Slashdot Mirror

Congratulations! You got it! It took you 48 hrs, but you finally got it. You are now a beginner skeptic. You are a very poor skeptic, but a skeptic nonetheless!

Unfortunately, since it took you so long to figure out, I don't have time to go with my original argument. Tell you what. Read the second article I provided and google "Northwest Passage". You have another 48 hrs.

Good luck and NO HELP THIS TIME!

As for data to debunk it, unless you have a memory problem you are already aware that I have posted it. Have another look at the NASA links from the GRACE sattelite and the 50 peer-reviewed papers from Nature and Science I posted.

Debunked it? Debunked what and with what? All I see is a wiki page on on a Senator and an interview about an AlGore movie.

However, going further back in your posts, long before I joined in...(who's the one with the memory problem?) You did link to a couple of google searches. Kinda ironic that you limited them to a single source each. This from a guy who's been hammering the trustworthiness of sources limits his search to a two sources.
  Now, let's go back to your original question:

Under your stated assumptions, what's the probability that Antarctica and/or Greenland is NOT losing ice?

Because you have OR in there, and Antarctica is NOT losing ice, then I have to say, with multiple sources, that YES Antarctica OR Greenland is NOT losing ice!
Site

There is evidence the ocean in this region is somewhat warmer in recent years - true enough - but this fact is dwarfed by the mounting evidence the overall ice mass of Antarctica is increasing.

Site:

However, in a study to appear in this week's online edition of Science, a researcher at the University of Missouri-Columbia has found that the interior of the East Antarctic ice sheet is actually gaining mass

There's more, of course. Just take your sources out and google something without including the sources you want to use. Of course, you know that, just chose to ignore it when looking for data that backs up your own preconceived notions.

Now, to link it back to this story. Yes, a large ice sheet is about to break from Antarctica. However, it may not be because of any type of warming, it could be quite the opposite. It could easily be because the temperature in Antarctica has actually dropped a recently due to a cooling trend that has taken place since 1998. (In fairness, here is the whole thing). Maybe there's just been more snow this year. Either way, I've seen nothing to indicate this ice sheet breaking off has anything to do with temperature changes.

Also, the same could be true of glaciers disappearing. The coldest winters I've spent have been driest ones. You don't spend a whole lot of time in a cold area to realize that -15 F is too damn cold for snow. 15-32 F above zero is where you get your precipitation. Also, you'll learn that extremely cold temps, ice tends to evaporate (sublimate) more as the air is drier since all the moisture has already been frozen out. So, given this, purely from my personal experience, colder temps can and do cause ice to disappear. Fact is that ice levels may have very little to do with temperature changes and much more to do with precipitation, which is a while different argument.

Since the neurons are so small, the system runs 100,000 times faster than the biological equivalent and 10 million times faster than a software simulation. "We can simulate a day in one second," Meier notes.

10 million times faster than software? That's like jumping from an abacus to a Pentium.

I just hope these folks continue to receive the funding they need.

No... this is an April Fool's joke.

This isn't, though.

The pic in the article above bears a striking resemblance to a CPU w/ IHS in one of those hard plastic CPU holders.

Yes!!! We should not blindly accept gravity as a fact. Serious scientists now believe our understanding of what gravity may be either incomplete, or simply wrong.

http://www.physorg.com/news85310822.html

I confess I didn't read the article closely and I assumed that they were using the laser mic like a regular laser mic.

However, the algorithms to pull keystrokes from an audio recording have been public since 2005, and have probably been used by government and bad guys for a lot longer than that.

According to that article, this can be done with a simple PC mic. For what it's worth, my basic experiments with DIY laser mics get almost as good of sound quality in the right conditions. It's not hard to imagine that somebody who actually understands optics and sound could get much better.

Actually, they could have gone to a MUCH larger diameter fan, with a lower rotational speed, and still moved a lot more air with a lot less noise.

Besides, in 5 years an el-cheapo box will have the same performance. Or for less they could have built 3 supercomputers supercomputer.

People have VoIP in Australia with a publically accessible telephone number (inbound and outbound).

But what you're saying reminds me of mobile phone companies offering internet on 3G mobile phone networks but blocking IM clients fearing their exorbident SMS revenues will disappear.

Well, considering that a full-screen browser display on the windshield of your car would be distracting enough to require the car to steer itself, I'm gonna go with the self-steering car as being the closest to reality. Not to mention the fact that there's places where such technology has already been successfully used, on existing highways. Never heard of a full-screen HUD-on-the-windshield web browser though.

