Slashdot Mirror

Thanks for your input. Some quick googling suggests that the current state-of-the-art hydrogen conversion is approaching 75% efficiency (See http://www.qsinano.com/white_papers/2006_09_15.pdf, note this is lab efficiency, not truly applied yet). Assuming that the efficiency continues to improve, I would expect that that value will rise notably by 2020 and beyond. When you factor in the NG used, transmission losses, etc., compressed air is only about 80% efficient (see post 101 of the SciAm discussion), so it would seem that hydrogen might be feasible as a replacement in the not terribly distant future.

Since there would also be lost efficiency going the other way (hydrogen > electricity), it probably isn't a very good sole storage solution, but it would seem to be a good solution to burn hydrogen in place of the NG. That would obviously result in further reduced efficiency, but would remove any Co2 from the equation. I'm not a chemist, physicist, or really any other -ist, but it seems like there is at least some potential there.

I'm confused... unless you are. Not sure if your mention of natural gas was just a digression or what, but to be clear the compressed air has nothing to do with natural gas, other then requiring similar geological requirements for storage. You can find details of their energy storage plan on page 2 of the article online.

I'm just saying, I doubt your straight linear math works, I bet it is a whole lot more than 22% of Cali to power the US because apparently this doesn't scale.

SciAm has a good article on this, in "A Solar Grand Plan" they say solar power could provide 69% of the electricity and 35% of the energy the US uses by 2050.

If we're talking about publicly-ranked search results, the results may expose more than we're comfortable with.

Wikipedia content is either right or wrong. It's not meant to be subjective, hence it can be patrolled and corrected. Now they want to apply it to subjective content; I don't see that making sense, albeit at first glance. User A is a technocrat who loves Monty Python. Hardly an isolated case. Use B is a 15yr old who likes whatever he/she likes this week. There's no "patrolling" this, except to address systematic abuse.

The concept is fine for slashdot, or any "closed" system, where the users generally share a common set of expectations. At /., I find all +5 content to be generally insightful, interesting, funny, etc. At least it seems so to me. Either I'm new here, or we've all seen Life of Brian. Whether that's utopia or not is another question altogether.

Expand this out to the general internet user, and the result will, of course, reflect the general focus of human society. That will be interesting, to say the least, though I'll bet $5 that anything entertainment- and religion-based will always be at the top of the results. Is that what people want? Ipso facto perhaps, but sure as hell not I.

Let's keep in mind that (no offence to anyone specific) ~80% of Americans believe in God, less than 50% subscribe to Darwin, ~30% believe in "UFOs, witches and astrology" (if you can believe this poll that is). Of course, smart people believe weird things too.

Add to this, that 81% of those who have seen two or more "Police Academy" movies believe that O.J. is innocent, and you have a recipe for disaster.

Instead the point that I was driving at was the idea itself. Applied here (I live in the US), would it not make sense to take a chunk of land within each state, devote it to this, and have that provide the power for that state?

I don't know if it's true but a few weeks ago I read about how a piece of Texas could provide enough power for the US. SciAm has a good article on A Solar Grand Plan though. It says that by 2050 solar power could provide 65% of the USA's electricity and 35% of it's energy.

BTW, if you read the comments about the cited article on the SciAm site, comment #54, 57 and 59 (and probably others) all deal directly with the environmental costs of solar power.

Maby we can use the ash from coal fired plants to fuel our reactors http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste

...the equipment used for solar power electricity generation isn't all sustainably-harvested wood gathered by Amazon forest natives at a liveable wage. There's some severe heavy metal usage in most electrical power generation, regardless of source, and heavy metals aren't going to decay into harmless elements.

Engineers are also investigating how to us molten salt itself as the heat-transfer fluid, reducing heat losses as well as capital costs. Salt is corrosive, however, so more resilient piping systems are needed.

Yes, hot salty, um, fluid is real solution to the world's energy problems. There is an excellent article in Scientific American about it in the latest issue.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-solar-grand-plan

Unfortunately, it will take massive investments to make this stuff really viable. Fortunately, some European governments are stepping up with real money. Unfortunately, America hasn't for about a decade.

