Slashdot Mirror

Solar cells are potentially made from carbon :
graphene - http://www.alternative-energy-news.info/carbon-based-solar-cells/
or carbon nanotubes - http://www.bitsofscience.org/solar-cell-carbon-nano-energy-3418/
http://inhabitat.com/carbon-nanotubes-could-create-better-solar-cells/

The other technologies like wind turbines and those steaming solutions are just alternative green solutions to solar cells that are often cheaper. When the solar cells are going to continue to get cheaper like they are and no new alternative pops out, then they will probably be the prefferable choice of green energy.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jun/20/solar-panel-price-drop
Their co-existence with new ways of storing electricity would make them even more practical.
New cheaper ways for making hydrogen:
http://www.gizmag.com/fukai-hydrogen-extraction-process/16674/
or carbon based supercapacitors?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110512150731.htm
My point is, that there are actually new advancements in every horizon, which make this article a bit outdated.

Actually the roads and landing fields might be one of the easier projects.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080924191552.htm

Taylor has designed a magnetic filter to pull dust from the air, as well as a âoedust suckerâ that uses magnets in place of a vacuum. He has also discovered that microwaves melt lunar soil in less time than it takes to boil a cup of tea. He envisions a vehicle that could microwave lunar surfaces into roads and landing pads as it drives, and a device to melt soil over lunar modules to provide insulation against space radiation. The heating process can also produce oxygen for breathing.

Though any mining machinery will need to be completely redesigned for use on the moon. In some ways I'm sure it is easier to mine on the moon vs earth, but in almost every other way it is going to be harder and we will have to approach it from a completely different direction.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080924191552.htm

The trouble with moon dust stems from the strange properties of lunar soil. The powdery grey dirt is formed by micrometeorite impacts which pulverize local rocks into fine particles. The energy from these collisions melts the dirt into vapor that cools and condenses on soil particles, coating them in a glassy shell.

These particles can wreak havoc on space suits and other equipment. During the Apollo 17 mission, for example, crewmembers Harrison âoeJackâ Schmitt and Gene Cernan had trouble moving their arms during moonwalks because dust had gummed up the joints. âoeThe dust was so abrasive that it actually wore through three layers of Kevlar-like material on Jackâ(TM)s boot,â Taylor says.

To make matters worse, lunar dust suffers from a terrible case of static cling. UV rays drive electrons out of lunar dust by day, while the solar wind bombards it with electrons by night. Cleaning the resulting charged particles with wet-wipes only makes them cling harder to camera lenses and helmet visors. Mian Abbas of the National Space Science and Technology Center in Huntsville, Alabama, will discuss electrostatic charging on the moon and how dust circulates in lunar skies.

Luckily, lunar dust is also susceptible to magnets. Tiny specks of metallic iron (Fe0) are embedded in each dust particleâ(TM)s glassy shell. Taylor has designed a magnetic filter to pull dust from the air, as well as a âoedust suckerâ that uses magnets in place of a vacuum. He has also discovered that microwaves melt lunar soil in less time than it takes to boil a cup of tea. He envisions a vehicle that could microwave lunar surfaces into roads and landing pads as it drives, and a device to melt soil over lunar modules to provide insulation against space radiation. The heating process can also produce oxygen for breathing.

But officer I just paid for something with cash.

So your argument about doing anything that could even slightly inconvenience your life is.... you simply can't/don't want to believe it. It hurts to realise we [i.e., anyone with enough money to afford a laptop and internet connection] may be incrementally reducing/removing the quality of life for our descendants.

Read about possible (geological timescale) massive positive feedbacks http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/11/111109111542.htm and see if it's still stretching credibility.

Appeal to authority works in the other direction too, you know. Especially when the source in question was just reporting on the release as published by NASA.

Yeah, whatever. NASA's just part of the leftist lamestream media, amirite?

This study is interesting but highly incomplete. I won't cut HFCS out of my diet based on this alone.

