But if you're looking for someone to subsidize basic research with little or no investment return potential, don't look to a competitive company to do it...

...or to Bell Labs. It's a common misconception that Bell Labs existed for nothing more than the pursuit of knowledge, but nothing in Bell Labs was meant for mental masturbation, or "little or no investment return potential." Discoveries were made as a consequence of trying to solve technological problems, but they weren't just standing around "doing science" for its own sake.

CMB was discovered while looking for noise sources in microwave communications. Transistors weren't patented because the lawyers thought it wasn't new. (Arguably a huge mistake.) UNIX made money by being used internally, and was marketed within a few years, both directly through AT&T as System V, as well as licensed to third parties. Every famous accomplishment was the direct result of looking for technologies to either add new commercial offerings, improve existing offerings, or reduce operating costs.

If you're looking for research for its own sake with little or no direct goals for commercialization, you'll only find it at a very small subset of colleges, universities, and government/NGO enterprises like CERN. Even then, it often becomes necessary to license inventions to stay afloat.

This is why I would like to see researchers in the Fukushima hot zone look for (and/or introduce) bioconcentrators for the specific elements that came from the meltdowns. And guess which highly-popular-in-Japan plant is a candidate? http://www.newscientist.com/ar...

The NSA/Pentagon/CIA always wants all sorts of bullshit scifi Star Trek shit.
Doesn't necessarily mean it's feasible.

It's easy to squander Other People's Money.

Take a good look at the photo that accompanies the linked article:

http://www.newscientist.com/da...

There's clearly no support for the hands. The thumbs of the worker modeling the exoskeleton are clearly visible above the presumably heavy metal object that's actually being lifted by a a crane-like contraption that loops over his shoulders. The worker is only using his hands to stabilize the object.

Power suit this isn't. So no Ironman here yet.

You think anyone who does not conform to your morale standard is "sick" and needs help? You're arrogant, egocentric and intrinsically extremely manipulative.

He is either well informed or (more likely) simply able to point out the obvious in a world where most don't dare. It is proven beyond doubt that brain tumours can cause paedophilia. That article is a summary of one well known and notorious case, but note that he checked himself into the hospital just one day before he was going to prison. The chances are great that there are more people like him rotting inside the prison system.

Given that the sex drive is an inherently biological thing that evolution has given tremendous influence over people's behaviour, the fact that a malfunctioning sex drive might have a biological root cause should not surprise anyone. And yes, it's absolutely a malfunction and obviously so - the purpose of sex is to reproduce and create offspring that survive to adulthood. The chances of having a child that grows up to be a strong adult by having sex with another child is massively reduced or close to zero, so from an evolutionary perspective it makes little sense.

You condescendingly show "sympathy", but you have absolutely no respect. You say child molesters suffer from a mental illness? Strange, isn't what some people are saying about gays?

Yes, some people do say that, and for all we know they might be right. Homosexuality is another biological dead end that doesn't lead to offspring. However this kind of deviation from the sexual norm is something most enlightened societies have got over because it doesn't harm anyone. OK, those people will not have kids. So be it. They aren't hurting anyone so it's unreasonable and unjustified to cause them problems.

Child abuse is a more complicated area. People tend to think of the "we know it when we see it" type cases, you know, 40 year old men trying to have sex with 8 year olds. Unfortunately the laws are badly written enough that all kinds of other basically harmless behaviour gets tangled up with it. For example, I know for a fact that the NCMEC database contains cartoons. Having a racy cartoon in your Gmail account is now enough to get busted by the police. Other cases of idiocy around these laws include the UK where the legal age of consent is 16 but the age to be considered not child porn is 18, meaning two people can legally have sex but can go to jail if they take a photo of themselves doing it. Cases where two teenagers have a relationship and the older one ends up being busted for child abuse have been reported in the USA. The harm in these cases is hard to see but it all gets dumped into the same bucket, legally.

actually the problem is not unique
sunday post
express

one of the problems is that in the UK at least the construction of wind farms had not been matched by the construction of either a distribution network or some method to store overcapacity. At the same time producers of renewable electricity are paid on the basis of how much energy they produce rather than how much they actually deliver or is used, so in many cases there's no real incentive to build sensibly. Hence there are millions of pounds spent on electricity that's never going to be used or never gets onto the national grid.This runs from the large scale providers through to residential wind and solar power.

