Slashdot Mirror

Not any more:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/r...

Just want to say that i do think that anyone that abuses a child in that manner should be castrated with a rusty fork, or at at least be chemically castrated.

But... We have strange things all over today, not only for photographs of actual abuse..
For actual child-abuse images i'm still for keeping those illegal, even with my reasoning below because of what they may do later in life to the abused.

To start with we have laws related to a teenage-couples sexting.. Not sure if that could be classified as abuse, but up to 15 years in prison(?!). Not sure who that is supposed to protect.
https://www.teenvogue.com/stor...
Taking a picture of yourself, as a teenager, and sending to someone else voluntarily could land you in jail?! Sure it might not be good for you, but neither is jail in that age.
A breakdown of the laws in different states: https://www.netnanny.com/blog/...

This one gives a quite good overview of how the laws looks in different countries.... For *cartoons*!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Laws are going towards "anything that can be interpreted as X" being flagged as illegal.

I don't object to their goal of reducing the amount of child-abuse, but they go with "this feels like a good idea", not basing it on any actual proof that it will reduce child-abuse.. Studies shows that the laws actually increases the risk of child-abuse.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/r...

I know that this is a sensitive topic, and for parents of abused children i cannot even imagine the grief caused by allowing the images of their abused child to not be illegal. And for the abused children i cannot even grasp of how you feel.

So yea, i don't even know what i wanted to say with this post... But the laws do not seem to make it safer for kids, but they might actually increase the risk of child-abuse.

To make a long story short... Laws should not be created based on feelings but based on actual facts and studies that shows the law will be effective, or at least not have the opposite effect of it's intention. Today they are based on "this feels like a good thing to do" without any actual backing facts.

I want laws that work, not laws just because they sound good.

Something to consider:

Strong variations in density indicate that the electrically charged part of Saturn's atmosphere (the so-called ionosphere) has a strong coupling to the visible rings that consist primarily of ice particles. The ice particles are also electrically charged.

"It is as though the small ice particles in the D-ring suck up electrons from the ionosphere," says Jan-Erik Wahlund. "As a result of the coupling, electrical flows of gas to and from the rings along the magnetic field of Saturn cause the greatest variations in density."

Afraid you need to do some reading. You're terribly misinformed - https://www.sciencedaily.com/r... - this is the state of the art on the matter.

According to this article air resistance only accounts for 5% of energy output of a car. So if the mirror accounts for 7% of air resistance, that's 7% of 5%. So that means it's only 0.35% of fuel economy.

Where I grew up, there are several areas where the CCC planted trees. You can tell they were planted and not naturally occurring, because they are all lined up in perfect rows and columns. Unfortunately, they planted white pine trees by the millions. Hopefully China will learn from this example and plant less volatile specimens.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/r...

More than you might think, but China's problem is so bad that it's still like trying to empty a sandbox on a beach one grain at a time.

Hey guys, if you don't get enough fiber, your microbes can turn on you:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/r...

And if you eat the typical American diet, you ain't getting much fiber. Also, for you paleo eaters, actual paleolithic eaters got a pile of fiber every day.

Recommended reading for your microbes eating you: Undoctored, by Dr. William Davis.

Or you could do stacked junction cells which absorb the whole lot.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/r...

Or it's simply that intelligence level is linked to higher occurence of mental illness.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/r...

You don't even know what racism is. You have much less idea what a Nazi is.

What is racism? Why is it bad?
What is a Nazi? Why is it bad?

"because everyone is equal because some one said it's true and I'm poor and it makes me feel better about having to submit so humiliatingly to this society"

In reality there are differences between races based in genetics.
https://www1.udel.edu/educ/got...
In reality people are happier in homogeneous societies.
http://archive.boston.com/news...
https://www.sciencedaily.com/r...
In reality, up until literally one microsecond ago on our evolutionary timeline as hominids, everyone always lived in homogeneous communities.

How do you justify the change?
You can't, because you're so brainwashed you won't let yourself ask an honest question or even have an honest thought, you are stressed and anxious and all you care about is fitting in.
This makes you subhuman, not your race. This is what real Nazis think.

Yup. The crocodiles surfs between islands in the Pacific. Didn’t know it either until we went to Australia.

  https://www.sciencedaily.com/r...