Most probably the population of Earth will be greatly reduced due to the shortage of energy.

I concur. But, the problem isn't just energy. Thinking of peak oil? What about peak metals Copper is already getting pretty thin. Not only that, the copper for our today's use has to be 99.95% pure. Zinc is on the list, too. The estimate is that there is 26% of Earth's copper bound in non-recyclable state (ie. landfills) and about 19% for zinc. Some estimates mention total depletion in 100yrs.

I guess we're living in the oil age between two stone ages. What's worse, humans are the first and last chance for highly intelligent and technologically advanced species. Think about it - our development effectively started when our ancestors started getting metals out of the Earth's crust. What is next intelligent species (or our human successors) going to use to transit themselves into the next iron/bronze/golden age? Nothing. If we fail to transform into successful space dwelling species while there is enough energy to escape the gravity well we're a failure because in that case we're designated for extinction. I guess this guy said it best.

We're still going to need baseload power production until a cheaper method of storing power can be found.

Check out the recent Scientific American article, which talks about storing power as compressed air in underground caverns: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-solar-grand-plan

Maybe because their politics at CCC in Indonesia[1] is dooming us all.

[1]not the other one

A Robert Epstein was fooled for over two months into an online relationship with a chatbot. The interesting thing here is that Robert Epstein is actually an expert himself on this technology

Link? Closest I could find is this http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-truth-about-online-da written by Dr. Epstein. But that has nothing to do with being fooled by a chatbot. It would be quite shocking if he was fooled seeing as he is a psychologist and he designs AI tests.

This is nothing new. AI researchers were fooled into thinking Eliza was the first psychotherapist who really understood them.

Whether this article is correct or just made up it's impossible to trust it based on the magazine's credibility. Check out the latest Scientfic American: a story on Big Foot with the tagline "Sasquatch is just a legend, right? According to the evidence, maybe not..". Another winner is the dubious title "Are Aliens Among Us?"
Looking at their advertisers (paper version), its easy to question the publisher's character. Full pages ads that sell 'valuable collector coins' and these wacky types of stories are the type of thing I expect from the National Enquirer type tabloids not a trustworthy source of science news.

Scientific American ran some articles last year on child prodigies and expert minds (eg, Expert Mind). The general idea was that child prodigies are not necessarily ``smarter'' than their peers. Instead, they are so passionate about a particular task that they practice significantly more than their peers. That is, hard work accounts for a lot. Being slightly gifted at some task and doing well can be more encouraging than failing, but that just gets the ball rolling. For example, Tiger Woods played hours of golf--he would practically beg his parents to take him out to play.

People aren't born knowing chess openings or golf swings. Helping children find activities that really interest them can be hugely rewarding-- not because they should become child prodigies, but because then the process itself is satisfying, too.

Slashdot recently covered the fact that the first new applications in 30 years for nuclear power plants were recently made in New Jersey. I expect to see more articles written whose purpose is to minimize the risks associated with nuclear power generation and to emphasize its benefits. Anyways, that my little conspiracy theory :>.

Disclaimer: I am in favor of nuclear power.

An article with a little history of the idea, discussion of cooling (you need lots of water and/or a chiller outside the box to get rid of heat) and such:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=B1027B68-E7F2-99DF-352186A04761EB7F&page=1

Really! Snake Oil Salesmen Were on to Something

Yes, we have so many roadblocks in place to stop new nuclear power plants from becoming a reality like a $500 million dollar insurance subsidy to anyone willing to build new plants with $250 Million per year for five years after, and credits for nuclear energy production...

I hope someone does something to stop them and their overhyped fears of nuclear materials, so we can start making new nuclear weapons. Everybody knows we have solved any technical issues with dangerous nuclear power production!

Calories is a stupid measure. How about protein/acre?

Calories is a stupid measure, yes. While protein/acre would be better it still leaves out vitamins and minerals. However whereas modern conventional western agriculture depends on a monoculture organic farming as well as permaculture best uses a mix of plants or produce. Instead of growing just say corn, strawberries can be grown on the same land. And/or squash. In temperate zones where citrus will grow, underneath the orange trees other fruits and veggies can be grown. The same with other fruit trees. Using companion planting one crops' pest can be repelled by other plants. For instance marigolds repels aphids which feed on other plants. Or plants that attract Coccinellidae, or ladybugs can be used, aphids are natural prey of ladybugs. At the same tyme ladybugs control pests they also pollinate the crop.