We looked at installing solar panels and the installation we were quoted for wasn't based around supplying us with electricity it was geared to extracting the maximum out of the subsidy that is lumped onto consumers bills. Since we weren't one of the 3% of UK households that had a meter suitable for measuring power fed back into the grid the money that we would earn from supplying the grid with our oversupply was based on a % of the capacity of the installation. So in theory we could have loaded the roof up with panels, used 90% of the electrcity ourselves and been paid for (from memory) about 40% of the capacity of the panels. The subsidy was guaranteed for something like 15 or 20 years.

Sometimes I really wonder if we actually know what impact renewables will actually have on the climate. There's already evidence that wind turbines cause local warming, part of me keeps thinking that you can't just take gigawatts of energy out of a system without having some effect on it.

Not in partial G in LEO they haven't.

Yes, actually they HAVE.

Tardigrades in space:
http://www.newscientist.com/ar...

Algae in space:
http://phys.org/news/2014-05-a...

Did you even remember what you wrote? The second "experiment" had to do with wind, not regolith.

Yes. I Do. Quoted below, with emphasis, because you apparently cannot read.

Data on how much energy is reasonably able to be extracted, so that ideally sized generation systems can be designed, and data on rates of wind blown particle erosion on those devices would be of considerable value.

Also, dune migration and wind blown particle accumulation is one of those things, like waves in a large ocean, that is very difficult to model. This is why data from the actual target environment is actually needed, and why I suggested it. The total theoretical energy is indeed calculable by formula using known data, which I nodded to when I asserted that the low atmospheric pressure posed a significant obstacle, but data collected from the other parts I mentioned, specifically in relation to the particle erosion behaviors for fixed mast objects designed to redicrect airflow, would still be of very significant value.

Now kindly stop being an asshole.

Consciousness on-off switch discovered deep in brain ?

I don't see anything new or interesting in the articles to consider it a "discovery of a way" (e.g. http://www.uvm.edu/~uvmpr/?Pag... )

In contrast this is a better article with more detail on how whales could _actually_ affect ecosystems significantly: http://www.newscientist.com/ar...
And that's a 4 year old article.

I assume you are aware that the current 380ppm CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere is pretty much an all-time geological low?

It's lower than in much of the Earth's history, but no, not anywhere near an all-time low. The all-time low is about half the current value... which, as it turns out, also was a much colder time in Earth's history.

Earth's CO2 levels over the past 600 million years or so have averaged about 1,500ppm, with peaks up to perhaps 7,000+ ppm:

And temperatures were much hotter, too. For most of Earth's history, the planet does not have ice caps.

There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example, during the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today.

And temperatures were about 3 degrees C above what they are today.

The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than today.

And temperatures were 7 degrees C above current temperatures.

... the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. ...

Carbon dioxide, on the average, was higher during the Ordovician, and average temperature during Ordovician period was 2C above modern levels (with sea levels 180 m higher). There was indeed a brief ice age-- about half a million years-- during the Ordovician. (for reference, the Ordovician lasted about 45 million years) But, guess what? That ice age corresponded to a low level of carbon dioxide. http://www.newscientist.com/ar...

Every single one of the examples you cite supports the basic observation that increased carbon dioxide correlates with increased temperature.

Yes, correlation is not causation. Nevertheless, you certainly can't point to this as evidence that carbon dioxide isn't related to global temperature

Lichens grow extremely slowly and are not a viable food source.

Just transport a small herd of caribou, which can forage on the lichens.

Lichen would also have the same radiation issue as plants.

Not true. Lichens can tolerate much more radiation than most other plants.

Too bad Maris is toxic as fuck : http://www.newscientist.com/ar...

I want to talk to these AIs myself! Give me a webpage or irc chatroom to interact with it directly.

It might be interesting, but when these things have been made available in the past, I've always been disappointed.

Example: Cleverbot, which, as TFA notes, supposedly passed the Turing test by convincing people it was 59% human, as reported almost three years ago here.

The numbers for Cleverbot sounded a LOT better than this story, and yet -- well, chat with the damn thing for a couple minutes. See what you think. Try to "test" it with even some basic questions designed to fool an AI that even a relatively stupid 13-year-old could answer. It will fail. It comes across as an unresponsive idiot. It's only if you engage with its crap questions that it begins to seem anything like "conversation" -- if you try to get it to actually talk about ANYTHING, it will rapidly become apparent that it's useless.

I have no doubt this thing does something similar.