The paper states that "Overall, we found detectable mercury in 17 of 55 samples, or around 31 percent" which doesn't mean anything without a quantity. There is some amount of mercury in the atmosphere so without a number the finding is meaningless.

This also doesn't relate to China at all, because the plants listed in the article are located in "Georgia, Tennessee, Ohio and West Virginia." I think HFCS is produced in the US because the US produces lots of corn.

Actually, you are still ignorant, and perhaps not yet mature.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110510101621.htm

Also... (google and choose the cache if the pdf doesn't come up)
http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/criminal_justice_section_newsletter/crimjust_juvjus_Adolescence.pdf

âoe[They] frequently know the difference between right andwrong and are competent to stand trial. Because of their impair-ments, however, by definition they have diminished capacities to understand and process mistakes and learn from experience, toengage in logical reasoning, to control impulses, and to understandthe reactions of othersâ¦. Their deficiencies do not warrant anexemption from criminal sanctions, but they do diminish their per-sonal culpability.âAtkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 318,122 S.Ct. 2242, 2250 (2002)

âoeThe evidence now is strong that the brain does not cease to mature until the early 20s in those relevant parts that govern impulsivity, judgment, planning for the future, foresight of con-sequences, and other characteristics that make people morallyculpableâ¦. Indeed, age 21 or 22 would be closer to the âbiolog-icalâ(TM) age of maturity.â10

---
The brain continues to develop. Major parts of the brain which manage impulse control and logical thinking do not fully develop until later.

Would matter not be created at the flash point due to the amount of energy they're concentrating? http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1997/09/970918045841.htm

In any case, the fact that the poor are especially vulnerable to the ravages of climate change has been well documented:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090820082101.htm

http://www.economist.com/node/14447171

Also see the IPCC report.

That does not mean that first world countries will be unaffected - this is a strawman on your part, and simultaneously an unspoken assumption on the part of the denialist groupthink.

Worried about these GMO crops cross-pollinating regular crops? The researchers referred to a study indicating 'a very low frequency (0.04-0.80%) of pollen-mediated gene flow between genetically modified (GM) rice and adjacent non-GM plants.'

Hmmm. You may find the following news story and its associated paper interesting:
'Escaped' Genetically Engineered Canola Growing Outside of Established Cultivation Regions Across North Dakota


The Establishment of Genetically Engineered Canola Populations in the U.S.

Congratulations: you just outlawed HID headlamps, HID street lamps, projector HID lamps, fluorescent lighting, and incandescent lighting all in one fell swoop -

No, such lights could also carry an ID pulse, though at a slower data rate.

and you have just broken optical communications technology.

No, the protocol I've suggested specifically allows for optical communication. LEDs and laser diode lights will be increasingly used for communication and area lighting. I'm suggesting that such a protcol should contain a GUID (as WiFi, CDMA already do) and synchronized dark intervals.

You just outlawed laser light shows, and also pointers used by astronomers at meets and classes.

I've never understood why these should be exempt from sensible lighting rules. Does it really matter whether your plane is brought down by a Pink Floyd concert, an 'astronomer' pointing out Alberio or man-child with a laser pointer?

Shortsighted numbskull who if a politician would cause more problems than they solved.

When someone is eventually killed or injured by abuse of these devices, lawmakers will respond with far more draconian rules. To assume otherwise is shortsighted. The U.S. is a knee-jerk "somebody do something" society and much of the world follows the U.S. in these matters. I would also like to keep these devices legal but I think the best way to do this is some sort of science based pre-emptive legislation along with technology which allows us to identify those who use these devices in a manner which may bring harm to others.

Scuba diving, model rocketry, ameteur radio and many other hobbies have managed to avoid excessive regulation by devising their own training and regulations. I suggest that we do something similar for lasers and other potentially dangerous portable light sources. My initial proposal should not be taken as the final but I think it should be a starting point for discussion. (e.g. I'd be willing to use a tactical nuke instead of a Tsar bomb)

I don't need a ;-) do I?

Very cool stuff, but... How is this useful information for those of us who aren't chemical engineers?