We can play the "point to studies game" if you want. Here's a British study from 2007.

I noted the last paragraph has this to say, with no rebuttal:

Patrick Holden of the Soil Association, which promotes organic farming, said "business as usual" intensive farming would not be possible in future because of the fossil fuel costs and the greenhouse gas emissions associated with nitrogen fertilisers. Organic farming could equal and sometimes even exceed the yields of chemical intensive farming systems. "The challenge that global agriculture confronts today is to research and develop these systems, because we are on the threshold of a post-fossil fuel era."

Scientific American

Organic or Conventional? For Wheat, It Might Not Matter
...Although some organic crops have proved more nourishing than their conventional counterparts, wheat--one of the world's biggest cereal crops--shows no difference, according to the results of a new study.

Organic Farming Generates Longer-Lived Plants
When Mary was asked How does your garden grow, she didn't compare the relative merits of conventional versus organic farming. But results published online this week by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences suggest that her silver bells and cockleshells could have lived longer and better under sustainable agriculture techniques.

Organic Farms More Fertile, Study Finds
Organic farms are more efficient than their conventional cousins and leave soils far healthier, researchers report today in the journal Science. In a long-term study comparing productivity, environmental health, biodiversity and energy consumption of organic cultivation to conventional methods, Paul Mder of the Research Institute of Organic Agriculture in Switzerland and his colleagues discovered that the organic approach used significantly less energy to produce the same quantity of crop. Although organic farms typically produce lower overall yields than common plots do, their ecological benefits are greater--a larger number of pest-eating creatures and other advantageous organisms live in soil farmed organically, and decomposition occurs more efficiently on these lands, releasing much needed nutrients into the soil.

Analysis Finds Greater Profits from Organic Farming
Doing the right thing can be profitable after allat least when it comes to g

Calories is a stupid measure. How about protein/acre?

Calories is a stupid measure, yes. While protein/acre would be better it still leaves out vitamins and minerals. However whereas modern conventional western agriculture depends on a monoculture organic farming as well as permaculture best uses a mix of plants or produce. Instead of growing just say corn, strawberries can be grown on the same land. And/or squash. In temperate zones where citrus will grow, underneath the orange trees other fruits and veggies can be grown. The same with other fruit trees. Using companion planting one crops' pest can be repelled by other plants. For instance marigolds repels aphids which feed on other plants. Or plants that attract Coccinellidae, or ladybugs can be used, aphids are natural prey of ladybugs. At the same tyme ladybugs control pests they also pollinate the crop.

We can play the "point to studies game" if you want. Here's a British study from 2007.

I noted the last paragraph has this to say, with no rebuttal:

Patrick Holden of the Soil Association, which promotes organic farming, said "business as usual" intensive farming would not be possible in future because of the fossil fuel costs and the greenhouse gas emissions associated with nitrogen fertilisers. Organic farming could equal and sometimes even exceed the yields of chemical intensive farming systems. "The challenge that global agriculture confronts today is to research and develop these systems, because we are on the threshold of a post-fossil fuel era."

Scientific American

Organic or Conventional? For Wheat, It Might Not Matter
...Although some organic crops have proved more nourishing than their conventional counterparts, wheat--one of the world's biggest cereal crops--shows no difference, according to the results of a new study.

Organic Farming Generates Longer-Lived Plants
When Mary was asked How does your garden grow, she didn't compare the relative merits of conventional versus organic farming. But results published online this week by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences suggest that her silver bells and cockleshells could have lived longer and better under sustainable agriculture techniques.

Organic Farms More Fertile, Study Finds
Organic farms are more efficient than their conventional cousins and leave soils far healthier, researchers report today in the journal Science. In a long-term study comparing productivity, environmental health, biodiversity and energy consumption of organic cultivation to conventional methods, Paul Mder of the Research Institute of Organic Agriculture in Switzerland and his colleagues discovered that the organic approach used significantly less energy to produce the same quantity of crop. Although organic farms typically produce lower overall yields than common plots do, their ecological benefits are greater--a larger number of pest-eating creatures and other advantageous organisms live in soil farmed organically, and decomposition occurs more efficiently on these lands, releasing much needed nutrients into the soil.