And I'm even certainer you're dead wrong, AC. We don't even have realistic theoretical proposals for actual space-time-folding devices that would be of utility for space travel, and the most optimistic estimates of the energies required are in the ballpark of converting the mass of an entire planet to energy. Meanwhile, the current holy grail of energy generation is commercially viable fusion reactors, which we don't have, and which would be far from efficient enough even if we had them.

In comparison, printing a copy of someone on another planet isn't all that difficult. The only things you need are:
(1) the ability to freeze a human body to solid state and revive them after thawing (given current progress, this may become possible in a number of decades)
(2) the permission to destroy the originals (you'll always find a few volunteers)
(3) technology to (destructively) index all the atoms and bonds in a large solid organic body (slowly approaching the required resolution, though speed will still need to improve a lot)
(4) technology to build an arbitrary large organic body at cryo temperatures, presumably one atom at the time. This part is still the furthest out, but nanoscience and nanotech are advancing every day, and at least, there is no fundamental hurdle.

Sure, it will take many generations of technical progress, but if civilization doesn't collapse in the meanwhile, we'll eventually get there.(*) The same cannot be said about folding space-time in a way that is useful for space travel, which the laws of physics may very well have put out of reach of any baryonic life form. This is a bit of a disappointment for SF fans dreaming of a pan-galactic society, but that's how life is.

(*) Then again, once you have (1), you could just as well freeze someone, clad them in a few meters of lead to protect them against cosmic radiation, and shoot them to another planet along with the equipment to revive them. That would be way easier, faster and cheaper than the contrived scenario of printing someone new.

First, I am a doctor, and I know both Drs Tisherman, and Rhee, having met both in person and having read many of both of their papers. They are both stellar leaders in the field of trauma surgery. I am therefore posting as AC to avoid the perception of any even quasi-official criticism. These are my thoughts on the subject and are meant only to educate the readership, not to try to detract from the work cited

Second, I'm not jumping on " confused one"'s post, just taking an opportunity to correct a minor misconception, and use it as a hook to provide some detail as I understand them.

cold enough to shut everything off, but not cold enough to damage cells. Basic principle originates in all those "miraculous" drowning victims who fall through winter ice and are resuscitated 20 or 30 minutes later.

The "miraculous drowning victims" to which you refer usually survive due to the mammalian diving reflex, which is a distinct event (although hypothermia is involved) involving a slowing of the heart, vasoconstriction, and a closing of the glottic opening due to the face being submerged. The principle this proposed technique is using is more of a physio-chemical slowing of the reactions in the whole body, but of prime importance the heart, kidneys, and brain (and to a lesser extent the liver and lungs).

The proposed candidate patients (I presume, not having read their IRB nor their treatment protocol) would involve patients with penetrating trauma (knife or GSW) that have already had a resuscitative thoracotomy (as per my interpretation of the New Scientist article). This means that the patient is either in extremis, or has lost vital signs (no B/P, no pulse), at this point, under certain criteria, the chest is opened and the heart prolapsed from the pericardium, the aorta is cross-clamped and open massage or defibrillation is performed along with massive volume resuscitation. For these patients, this is literally, pulling out all the stops to try to save them. It often has a low survivability (~7%) as there is literally nothing else that can be done....until this trial.

The effect would be to suspend cellular aerobic metabolism and induce a state of hypometabolism that could be sustained by anaerobic metabolism. Not quite the suspended animation of science fiction. This would limit the amount of oxygen radicals that can lead to reperfusion syndrome, but this is not a given.

The questions that remain: how will humans as a "higher lifeform" with a more temperamental neurological makeup deal with this hypometabolic state? Will they be able to cool them fast enough in the hectic conditions of a trauma-code to be useful? What will their neurological status be? What about the blood already lost - the patient will likely need significant transfusions, will this reduce the effectiveness of the treatment due to transfusion related lung injury or transfusion related immunosuppression. Will the patient tolerate the hypothermia as this is traditionally considered a part of the lethal triad, for that matter, saline is a very acidic substance (to the body), how will they tolerate that acidosis (also part of the triad). I hope they are able to obtain useful information about these (and other) questions that may make this a viab

New Scientist: http://www.newscientist.com/ar...

this study is terrible because the psychiatrist has not actually
linked the issue to mental illness and he doesn't mention once mental
health drugs causing the problems. in fact studies have been done that
show it's mental health drugs causing a drop in the average life
expectancy by 25 years on average:
http://www.oregonstatehospital...

also a study done and published in the American Medical Association
showed that on average pharamacuticels were causing 100,000 deaths per
year when correctly prescribed and not due to side effect issues or
misprescribing:
http://themindunleashed.org/20...