So, you were implying what exactly?

    Melting ice from the north pole will not alter the sea level at all.

Sometimes experiments you conduct in your house don't have enough precision, or don't replicate the conditions accurately enough.

The problem with the kitchen experiment is that the sea is composed of salt water, and the polar caps are mostly fresh water. I forget the actual science involved (you can look it up at http://www.physorg.com/news5619.html , but the end effect is that even floating ice melting will raise sea level a little.

Build an ion (or flame) speaker set. Basically, the idea is that you ionize the air between two electrodes so as to create a current path in the air, and the resulting vibrations in the ions due to the varying voltage placed on the electrodes make sound. villanova's explanation I know it can be done by lighting a fire between the two electrodes, and I'd imagine that you could also pulse ultra-high voltages between two normal electrodes, sort of like a highly controlled tesla coil.

The coolest demonstration that I ever saw, though, was when my professor showed me a water bridge this past November. He bought some exceedingly pure ($50/gallon) water and a 40kV power supply, filled two beakers to not-quite-overflowing with the water, places two electrodes (I think butter knives) in the water, and turns on the power. He then brought the two beakers into contact with one another so that the water from one beaker flowed into the other, and when he tried to separate them, the water formed a bridge from one beaker to the next, suspended in the air, several centimeters long. Apparently the math was not only beyond the scope of the course, but actually beyond the capabilities of Maple. According to my professor, anyway, the "highly ordered microstructures" mentioned in the original researcher's work are bull, but I was too much in awe of what I'd just seen to actually understand what he was saying.

http://www.physorg.com/news153989416.html

The water is forced down into the Earth's crust where heat trapped millenia ago boils the water.

I'd agree with most of you post, but not the "young Earth" model behind this statement. The heat wasn't "trapped" (or at least what little "trapping" there was occurred billions of years ago, not thousands); it is being constantly procuded by radioactive decay.

--MarkusQ

I believe SETI@Home's receivers became capable of detecting polarization signals about a year ago. There's still a lot of bandwidth and a lot of sky to search. Space, as they say, is big.

TFA is just more 'create life' hype to get research funding dollars.

From the article: "Specifically, the researchers synthesized RNA
enzymes that can replicate themselves without the help of any proteins
or other cellular components, and the process proceeds indefinitely.
"Immortalized" RNA, they call it, at least within the limited
conditions of a laboratory. More significantly, the scientists
then mixed different RNA enzymes that had replicated, along with some
of the raw material they were working with, and let them compete in
what's sure to be the next big hit: "Survivor: Test Tube."

Not even sure from TFA what the "breakthrough" is supposed to
be...'self-replicating RNA' or 'immortalized RNA?' UC Santa
Cruz researchers worked
out the structure of such a molecule two years ago.
This would be slightly more impressive if the researchers could claim
that their immortal RNA was capable of de novo synthesis
but the only claim they make is that no 'proteins' or 'cellular
components' are required for replication from their "raw material"
which is apparently some type of RNA.

Targeted blue lights may correlate with lowered suicide rates:

http://www.physorg.com/news148153021.html

However, streetlights in general have not been proven to prevent any crime:

http://www.delscope.demon.co.uk/information/lightpollution.htm#security

http://amper.ped.muni.cz/light/crime/lp040_1h.html

Well I think the root argument is pollution is bad.

We have to admit there are some pretty nasty things in
the exhaust of vehicles.

I don't think anyone in a smoggy city would say "We need more smog !"

I don't think anyone that has a child with birth defects caused
by pollution would say " we need more heavy metals in the water !"

CO2 is not pollution, we exhale it like all animals, but the high
C02 absorbtion levels of the oceans have started to make the ocean
more acidic and kill of huge tracts of coral reefs and they are
the homes for a large portion of the fish in the world.

http://www.physorg.com/news148116950.html

1/5th of the world's coral is dead.

A warmer sun is partially to account for a warmer earth and mars,
but the oceans as the largest absorber of CO2 are starting to
change their Ph levels.

This is something that all scientists agree on in the face of
the overwhelming evidence.