I'm still waiting for quantum processors and biological hard drives to hit the market.

From http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/rfa-files/RFA-AI-01-005.html

The precise reasons for the sex-based differences seen in immune responses are unclear. The increased incidence of many autoimmune diseases after puberty, as well as the effect of pregnancy on the course of disease, suggest a role for sex hormones in these illnesses.

As a trans person, I find this intriguing. My brain, supposedly, is the same as a female's (sounds like a plausible theory, and it'll have to remain a plausible theory until I become independently wealthy enough to order an MRI and PET scan just for the lulz). My hormonal balance is the same as a female's because of my meds (I used to be able to tell you even what part of the menstrual cycle, but I don't care anymore, it's the one without the bitchyness, just because why try to be something I never can be because of stupid biology and you did NOT want to be around me when I was cycling and it was that time). My level of testosterone is below the normal female level. Immune system? Well, give this a read which seems to indicate that immune system differences are based on hormone levels: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090511180740.htm

There are some differences between male and female that are entirely genetic. For example, about half of females (don't remember where I read that) are pseudo-tetrachromats because one copy of X encodes for a different frequency of light to be absorbed by the green cone than the other copy of X. Everyone else writes stories about a guy who turns into a girl somehow and it's a wild sex adventure, and I want to write a story about a guy who turns into a girl and suddenly sees a new dimension of color he hadn't been able to perceive with a boy's genetics.

Now, here's the thing. Your chest is the same as a female's chest, but it hasn't been exposed to a sufficient estrogen level at the correct age range.

The way I see it, GP is basically correct although you get a cigar for correctly guessing that there may be some differences somehow.

I used to have bad allergies when I used to have to suffer through the level of testosterone my body produces naturally, not to mention bad headaches all the time. My parents figured I was possessed by a demon or just lazy and faking the headaches, but my doctor had a better idea. I got some meds and magically both problems went away. I really didn't expect estrogen would make my allergies go away.

LED's? you mean those things which are made with lead and arsenic?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/02/110210124136.htm

We're today excavating Norse settlements that have been under ice for several hundred years. Do you research topics you post about at all?

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/08/science/story-of-viking-colonies-icy-pompeii-unfolds-from-ancient-greenland-farm.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110620095238.htm

Google it.

http://classic.the-scientist.com/article/display/57169/ http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101130111326.htm

This means people somehow traveled via boats,

Currently theories assume there was a land bridge.

My point is, as technology advances I have no doubt it will be possible to travel between planets.

No doubt about that, but then you are just sitting on Mars or whatever where you have no air to breath, no water to drink and no soil to grow plants in. As said, the problem isn't the journey, that's the easy part, the hard part is staying there and staying alive. If the way to stay alive is by regular supply from earth then it's just a giant waste of time and money. Building a self sustaining habitat might certainly not be impossible, but that is essentially one step harder then solving all of Earth energy and resource problems and so far we haven't even figured out that.

This could be very interesting for HIV. There seems to be a genetic link between HIV resistance and the plague. A study of the Black Death's DNA from way back could perhaps shed more light on this phenomenon and how we can use it for potential gene therapy. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050325234239.htm http://qjmed.oxfordjournals.org/content/99/8/497.full

Especially since a recent study indicates that drug sniffing dogs are susceptible to the Clever Hans problem.

With new technology that isn't even on the horizon yet (at least not publicly), it may become practical.

Have you considered that the only reason you don't know about it is because you really aren't that interested in technology?
Since backwards asshats like you only can accept liquid fuel it appears that Vanadium redox batteries with replaceable electrolyte is the way to go.

I don't know if you are serious or joking here, but you could definitely stand to take this course. You seem to be under a lot of misconceptions about what quantum computing can do.

Quantum, or more specifically quantum mechanics will be the next Major human revolution.