Direct link to study publication:
http://www.oregonstatehospital...

Anti-anxiety and sleep aids are also tied to causing a 17.5% increased
chance for instant death in your sleep, as well as increases in
cancer. In these two studies:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/a...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

There's a reason the United Nations and World Health Organization also
are calling for a ban on forced psychiatric treatment and consider
treatment forms of torture:
http://www.oregonstatehospital...
http://www.oregonstatehospital...
http://www.oregonstatehospital...
http://oregonstatehospital.net...

Scientists "Antipsychotic drugs are schizophrenia's hidden gulag":
http://www.newscientist.com/ar...

Drugs like Prozac also cause a 12 fold increase in risk of suicide and
homicidal tendencies. Zyprexa also causes mania in bipolar people and
induces first time psychotic episodes. How could it not be that when
all this is known they don't mention it once in an article about
people with mental illness having reduced life spans?

More articles and videos about medications causing severe illness and
the over diagnosing of people. BTW, another cause of death for people
with mental illness is the chronic abuse and neglect they face in
forced treatment programs and treatment in general, and also
experimentation and abuse by the government. More details on this
here: http://www.oregonstatehospital...

Documentary video covering the abusive history of psychiatry here:
http://cdn.oregonstatehospital...

Looks like the study linking the drop in life expectancy to mental
illness and recommending that people receive medications as treatment
is heavily flawed. :)

-Todd Giffe

Wow. This story has migrated from one new website to another and it has been like a game of telephone. The ones linked from Slashdot came from via a Russian website which is full of non-scientific babble like "subatomic fluctuations of the Earth's magnetic field". New Scientists has a reasonable article which says, yes, it's a very accurate INS and has nothing to do with the Earth's magnetic field. That story is much better.

Currently subs need very accurate gravity maps to deal with local differences in the gravity field. With this they will need even more accurate ones. An INS and a gravity meter are in some ways the same instrument. The better they are, the more similar they are.

You have a talent for understatement. A lot of the waste was essentially throw in the ground and covered over, including a safe containing what turns out to be the oldest extant sample of weapons-grade plutonium:

http://www.newscientist.com/ar...

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

http://www.newscientist.com/bl...

It's likely that age itself doesn't reduce mental acuity at all. It seems the tests that purport to show age related decline in cognition have been wrongly interpreted. http://www.newscientist.com/ar... (paywalled, but the first couple of paragraphs are available for free.)

In nearly half a million years of human evolution, some 10,000 year period was largely devoted to refining the human fist into an adequate substitute for a rock.

I was made prepared.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20049-atomic-disguise-makes-helium-look-like-hydrogen.html

http://www.newscientist.com/ar...

"A study out of McGill University sought to examine historical temperature data going back .00001% of the earth's total age in order to determine the likelihood that global warming was caused by natural fluctuations in the earth's climate. The study concluded there was less than a 1% chance the warming could be attributed to simple fluctuations."

Interesting what happens when you plug correct data into the report. They used a variety of gauges found in nature, such as tree rings, ice cores, and lake sediments from the last one ten-thousandth of a percent of the earths age to show they are right. even more interesting is over half of that about was the period of that if they were correct was be considered affected. So to be succinct they fudged the numbers. Its laughable that

“This study will be a blow to any remaining climate-change deniers,” Lovejoy says. “Their two most convincing arguments – that the warming is natural in origin, and that the computer models are wrong – are either directly contradicted by this analysis, or simply do not apply to it.”

when he offers a study that only reviews .00001% of the earth's age. Thats like basing the temperature of a building over the last year on a single hour long visit. I assume Lovejoy couldn't get access to the antarctic core samples retrieved in 2003 that are 3/4 of a million years old. http://www.newscientist.com/ar... http://www.rmtrr.org/oldlist.h... talks about the oldest tree rings which date back to 300 BC almost all are in California. Even more amusing is Sister university UC Berkeley has ancient sediments at the bottom of Northern California’s Clear Lake they pulled in 2012. This is among thousands pulled up in the last 30 yrs. So when someone actually offers the same info from the last .01% of the earths age, I'll listen. That at least covers an ice age and several geologic periods. All that will happen is people who actual degrees in climatology will tear his paper apart. But at least its nice to know there are people falsifying climate data just like there are people doing the same to fossils http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/da... https://tumblehomelearning.com...