Analysis Finds Greater Profits from Organic Farming
Doing the right thing can be profitable after allat least when it comes to g

Calories is a stupid measure. How about protein/acre?

Calories is a stupid measure, yes. While protein/acre would be better it still leaves out vitamins and minerals. However whereas modern conventional western agriculture depends on a monoculture organic farming as well as permaculture best uses a mix of plants or produce. Instead of growing just say corn, strawberries can be grown on the same land. And/or squash. In temperate zones where citrus will grow, underneath the orange trees other fruits and veggies can be grown. The same with other fruit trees. Using companion planting one crops' pest can be repelled by other plants. For instance marigolds repels aphids which feed on other plants. Or plants that attract Coccinellidae, or ladybugs can be used, aphids are natural prey of ladybugs. At the same tyme ladybugs control pests they also pollinate the crop.

We can play the "point to studies game" if you want. Here's a British study from 2007.

I noted the last paragraph has this to say, with no rebuttal:

Patrick Holden of the Soil Association, which promotes organic farming, said "business as usual" intensive farming would not be possible in future because of the fossil fuel costs and the greenhouse gas emissions associated with nitrogen fertilisers. Organic farming could equal and sometimes even exceed the yields of chemical intensive farming systems. "The challenge that global agriculture confronts today is to research and develop these systems, because we are on the threshold of a post-fossil fuel era."

Scientific American

Organic or Conventional? For Wheat, It Might Not Matter
...Although some organic crops have proved more nourishing than their conventional counterparts, wheat--one of the world's biggest cereal crops--shows no difference, according to the results of a new study.

Organic Farming Generates Longer-Lived Plants
When Mary was asked How does your garden grow, she didn't compare the relative merits of conventional versus organic farming. But results published online this week by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences suggest that her silver bells and cockleshells could have lived longer and better under sustainable agriculture techniques.

Organic Farms More Fertile, Study Finds
Organic farms are more efficient than their conventional cousins and leave soils far healthier, researchers report today in the journal Science. In a long-term study comparing productivity, environmental health, biodiversity and energy consumption of organic cultivation to conventional methods, Paul Mder of the Research Institute of Organic Agriculture in Switzerland and his colleagues discovered that the organic approach used significantly less energy to produce the same quantity of crop. Although organic farms typically produce lower overall yields than common plots do, their ecological benefits are greater--a larger number of pest-eating creatures and other advantageous organisms live in soil farmed organically, and decomposition occurs more efficiently on these lands, releasing much needed nutrients into the soil.

Analysis Finds Greater Profits from Organic Farming
Doing the right thing can be profitable after allat least when it comes to g

Calories is a stupid measure. How about protein/acre?

Calories is a stupid measure, yes. While protein/acre would be better it still leaves out vitamins and minerals. However whereas modern conventional western agriculture depends on a monoculture organic farming as well as permaculture best uses a mix of plants or produce. Instead of growing just say corn, strawberries can be grown on the same land. And/or squash. In temperate zones where citrus will grow, underneath the orange trees other fruits and veggies can be grown. The same with other fruit trees. Using companion planting one crops' pest can be repelled by other plants. For instance marigolds repels aphids which feed on other plants. Or plants that attract Coccinellidae, or ladybugs can be used, aphids are natural prey of ladybugs. At the same tyme ladybugs control pests they also pollinate the crop.

We can play the "point to studies game" if you want. Here's a British study from 2007.

I noted the last paragraph has this to say, with no rebuttal:

Patrick Holden of the Soil Association, which promotes organic farming, said "business as usual" intensive farming would not be possible in future because of the fossil fuel costs and the greenhouse gas emissions associated with nitrogen fertilisers. Organic farming could equal and sometimes even exceed the yields of chemical intensive farming systems. "The challenge that global agriculture confronts today is to research and develop these systems, because we are on the threshold of a post-fossil fuel era."