Quantum mechanics is used all the time by lots of devices you use. Small transistors work because of quantum mechanics. Lasers work off of lots of quantum mechanics. LEDs work off of quantum mechanics. Etc. Etc. There's nothing new about using quantum mechanics.

and Quantum Transceivers to that all those Optical SFPs in your switches and routers won't need cables anymore

This and almost every other application you mention is complete nonsense. Quantum mechanics does not allow you to transmit information in special ways. Entanglement doesn't let you get away with that. (This is as far as we are aware, ignoring for now certain very interesting results from CERN that are likely to be incorrect and are still being checked over. Even if this is correct, it is unlikely to allow actual FTL or the like but rather be other interesting new physics. And calling that simply quantum mechanics would be misleading.)

You can do things with quantum computers that you can't do with conventional systems. What we mean by quantum computers are not computers that use quantum mechanics in general (since they all do that) but computers that can take advantage of entanglement. This allows certain processes to occur much faster than they can with a conventional computer. For example, operations with Fourier series become a lot easier, and it becomes much easier to find the period of a given function. This translates into being able to do certain classes of problems much faster.

For example, it seems that using something called Shore's algorithm ahref=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shor's_algorithmrel=url2html-18175http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shor's_algorithm> you can factor integers faster on a quantum computer than you can on a classical computer. This is a big deal, but even this requires a lot of caveats. First, we can't actually prove that this is better than the best classical factoring algorithms. In most interesting formulations of this claim, it depends on the assumption that factoring is not in P, a claim that is strictly stronger than the claim that P != NP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P_versus_NP_problem (it is possible that factoring lies in P but one gets a large speedup of like Klogn or something like that to the quantum system. This is possible, but fundamentally less interesting and less useful.)

There are other specific similar examples, and even a handful where we can prove that the quantum version is really better than any classical version. The most prominent such example is Grover's algorithm. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grover's_algorithm. This algorithm allows you to search unsorted databases much faster than you can in a conventional setting. That's a really useful but ultimately high restrictive use.

Now, in fairness to you there are some uses of entanglement and other interesting quantum phenomena which don't rely on quantum computing per se. So you may have been thinking of those. But those don't allow what you seem to think they can do either! The closest to anything like that is quantum encryption, which makes a system of encryption that is essentially unbreakable as long as our understanding of the laws of physics are correct. That's pretty cool but even that has its own limitations, and it turns out can in some specific circumstances be broken http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080508143107.htm. There are other interesting technologies out

Again, it's only a local phenomenon [...]

So, how exactly is glaciers melting around the world a local phenomen?

(Haruchai posting AC due to previous thread mod)

Samantha,
                                I wonder if you have any comment on a couple of articles related to plants and CO2 that I came across on ScienceDaily? One is that insects are more attracted to plants grown in high CO2 levels ( or that said plants have weaker defenses ) and the other is that CO2 lowers the water requirements for plants ( which sounds like a good thing but the brief article implies it may not be.
Thanks!

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080324173612.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070905083617.htm

(Haruchai posting AC due to previous thread mod)

Samantha,
                                I wonder if you have any comment on a couple of articles related to plants and CO2 that I came across on ScienceDaily? One is that insects are more attracted to plants grown in high CO2 levels ( or that said plants have weaker defenses ) and the other is that CO2 lowers the water requirements for plants ( which sounds like a good thing but the brief article implies it may not be.
Thanks!

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080324173612.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070905083617.htm

So, once again, you say you've just been making a point about topology this whole time? Let's see if that makes any sense...

90% of the cells in the human body are bacterial

Modern urban legend that isn't even vaguely true. Ask yourself - if you take a powerful wide-spectrum antibiotic, do you suddenly drop from your natural 400 pounds down to 40?

This doesn't seem like a point about topology. It seems like you jumped from "90% of the cells in the human body are bacterial" to "90% of the mass of the human body is bacterial." That's an incorrect assumption because bacterial cells are thousands of times smaller than human cells. For instance, each E. coli masses a femtogram, while each human cell masses a nanogram. Therefore, E. coli cells are ~1000x smaller than human cells, so they can outnumber our cells 10 to 1 while only making up ~1% of our mass.