It will have pretty wide consequences for nations that get a lot
of their diet from ocean fish.

http://www.physorg.com/news149951583.html

http://www.itproportal.com/articles/2008/05/13/text-messaging-costs-more-receiving-data-hubble/
http://www.physorg.com/news129793047.html
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/12/costs-of-text-messaging-vs-space-transmissions/

i'm not a volcanologist, but this seems like it could be done by:

1. using seismic surveys and land-based surface measurements to determine when the volcano approaching its eruptive phase and only work when there is minimal activity.
2. use ground penetrating sonar or seismic survey data, locate the exact position of the magma chamber(s).
3. drill towards the magma chamber at an angle so that you're not working directly above the volcanic system.
4. use unmanned or remotely-operated drilling machines for the last mile of the tunnel.

i mean, we have the technology to operate machinery remotely using video feeds and radio communication. and wasn't there a recent story about some deep sea drilling operation hitting a pocket of magma on accident? i know in 2005 a geothermal drilling site in Hawaii also came upon a magma chamber on accident. seems like if they could tunnel into a magma chamber on accident without problem, then they can certain do so safely with prior planning.

the tunnel at Puna site was 1.5 miles deep, which is about half as deep as the ceiling of Montserrat's magma chamber; add to that another ~41% if you're tunneling in at a 45 degree angle, and it'll take quite a bit longer, but it's still feasible. i think the bigger probably might be keeping the magma flowing rather than cooling down and clogging the channel, but perhaps this won't be a problem for an active volcanic system.

The difference is that most of those industries have actually been profitable at some point in the past and have some potential for making a profit in the future. I don't foresee a future in which biofuels could possibly be economically viable unless you are talking about at a very small, local level where you can use waste material from restaurants to run a half dozen cars or where farmers grow corn for human or animal consumption and use some of the leftover biomass to make fuel for their tractors. As soon as you cross the line from recycled biomass to newly grown biomass specifically for fuel, you find an entire industry based on a fundamentally flawed economic model. Basically, it's the dot-com boom all over again---a company loses money on every sale but tries to make it up in volume.

The amount of energy put into biofuel in the form of fuel to run tractors, transport it to market, etc. exceeds the amount of energy you get out of it. Therefore, by definition, short of a significant change in the fundamental technology of farming or in the types of crops grown, biofuel will never---can never---be commercially viable. (Source: Cornell/UC Berkeley study circa 2005. And then, there's the fact that the U.S. seems myopically focused on using corn as a source, which is quite possibly the worst thing you could possibly plant for fuel purposes by almost any useful metric---output relative to soil damage, output per acre, etc. It's a joke.

About the only thing slightly promising in that area is the whole algae thing. but I'm not holding my breath. Even if it eventually proves financially viable, you're still dumping CO2 into the atmosphere. And I suspect that when you factor in all the hidden maintenance costs, etc, it will end up being unprofitable just like the rest of them.

The GP poster may have said it in a flamebait-like way, but that doesn't mean the post was wrong. On the contrary. it was dead on accurate, at least if you limit biofuel to current farming technology and current sources of biomass. Realistically speaking, dumping more and more money into biofuel research is not the answer. We already have much better sources of energy---solar, wind, geothermal, tidal---that don't pollute our atmosphere significantly, don't contribute to global warming significantly, and at least in the case of solar and wind, don't require nearly the overhead in terms of maintenance, repairs, infrastructure, etc. because they can be set up at the local level (or, in the case of solar, even the household level). Power storage. That's where we should be spending research dollars. That's a problem that will still be needed even if biofuels did become commercially viable, but with better power storage, biofuels would have no real purpose for existing.

http://www.physorg.com/news92674403.html

http://dgl.com/itinfo/2003/it030528.html

http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/sabl/2006/Jul/06.html

http://folding.stanford.edu/English/FAQ-PS3

http://www.physorg.com/news127915025.html http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a790823168~db=all Subtle and in long term cumulative gene regulation might give unexpected results, especially considering still partly unclear mechanisms causing autoimmune diseases. The effects are agreeably hard to test if time frame extends to 5-20 years. Also, vaccine boosters might have some immunomodulatory effect on immune processes that occur naturally in subject at time. Combined with endemic virus infections (known correlation with autoimmune diseases like type 1 diabetes) at random times might give range of conditions that are difficult notice statistically. Considering previous, one should do risk evaluation taking into consideration hereditary predisposition, antibody titers, current epidemiologic situation to name few of the aspects... There hardly is yes/no clearly defined options. Movement against vaccination seems to be more like movement against indifferent administration without asking any relevant questions that can be asked to avoid possible complications.