Scientific American

Organic or Conventional? For Wheat, It Might Not Matter
...Although some organic crops have proved more nourishing than their conventional counterparts, wheat--one of the world's biggest cereal crops--shows no difference, according to the results of a new study.

Organic Farming Generates Longer-Lived Plants
When Mary was asked How does your garden grow, she didn't compare the relative merits of conventional versus organic farming. But results published online this week by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences suggest that her silver bells and cockleshells could have lived longer and better under sustainable agriculture techniques.

Organic Farms More Fertile, Study Finds
Organic farms are more efficient than their conventional cousins and leave soils far healthier, researchers report today in the journal Science. In a long-term study comparing productivity, environmental health, biodiversity and energy consumption of organic cultivation to conventional methods, Paul Mder of the Research Institute of Organic Agriculture in Switzerland and his colleagues discovered that the organic approach used significantly less energy to produce the same quantity of crop. Although organic farms typically produce lower overall yields than common plots do, their ecological benefits are greater--a larger number of pest-eating creatures and other advantageous organisms live in soil farmed organically, and decomposition occurs more efficiently on these lands, releasing much needed nutrients into the soil.

Analysis Finds Greater Profits from Organic Farming
Doing the right thing can be profitable after allat least when it comes to g

Actually, many people have called Jupiter a failed star.

Not only a Radiohead fans are irrational and unpredictable using game theory. It turns out even game theory professors are.

it's web 3.0, actually:
http://www.sciam.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=00048144-10D2-1C70-84A9809EC588EF21 [sciam.com]
http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/12614/01/Semantic_Web_Revisted.pdf [soton.ac.uk]

it's web 3.0, actually:
http://www.sciam.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=00048144-10D2-1C70-84A9809EC588EF21
http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/12614/01/Semantic_Web_Revisted.pdf

Careful with those absolutes. At a base level, the baby is forming a neural pattern that identifies to the physical ball, yes, but what are those formed _from_? The patterns are formed from the physical sensory input and the emotional visceral input. We have a fairly good idea what the baby is seeing (or from the perspective of reading the adult's mind, what the adult saw as a baby) when he looks at the ball. We have a potentially huge database of information as to what other individuals comprehended the ball as, and if it's a big issue we can observe a baby in controlled conditions looking at a ball for the first time.

There was an interesting article in July in Scientific American. Researchers took mice and subjected them to startling events, and compared the patterns. They had very interesting results, I strongly recommend the article.
Although the idea that memories and perception might be represented by neural populations is not new, we think we have the first experimental data that reveal how such information is actually organized within the neural population. The brain relies on memory-coding cliques to record and extract different features of the same event, and it essentially arranges the information relating to a given event into a pyramid whose levels are arranged hierarchically, from the most general, abstract features to the most specific aspects. ... Our work with mice also yielded a way for us to compare patterns from one brain to another--and even to pass information from a brain to a computer. Using a mathematical treatment called matrix inversion, we were able to translate the activities of neural clique assemblies into a string of binary code, where 1 represents an active state and 0 represents an inactive state for each coding unit within a given assembly we examined. For example, the memory of an earthquake might be recorded as "11001," where the first 1 represents activation of the general startle clique, the second 1 represents activation of the clique that responds to a motion disturbance, the first 0 indicates lack of activity in the air-puff clique, the second 0 indicates lack of activity in the elevator-drop clique and the final 1 shows activation of the earthquake clique. We have applied a similar binary code to the neural ensemble activity from four different mice and were able to predict, with up to 99 percent accuracy, which event they had experienced and where it had happened. In other words, by scanning the binary code we could read and compare the animals' minds mathematically.

Check out this http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=1&articleID=000EABE4-BDFF-14E5-BDFF83414B7F0000 Scientific American article from over a year ago! I Guess it was many fewer years.