Also, I can't help but notice that epine didn't say 90% of the cells in our blood or muscle are bacterial. He just said "90% of the cells in the human body are bacterial", which is entirely consistent with statements made in the peer-reviewed literature. You said this was a "modern urban legend that isn't even vaguely true".

Now, there really is a modern urban legend regarding biology involving a 10% statistic that "isn't even vaguely true": the notion that we only use 10% of our brains. That's evolutionarily absurd because the brain consumes a whopping 20% of the body's energy. If humans only used 10% of the brain, it would wither away like the appendix. In fact, we pay an even greater cost: the diameter of the female pelvis limits our skull size at birth, so human infants are helpless for much longer than other primates and mammals.

It's wrong to call both of these ideas "modern urban legends that aren't even vaguely true." There really are 10x as many bacterial cells than human cells in the human body. You just don't consider your large intestine to be part of your body, apparently.

by count you have more bacteria than cells read this.

Right, I've read that article before. Just because it's on the internet doesn't mean it's true. It doesn't say where all these bacteria are supposed to be living. You know - the ones that it claims outnumber us 10 to 1? It makes vague references to the gut and the skin, which might very well be true, but it's certainly not true for us, overall. When we actually have bacteria running around at those levels in our blood, it's called septicemia, and it kills you.

Yes, not everything on the internet is true. But that particular article matches statements made in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. So you're wrong to imply that it's just an urban legend.

And it most certainly is true for us "overall", defined as counting the total number of cells in the human body containing the human genome (~10^13) and counting the total number of cells in the human body without the human genome (~10^14). Also, I can't help but notice that the ScienceDaily article didn't say 90% of the cells in our blood or muscle are bacterial. It just said "The number of bacteria living within the body of the average healthy adult human are estimated to outnumber human cells 10 to 1", which is entirely consistent with statements made in the peer-reviewed literature.

It seems like you're trying to parse too much into it because you're letting yourself get hung up on an idea which is only in your head. By mass, yes, bacteria aren't dominant. By cell count (which I believe is what they're talking about)? Quite believable that th

>>by count you have more bacteria than cells read this : http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080603085914.htm

Right, I've read that article before. Just because it's on the internet doesn't mean it's true.

It doesn't say where all these bacteria are supposed to be living. You know - the ones that it claims outnumber us 10 to 1? It makes vague references to the gut and the skin, which might very well be true, but it's certainly not true for us, overall.

When we actually have bacteria running around at those levels in our blood, it's called septicemia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sepsis), and it kills you.

"No. It has to do with the FDA making absolutely positively sure that a treatment is safe,” And yet they appear to still get it wrong, as per a recent article in Science Daily http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110917082746.htm And plenty of other examples over the years, I think it has more to do with the very litigious society in the USA, than with anti-science.

by count you have more bacteria than cells read this : http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080603085914.htm
please cite your sources....

Quantum theory: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/02/980227055013.htm. But this is much more general.

I used it as a case example of extreme heat, extremely large areas of habitability and extreme biodiversity amongst the non-homo genus species :)

I'm more than happy to argue against any assertion that a warmer world may be good for humanity, but worse for life as a whole.

Of interesting note, the cooling which followed the Late Eocene was driven by ocean currents:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110526141406.htm

While hard to imagine Antarctica becoming a temperate paradise without a major change in incoming solar radiation (or additional "greenhouse" gases if one prefers), it seems that much of the change has to do with large conveyer belt currents.

Just from a heat capacity point of view, if we want to understand climate better, the atmosphere probably isn't nearly as important as the oceans.