Text messages are not cheap either!

Where?

He seems to be the media's go-to person for quantum computing. E.g. here.

Notability's not really a spectrum. Either his importance has been established by reliable, secondary sources or not. The only source in that article is some gigantic database site saying that he got a Ph.D. Clearly not sufficient.

Just means the article [is/was] incomplete, not that Aaronson isn't notable. Stubs usually don't manage to convey the importance of their subject. Note that the deletion debate was closed early because there wasn't a snowball's chance in hell that it would be deleted.

However, some people have been looking into cell death from lack of oxygen, and it looks like the rate of cell death is quite low until oxygen re-enters the system, at which point it spikes up.

http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/news/News_Releases/apr07/resuscitation-center.html

When a person has a heart attack, their cells are deprived of oxygen. So Dr. Becker began studying oxygen deprivation in cells. What we found when we studied oxygen deprivation in cells astounded us, explained Becker. When cells are deprived of oxygen for an hour there is only 4% cell death. After four hours, cell death is only around 16%. Both of these numbers are low. The amazing thing was once we re-introduced oxygen to the cells they died off rapidly to almost 60% cell death. This re-oxygenation injury we termed reperfusion injury. We concluded that the re-introduction of oxygen must be handled carefully for the majority of cells to survive. Our studies will be concentrating on ways to prepare cells deprived of oxygen for the re-introduction of oxygen.

This article also seems salient: Severe heart attack damage limited by hydrogen sulfide

I just read a PhysOrg article today about how certain compounds in red wine seem to retard the onset of Alzheimer's, among other things. Check it out.

graphene for memory has hit 10nm now and may become 3D, which will make a very large factorial change to the scale of memory.

More info here: http://www.physorg.com/news146497821.html

You can run XP on a new computer because you're tech-savvy enough to know how to wipe the install and reinstall a different OS. But does that describe the average user? I don't think so. After all, we're dealing with a population where nearly 70% need help to get things working right in the first place. For those people, wiping Vista and reinstalling with XP is the psychological equivalent of climbing a mountain. It may be difficult and rewarding, but its much easier to stay on the plains and whine about how much things suck.

the new scifi reality show cha$e have people with glasses mounted cameras. it's pretty much a headache to watch it when they switch to that view.

I wonder why they don't just put a gyro on the camera. They can get pretty small.
http://www.physorg.com/news639.html

Saw an article over at Physorg about the latest new coating which allows near perfect absorbtion at all angles. Note: this is absorbtion and not efficiency, but even at the same levels of efficiency, more absorbtion means more power.

Various studies recently have shown no real link between violent video games and aggression. So we have one study that shows it does and various other studies that show it does not. Which one should we believe?

Here's just a few other studies that conflict with this study:
http://www.physorg.com/news5758.html
http://www.geeknewscentral.com/archives/007883.html
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050815-5205.html
http://www.computing.co.uk/vnunet/news/2184836/link-video-games-violent-teens

I am replying to your post because I see an opportunity to bring attention to the fact that punishment:
1. equals abuse
2. does not work as intended

The best possible message of punishment is "don't get caught." It addresses a behavior by inflicting discomfort, fear, pain, shaming, humiliation. Ultimately lots of anger towards the punishing party.

It does nothing to create understanding and respect for the value that behavior goes against. We ought to approach child upbringing differently than dog training (and actually I think dog training has evolved faster, we already know that beating dogs doesn't produce good results).

This is not a substitution for better network security. Or keeping secrets secret. Or promoting trust and integrity.

Discussing whether a punishment is fair or not does not change the fact that punishing children is abuse.

"Fair abuse?"

Again, this is not a reaction to your post, just an opportunity to raise awareness. The cycle of abused children becoming adults who see abuse as the norm *can* be shifted.

Research:
http://www.physorg.com/news125155198.html

And, for the ones with time and courage:
http://www.nospank.net/fyog.htm

I don't.

Especially since:

http://www.newsday.com/news/health/wire/sns-ap-skull-stem-cells,0,5876836.story

While the above is not proof and more anecdotal (but I'm sure everyone was happy that the skull finally healed for whatever reason), it is also claimed to have worked with rats before:

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4873

And also they've been coaxed into smooth muscle:

http://www.physorg.com/news72983041.html

So, just another step, not a leap. Useful step no doubt :).