I think its interesting to note how biofuel crops compete with food production. Most of the feritile land in the world is already being used for food. In the long run, I don't see how biofules can produce enough fuel without starving us to death unless they can convert the food crop by-products into fuel (french fry grease). Jatropha can grow in a lot of places other plants cannot, so it may be one of the best biofules, but biofuel in general may not be such a great idea. Plants only get 1-3% effeciency in converting sunlight into energy, while solar arrays can get >40%. Obviously, solar arrays are much more expensive than plant seeds, so biofules may be worth it for poor countries, but there are a lot of clean alternatives to biofuel that won't starve us to death. Scientific American ran a similar article back in July. http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&articleID=71EF7817-E7F2-99DF-3BD5B4BB0F2B9FBE&pageNumber=1&catID=2&colId=5

This statement is meant for no other reason than to give weight to the claims, not discuss the issues intelligently.

Even if true, "most scientists" once thought we would see an ice age within 50 years of the 1970's.

The supporting data I am referring to are credible (by any definition that does not automatically assume an ESP report is intristically not credible) eyewitness accounts.

The problem is, eyewitness accounts aren't very credible, as the "gorilla experiment" dramatically showed.

in my mind the results won't be in until we are able to reverse engineer the brain.

No, that's completely backwards. You build a theory from observations; you don't decide which observations are credible based on your theory ("reverse engineering" the brain is producing a theory).

To correct/clarify my previous statement:
The religious persuasion of the litigant being discussed here is not stated, to the best of my knowledge. In a different case, however, the litigant is a Muslim creationist. In short, I doubt your "99.99% of the time" claim. There are all sorts of reality-challenged individuals out there.

To correct/clarify my previous statement:
The religious persuasion of the litigant being discussed here is not stated, to the best of my knowledge. In a different case, however, the litigant is a Muslim creationist. In short, I doubt your "99.99% of the time" claim. There are all sorts of reality-challenged individuals out there.

This Pivar guy is just a businessman who wanted to cash in with an expensive book that has little science in it. The fact that he gave a scientist a book of his to review and then gets upset because of the review says a lot about him. Did he honestly have enough confidence in his writing and "doodles" that he thought he'd obtain a good review from a scientist of all people? He's either a huge narcissist or incredibly stupid. Pivar is a "wealthy businessman" according to Bad Astronomy Blog's post. Coincidence?

His claim to fame is that he is a close friend of Steven Jay Gould. http://blog.sciam.com/index.php?title=pz_myers_sci enceblogs_com_s_lead_blogger&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1 (see that second point in the lawsuit)

Wow! Hey, if I got to know Stephen Hawking well enough, do you think I could write a book on how theoretical physicists got it wrong? Too bad Steven Jay Gould isn't around to further comment on the issue. How brilliantly convenient for Pivar.

He's like the Uwe Boll of evolutionary biology. Whether that's as bad or worse than fundamentalist Christian whackjobs is up to the individual. Ultimately, this book's proper place is the science-fiction section.

The arguments that creationists use are typically specious and based on misunderstandings of (or outright lies about) evolution, but the number and diversity of the objections can put even well-informed people at a disadvantage.

To help with answering them, the following list rebuts some of the most common "scientific" arguments raised against evolution. It also directs readers to further sources for information and explains why creation science has no place in the classroom.

Oops.

Link to the SciAm piece.

Emphasis mine.

Sounds a little like this guy's been buying into "Intelligent" design a little too much...

The point is that self-assembly of the kind of biochemistry we run off (RNA/DNA transcription) has a ridiculously low chance of happening "randomly" in a primordial soup. We need to find some better environment or an intermediate process that can happen more easily to have a reasonable explanation for the origin of life from non-living compounds. We have some possible solutions to it, though - for instance, James Ferris' work on the way the mineral montmorillonite can assemble RNA (and we even get "membranes" for free), or Graham Cairns-Smith's Clay Hypothesis, which is based on clay crystals reproducing and being subjected to natural selection, and over time pulling along organic compounds that increase reproduction, and then at the end the organic compounds "taking off by themselves". There has been experiments that at least show that RNA could be plausibly involved in this.

Nobody knows which theory is right; several seems fairly plausible, and none of them have been accepted as shown-to-be-true yet. And it may never be: Our end result could be that life can originate in many different ways, so we won't be able to show which one in particular caused life. This would, to me, be a very satisfying result - as it would show there is almost certainly life elsewhere.