You absolutely can build up a tolerance to a food allergy. There have been several studies in the last few years suggesting that small amounts of allergens can be used to build up a tolerance. Here are two examples:

Milk
Peanuts

Now I can see how my car does on the quarter mile

Since we're nowhere near having long-term colonization of the moon, and the summary actually acknowledges that this is a PR stunt why are getting this mentioned at all on Slashdot? This is ridiculous. There's no where near the tech level to easily put this sort of thing on the moon and there's no way the company will actually spend money to do this. Meanwhile all sorts of interesting science and technology developments are happening that aren't getting mentioned. For example, astronomers have discovered a star that doesn't fit with a lot of our theories of star formation http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110831155340.htm. Or Slashdot could have given us another update on the ISS's current situation. Heck, if you need something with minimal actual scientific content you could have linked to this amusing video by the ISS crew about the matter http://www.universetoday.com/88559/iss-crew-provides-light-hearted-look-at-current-space-flight-plight/. Or you could talk about the new website devoted to the exploration of Mars by the Spirit and Opportunity http://www.universetoday.com/88562/driving-miss-spirit/. Stop wasting our time.

Um... http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080219133226.htm "ScienceDaily (Feb. 20, 2008) — Purdue University engineers have developed a new aluminum-rich alloy that produces hydrogen by splitting water and is economically competitive with conventional fuels for transportation and power generation. "We now have an economically viable process for producing hydrogen on-demand for vehicles, electrical generating stations and other applications," said Jerry Woodall, a distinguished professor of electrical and computer engineering at Purdue who invented the process. The new alloy contains 95 percent aluminum and 5 percent of an alloy that is made of the metals gallium, indium and tin. Because the new alloy contains significantly less of the more expensive gallium than previous forms of the alloy, hydrogen can be produced less expensively, he said."

2 weeks ago this same source reported on research at the PNWNL that uses a Nickel catalyst for a 1000x improvement over the platinum catalyst process now used, for example, on the ISS.

Some interesting articles on the how and why NY and surounding areas are at risk.

Google earth rendering of the possible flooding (4.3m storm surge for a cat 2 hurricane)

The one thing that the media and this model does not take into account is the underground infrastructure factor which could extend the flooding (underground) up to 2 miles further from the edge of the on land storm surge (the model only shows above ground).

http://seaandskyny.com/2011/02/14/the-nyc-storm-surge-threat/

http://seaandskyny.com/2011/02/09/the-scientific-significance-of-the-only-hurricane-ever-to-directly-hit-nyc/

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080730175524.htm

Okay, you're being sarcastic, but it's all true. Also true is the fact that natural petroleum seeps have occurred in the Gulf of Mexico for almost as long as there has been a Gulf of Mexico, and bacteria specialized for metabolizing petroleum are ubiquitous there, and sometimes flourish at the sites where the petroleum is released, making a kind of underwater oasis in the deep sea.

If it's flowing out at spectacular rates comparable to the previous blowout, then it's a problem. If it's leaking out at some modest rate, it will be lost in the background of natural seeps and won't be much to worry about. That's assuming that it is from the Macondo well or the collapsed equipment on the bottom and not a natural seep from a similar subsurface source.

Sequencing of Tobacco is underway evidently. Funded in large part by Philip Morris.

I find it odd that tobacco and weed, two important cash crops no matter how you feel about their use, have not had their genomes sequenced yet, but the platypus has. I know that plant genomes are generally bigger, and platypi are very interesting, but, come on, priorities people.

Science Daily correctly summarizes the true meaning of this research: First Flaws in the Advanced Encryption Standard Used for Internet Banking Identified

We do know that it's melting, and the only explanation that has any evidence to support it is that it's due to excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Yeah, it couldn't have anything to do with the undersea volcanoes that were discovered under the Arctic in 2008. The only possible explanation is global warming as a result of man generated CO2 in the atmosphere. We should pass strict government regulation of all aspects of our lives in order to reduce the CO2 emmissions by enough to delay global warming by a decade in order to offset this problem.
The Arctic volcanoes may not be the main contributor to the melting of the polar ice, but it is false to say that the "only explanation that has any evidence to support it" is that it is due to global warming as a result of CO2 emmissions.