I think there are plenty of people doing research in this area. Good news for the people who have grown extensive reserves ;). 1 kg of fat stem cells needed? No problem for them.

So the plan was to get the entire world to bulk up and then sell their fat back to them as a means to save them...

the first rule of stem cell research is you don't talk about stem cell research.

Everyone knows there is no wind in space so teh picture must be faked, proof they filming in desert in nevada!

Also more proof.. human footprint! http://www.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/phoenixsfoot.jpg

If this is as good as they say, they wouldn't have any secrets and would spill the beans.

The fundamental research was done a long time ago(with picture of prototypes); I've read articles about it in Electronics and Wireless World several times over the years, so it's hardly a secret. Any potentially patentable critical element is going to be kept under wraps, obviously.

I think they have found some weaknesses that restrict the usefulness of this technology.

Or they spent 3 years on R&D fixing those weaknesses, like the article says.

Further information of note from the NYT article:

SiOnyx is already commercializing sensor-based chips as a technology development platform for other companies and for use in next-generation infrared imaging systems.

So we're told:
1- There's a decade of peer-reviewed research behind the technology.
2- They have funding and partners already.
3- They're shipping parts now, not at some unknown time in the future.

Either this is real, or Dr Mazur et al are engaging in an exceptionally elaborate, very public and career-ending series of lies (and it's not as though SiOnyx will be a paying proposition if the tech doesn't work). The part of the operation that does look suspect is their web site (Flash warning), but that doesn't prove anything about the physics involved.

The recent note on the avalanche effect and work on bringing light to the edges of windows and putting cells only on the edge have given promise that the watts per dollar will be going up, even if the watt per area figure does not rise as fast as hoped. Another new direction is printing cheap low efficiency cells on windows and possibly even clothing.

Do you think there is a correlation also to the fact that TV shows and Video Games desensitize people to real-world violence? Do right wingers play and watch less violence than left wingers? Thus ... the right-wingers have not been desensitized and have more to fear and the left wingers have been desentized and fear nothing?

Done: http://www.physorg.com/news127137136.html

2. Is there some reason why Apple is not competing in the international market? Is Apple having their lunch eaten by companies that are "household names" in Asia, or is the product inferrior? What is Apple's penetration in those markets over the past year?

The iPhone was just released to most of the world recently. Before that it was only available in 6 countries:

http://www.physorg.com/news134889762.html

The excuse of blaming the "dumb mainstream media" is getting pretty thin. Maybe the scientists should point out the limits of their findings and what they mean by "junk" or "dark", etc., if only so to shut up slashdot smarta**es. Fat chance - marketing principle applies everywhere?

Your timing is incredible! How, exactly, would scientists communicate with the public? What do they do when the mainstream media intentionally misrepresents scientific quarrels?

Fear Looms Over Scientist's Experiment to Uncover Secrets of 'Big Bang' was a front page article on FoxNews.com today. Aside from the title, which implies "Arrogant Scientist Thinks He Knows It All", the text of the article is 100% misleading. Here are some good quotes, emphasis mine:

A British physicist has claimed he can explain the secrets of the Big Bang Theory, but his controversial experiment has scientists believing he could bring about the end of the world, the U.K.'s Daily Mail reported.

Evans' ambitions, however, have brought widespread concern among scientists who say the experiment could create a shower of unstable black holes inside the Earth, and subsequently bring destruction to the planet.

The Daily Mall then went on to make some indirect ad hominem attacks on the lead researcher because he "is so relaxed about his job, he wears shorts to work".

Anyone who has been watching the story or knows anything about it knows that the crackpot doomsday theories have been thoroughly debunked ad nauseum.

Perhaps "dumb mainstream media" should focus on reporting the actual facts, as already reported by scientists in their published, peer-reviewed papers, rather than intentionally distorting them to create sensationalist headlines to further their ideological goals? Since we know they won't do that, people like you should turn your criticism on those who deserve it.

Disclaimer: FOX News can not be said to have not known the facts in this case. They displayed an Associated Press report about the LHC in June 2008 which accurately represented both sides of the debate in a more honest manner.

Aye, well the Scots have them all beat:

University of West Scotland research reveals that a woman's gait may reveal her orgasmic ability. - A new study found that trained sexologists could infer a woman's history of vaginal orgasm by observing the way she walks. The study is published in the September 2008 issue of The Journal of Sexual Medicine, the official journal of the International Society for Sexual Medicine and the International Society for the Study of Women's Sexual Health.