Eivind.

i think i remember reading somewhere that chemical derivatives of triclosan are endocrine mimics. which means they mess with things like amphibian reproduction (amphibians are on the decline around the world). triclosan is found in 60 percent of American stream and rivers now

and you can even find triclosan in breast milk now too: it gets in our food via fertilizer. hey, when you flush it down the drain, it has to go somewhere. sometimes it comes back to you

now normally, a slight level of this chemical or that chemical is no big deal. for example, chloroform and dioxin are chemical byproducts of triclosan reacting with chlorinated water. but that doesn't matter, as the levels of those scary sounding chemicals are the same as normal background readings, meaning hysterically mentioning them has no real scientific basis for alarm (but is effective propaganda for the scientifically uninitiated)

but endocrine mimics are different, as the slightest of levels really can have an effect on biological processes. but i guess that's ok, because between all of the birth control, propecia, viagra, and xanax we're also pissing and flushing into our waterways, yes, our animals and children will all be hermaphrodites, but they will have a full head of hair, a hard on, and be strangely blissful about it all

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa029&arti cleID=024FEAE8-E7F2-99DF-323D8E02C4E48BF6&pageNumb er=1&catID=9

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

We have to part company on your analysis that there are a ton of good options for Origin of Life research: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanId=sa003&arti cleId=B7AABF35-E7F2-99DF-309B8CEF02B5C4D7

Materialism is true, therefore there must be a materialistic answer to these problems. That is faith-based optimism.

"So far, the researchers have achieved power densities of 1.5 kilowatts per kilogram in the supercapacitor version and tested it over 100 cycles of discharge and recharge, well short of the million or so typical for current commercial capacitors."

source

So far, the researchers have achieved power densities of 1.5 kilowatts per kilogram in the supercapacitor version and tested it over 100 cycles of discharge and recharge, well short of the million or so typical for current commercial capacitors. They have only made one-inch square versions of the paper, but the unique composite structure already reduces the complexity of creating such devices as well as battery-capacitor hybrids--and it has been used to light up a tiny red light-emitting diode, among other devices.

From this Scientific American article:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&arti cleID=61525146-E7F2-99DF-368134A7014B95DE&ref=rss

This means that, with the 0.5C global warming of the past few decades, the Earth's average temperature is just now passing through the peak Holocene temperature level. Furthermore, the current planetary energy imbalance of about 34 W/m2 implies that global warming already "in the pipeline", about another 0.5C, will take us about halfway to the global temperature that existed at the peak of the Eemian period.
http://www.sciam.com/media/pdf/hansen.pdf

Radiation is not just photons. There is a good point here. While there are very few nuclear reactions going on on the surface of the Sun, mainly spalations from accelerated protons, there are accelerated protons from the corona (the same) that impinge on the Earth's magnetosphere and are deflected. It is the Sun's magnetic field, rather than escaping fusion products, that are responsible for the high energy particle flux.

There are also possible photon-magnetic field interactions though with a low coupling: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=&articleID =0006BA85-FC58-1492-BAAC83414B7F0000.
--
Get fusion on your roof:http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot- users-selling-solar.html

"Many of us have already abandoned this simple scheme" of habilis begetting erectus, says paleoanthropologist Philip Rightmire of Binghamton University in New York State and Harvard University, who was not involved in the study. "For me, it seems increasingly reasonable to suppose that a habilislike creature managed to disperse from Africa into Eurasia, sometime prior to 1.8 [million] to 1.7 [million years ago]."

As ajs pointed out, the hypothesis is concerned with much smaller extinction events than the large ones you listed.

However there is at least one supportable theory for several of the larger ones: Death by hydrogen sulfide eruptions. Briefly, global warming leads to ocean anoxia and the spread H2S-spewing bacteria; death of aerobic ocean life accelerates the bacteria growth in a positive feedback until H2S concentrations also begin to spew from the oceans and kill life on land.

Wow, SciAm is backing me up left and right today. Here's an article that corroborates my views on leadership.

FYI, SciAm has an interesting article explaining the economic research I was talking about.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&arti cleID=B1027B68-E7F2-99DF-352186A04761EB7F&ref=rss You can form a cube and save space...