The thing is, macroscopic superpositions do exist, as mentioned here.
So, by their own reasoning, P=NP.
QED

My question is this voluntary? How is exactly does one opt out if they prefer traditional care? Doesn't seem to be like a recent victim of gross trauma, can exactly make an informed decision.

According to the article at New Scientist:

Getting this technique into hospitals hasn't been easy. Because the trial will happen during a medical emergency, neither the patient nor their family can give consent. The trial can only go ahead because the US Food and Drug Administration considers it to be exempt from informed consent. That's because it will involve people whose injuries are likely to be fatal and there is no alternative treatment. The team had to have discussions with groups in the community and place adverts in newspapers describing the trial. People can opt out online. So far, nobody has.

That is when i say automakers are for to conservative. Someone will find something against it. THere are litteraary dozen of inventions where you can engage the brake without the interuption where you move your foot.

And this really has been invented dozens of times, and i bet thos patents are expired by now.

http://www.newscientist.com/da...
http://www.mobility-centres.or... (steering wheel, for people wit disability)
http://patentimages.storage.go...
http://patentimages.storage.go...

And the one thing is that this innovation will not come from the racing community, because that is the rare exception that you really need brakes and accelerator together (sometimes)

I do not see any problem with cruise control... To the rest of the car this will still be a seperate brake and accelerator.

The warming we're seeing is not just recovering from an ice age.

We're not trying to keep the temperature fixed at some ideal stable point. We're trying to avoid rapid catastrophic warming of several degrees Celsius in the space of a century or less.

http://www.newscientist.com/ar...
Ya can't ever get it right first try, can ya.

QED no such thing. You don't know what you are talking about.
Maybe the work had already been done on that plane, maybe Boeing had already changed the design when it was built.

http://www.newscientist.com/ar...

Malaysia Airlines has not revealed if it has learned anything from ACARS data, or if it has any. Its eleventh media statement since the plane disappeared said: "All Malaysia Airlines aircraft are equipped with ACARS which transmits data automatically. Nevertheless, there were no distress calls and no information was relayed."

Also here: http://www.malaysiaairlines.co... Page 8

The aircraft was delivered to Malaysia Airlines in 2002 and have since recorded 53,465.21 hours with a total of 7525 cycles. All Malaysia Airlines aircraft are equipped with continuous data monitoring system called the Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System (ACARS) which transmits data automatically. Nevertheless, there were no distress calls and no information was relayed.

New Scientist is carrying the story as well. Not clear if they're parroting the WSJ or if they have an independent source.

The whole EW article is just a reprint of the NS article.

Original

Would have been nice if a post mentioning an Unveiling would at least link to the picture.

http://www.newscientist.com/da...

What they got is bones.

Hey! I think I know that guy on the right! His name is Raj and back when he was a student he used to work at one of those restaurants down on 6th street with all the christmas lights and shit hanging from the ceiling. He always had a smile when he brought out those little crispy apetizers with the tray with three different sauces. They had the best lamb vindaloo. At least I think it was lamb. He's come a long way...

Would have been nice if a post mentioning an Unveiling would at least link to the picture.

http://www.newscientist.com/da...

What they got is bones.

I think what is most upsetting is the stupidity of people, including the Slashdot editor, making outlandish claims like:

The same decrease in ice contributes to the weather circumstances that led to extremely low temperatures across parts of the United States this winter.

Really? It can't have anything to do with the massive ball of fire that we call the Sun having record low activity?

Nope, apparently the obvious answer is too obvious.

People like him pushing inane reasons for a cold winter are the same idiots that make climate change seem like a religion: blind faith when a far more obvious reason--at least for the little things, like a single winter--exists.

Did you know that transsexuals are actually physically different to non-transgenders?
http://www.newscientist.com/ar...

Here you go. Testable, duplicatable example of evolution. http://www.newscientist.com/ar...

This is a good article:

http://www.newscientist.com/ar...

Doesn't sound like every patent will cost $10K.

I thought it was fairly conclusive that it wasn't a cypher - the symbols simply lack the entropy to represent language. It's just what you'd expect from someone combining a few symbols in nonsense ways as a hoax, and not statistically what cyphertext looks like at all. A bit disappointing, really.

That is wrong. The word entropy is similar to English, and, while the second order entropy is low, it is similar to Polynesian languages.

This is a nice nice review of Voynich studies.