Combine that with satellite-based shadow analysis, and... Giggity!

... tell a woman's orgasmic history through gait analysis too. See here. Maybe they could come up with software to tell how promiscuous a woman is by her walk.. Ohh the possibilities!

Now your identity?

Study says gait may be associated with orgasmic ability. Specifically they indicate something like an 80% success rate of identifying women who have vaginal orgasms based on their gait. There certainly seems to be something to the biomechanical structure of your body. I honestly wonder if its a unique fingerprint or if an entire family my be very similar.

Here's another version of that graph... with additional data. It shows something interesting, I feel.

Up to 94% of Arctic melt is due to dirty snow caused by soot changing it's albedo, rather than CO2 related warming, according the researchers at University of California and a certain Dr. Hansen[PDF warning].

The Antarctic and the Arctic are both up on last years ice, in the case of the Arctic by 10% (according to the NSIDC).

Is it possible that the melting in the Arctic is more to do with other emissions than CO2? After all, the majority of the worlds industry is in the northern hemisphere. I would think it is.

The Northern Passage, by the way, has been navigated at least 100 times since the start of the century, and in 1922 there was open sailing very close to the North Pole [PDF warning]. Submarines regularly surface there, too. 2007 had a shocking decrease in the amount of ice at the pole, definitely. But we cannot be certain WHY.

Even NASA acknowledge that "not all the large changes in the Arctic climate in recent years are a result of long-term trends associated with global warming".

We should still be tackling pollution, though.

NY Times Story

Autoweek Story

PhysOrg Story

If the NY Times story doesn't come up from the link, just search Google for Nissan electric car and you'll be able to read it.

If one country (Georgia) moves their websites to some other country (the USA) and the aggressor (Russia) continues the cyber attack, is the aggressor committing an act of war against the "other country"?

The problem is that the attack is perpetuated using the "other country" machines. It's a botnet, remember? How did these machines get infected in the first place? The command and control may reside in South Korea, being sent remote instructions by someone in Russia. Who's the perpetrator in here? The virus autor? The botnet author? The man in power of the botnet? The man using the botnet (even if he's outside the attacking country)?

This was bound to happen - I just didn't expect it to happen so soon. And with the DNS cache poisoning attacks and the new man-in-the-middle attacks daemonstrated in Las Vegas, things will only get worse.

The enemy is at home, gentlemen. The internet is in Defcon 1.

there simply is no third possibility.

I think there are other possibilities.

1. Why doesn't anyone want to talk about the known increase in solar radiation over the last 30 years? AFAIK, we don't have numbers going back any further, but it seems fairly obvious that if there is more solar radiation entering the earths atmosphere, the climate will change.

2. Maybe we won't run out of oil because it isn't really made from dead trees and dinosaurs. I've been meaning to find some numbers, but I have a hard time understanding the amount of decaying organic matter necessary to create the 80+ million barrels/day of oil pumped from the ground in 2005. I know were talking about geologic time scales here, so I'd be interested in seeing some numbers about how many trees and dinos that adds up to.

I'd also be interested to find out how trees and dinos ended up 10k+ feet below the surface of the earth. Some of these are 35k+ feet (7+miles) deep.

3. I doubt there were many trees or dinosaurs on Hyperion or Titan, 2 of Saturns moons. Yet, they have pools of hydrocarbons, hmmmm.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not interested in the world getting so polluted that we can't breathe or grow food. I'm just concerned that global warming is really another scam to take more of my money in the form of taxes to "save the earth". If I remember correctly, when I was a kid, the big fear was we were going into a new ice age. Now we have the same data providing proof for the exact opposite hypothesis. Now get off my lawn.

I recall some reading about testing (I'm guessing a year or so ago) about the use of the virus in fighting cancer. I can't find the exact article in question but I did find this.

Cancer-fighting virus shows promise in early clinical trial:
http://www.physorg.com/news103082669.html

The virus, called NV1020, is a type of herpes simplex virus modified so that it selectively replicates in virus cells, killing them in the process.

This was in July of 2007 it would seem.

This stuff isn't that new. It definately has been sold for quite a while under the name TX Active [ http://www.italcementigroup.com/ENG/Media+and+Communication/News/Corporate+events/20060228.htm ]. They used it to make the Air France head quarters at Charles de Gaulle Airport a few years back. http://www.physorg.com/news67012896.html