Screw ibtimes, worthless ad-walling craps.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110811113956.htm

Is somebody claiming that some of the cometary material is less than 1Ka (kilo-annum) old? I doubt that any of that material is younger than 3Ga, and probably older than 5Ga. Perhaps they mean that the material was mostly dislodged from the comet over 1000 years ago. Fine, but that's not the age of the material, which is generally taken to mean the age at which the material came to be in its present state (vs. location).

More science, please.

This is where I first read the story... a little bit more science but not much:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110811142806.htm

IIRC, certain viruses leave their signature on blank sections of our DNA. Here is something I looked up mid-comment. Given this, I have all confidence that this drug may someday backfire with disastrous results and, therefore, I hope this is priced so high that only the extremely wealthy can afford it >:)

e.g.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110427171638.htm

Unmotivated people are unlikely to screw around with their computers.
 

I'm not going make a statement one way or the other on fudged data. If his actions were clearly inappropriate there are plenty of scientific bodies whose only reason for existence is managing scientific professional integrity. If he has done something truly inappropriate, he will be dealt with.

What I will respond to is THE VAST body of work pointing to dramatic changes in global climate. I ask those with an ideological position to defend, to stop for just a moment look at the remarkable amount of indisputable evidence that is now available. Its positively mind numbing.

Your comment about temperature is both uninformed and ludicrous. Scientists have taken wood samples from redwoods and bristlecone pines and with that information they can give you precise climatic information for specific areas including annual rainfall, temperature, and occurrence of catastrophic events. By analyzing human dwelling all over the world we can accurately determine climate through fauna and flora for those regions, spores, seeds and pollen. They tell us precisely what grew, and tell what the climatic conditions were there and when. We have antarctic ice cores with trapped atmospheric samples, we have ocean cores with samples of everything from diatoms to volcanic ash, we have fossils and minerals with trapped air and water going back millions of years, we have rock cores which elegantly give us clear records of temperature over centuries. The body of evidence is overwhelming and rich. Thousands of different sources from hundred of different fields of study, all forming a clear and cohesive picture. Whatever you've been reading, its inaccurate, incomplete, and puts ideology before simple fact and truth. You can absolutely criticize one or two individuals for their poor performance, but that doesn't even begin to indict the work of tens of thousands of scientist all over the world who work in vastly different fields but have all come to the same inescapable conclusion.

The models and theories make specific predictions. Many of those predictions have come to pass. Here are just a few recent facts which are completely incontestable:

• The ice caps are melting: If you haven't read about the disappearing artic ice cap in summer try this source. While some would applaud the economic benefit of opening a new shipping lane, the loss of extinction of many vital species including the loss of arctic krill would produce a devastating crash in global fish stocks and the probable extinction of a variety of whales, seals, penguins, and polar bears.
• Glaciers everywhere are vanishing: Look here for a synopsis. The impact of this is that nearly half the worlds population uses glacial melt for drinking water and for agriculture. When they melt the economic cost (not to mention the cost in human suffering or destabilized governments) will be profound.
• The oceans are changing: Rising sea levels, dropping salinity, increased acidity due to CO2, increasing temperature, and changing currents are all occurring as we speak, and all predictable results of global climate change. The impacts will grow and be devastating. Some include loss of coastal land and cities, weather changes, crash in vital fish populations, crash in all marine life, The ocean are the engine behind climate. Disturbing its integrity has far reaching impact. Already, low lying islands in Polynesia are disappearing and their inhabitants are being displaced.
• Animal are migrating away from the heat: Research is now showing us how climate change is impacting animal migration and we are only now beginning to under

This is not too bad: http://www.sciencedaily.com/

My go to site for science news summaries is http://www.sciencedaily.com/index.htm. The stories usually have a link to the source and a journal article.

To original poster, I read the articles on: http://sciencedaily.com/ (all sciences- this is by far my favorite) http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing (computer science) http://mathoverflow.net/ (though this one is usually way above my head) http://extremetech.com/ (engineering) I also have Scientific American subscription, and although it occasionally has very interesting physics articles (the accuracy of which I couldn't tell you), I think there are better magazines.