Rats and mice display similar levels of practical intelligence, even though rats have bigger brains.

It turns out that good portion of those additional cells are spent managing the physiology from the expanded body payload.

Show me where a high fat diet is bad.

Eat fat, live longer?

People Who Follow Low-Fat Diets Have Higher Mortality Rates, Study Says

Why 10500? Significant events perhaps.

It is around the same time as The Younger Dryas a period of sudden climate change when the Ice age ended. The general consensus is gradual climate change, ended the ice age, gradualism.

However more and more evidence is emerging to support the theory that there was a sudden change that was not completely global.

The hypothesis for this change is that the Earth was impacted by one or more comets or asteroids assembled like a few kilometres of gravel slushie.

Is not saying much - The few they have that work pretty well when new and well kept are rare, (The injectors are the weakest point). But drive behind an old one that smokes like a chimney or accelerates hard. . Ulgh! Diesel stresses the brain, scroll down a bit and see: https://www.sciencedaily.com/r... Diesel is bad, for lungs(carcinogenic): polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), adhere easily to the surface of the carbon particles and are carried deep into the lungs. http://www.jabfm.org/content/2... I'm hoping that all of this does not apply do Bio-Diesel engines. Rudolf Diesel originally invented them that way. Oil companies had other plans for his engine and him. He went "missing" at sea.

Or the benzene or formaldehyde given that the ingredients on the liquid say water, glycerin, (widely used) flavoring and nicotine?

I also wondered the same thing and assumed that it might be from electroplating of the heating element. However, I came across a Science Daily article which mentions that testing of the pre-aerosolized liquids contained "high levels of toxic metals". Interestingly, they list nickel as more of a concern than the cadmium.

Benzene and formaldehyde are organic compounds, so it's at least theoretically possible to create them from constituent parts from portions of the e-liquid. My organic-chemistry is a little rusty, but I looked into the synthesis of benzene and the most plausible route would be benzoic acid to benzene by way of a zinc-oxide catalyst and heat. Some older e-cigs used benzoic acid to protonate the nicotine.

Still, I agree with you that most of this seems to be an overreaction, or at least a mis-understanding of the chemistry.

You can start here, or here. Of course that's just from the past week or so, this stuff is becoming more and more frequent and obvious to anyone who studies this area. Please feel free to expand your education on your own, don't limit yourself to us holding your hand and showing you what is happening.

Yes, don't eat meat or fish.

Eating meat causes destruction to the environment due to the many bad effects of raising animals. Two of the many bad effects: 1) Misuse of antibiotics, and 2) Keeping animals extremely close to each other develops new viruses and bacterial diseases.

Eating fish is causing depopulation of the oceans, with many, many bad and unknown results.

Links:

Harmful Environmental Effects Of Livestock Production On The Planet 'Increasingly Serious,' Says Panel (Feb. 22, 2007)

The Triple Whopper Environmental Impact of Global Meat Production (Dec. 16, 2013) Quote: "Livestock production may have a bigger impact on the planet than anything else."

How does eating meat harm the environment? (No date.) One of the many interesting ideas: "Raising animals for food consumes more than half of all water used in the U.S. It takes 2,500 gallons of water to produce a pound of meat but only 25 gallons to produce a pound of wheat."

5 Ways Factory Farming is Killing the Environment (Sept. 16, 2017) The 5: 1) Air Pollution, 2) Deforestation, 3) Water Pollution, 4) Monocultures, 5) Fossil Fuels and Carbon Emissions.

11 Facts About Factory Farms and the Environment

I stopped eating meat and fish in 2008. Avoiding eating flesh seems to have contributed to my good health. It is, of course, complicated to make new adjustments to eating habits. Those adjustments were learned during childhood.

Ooh, ooh, what if you actually did some research instead of just making stuff up?

Energy payback for solar panels is 1-4 years: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04...

Energy payback for wind turbines is 5-8 months: https://www.sciencedaily.com/r...

Electric vehicles (or hydrogen vehicles if you're into that) don't make much sense if you run them off of coal, but they make a lot of sense if you charge them with wind or solar power. There is no other way to drive a car without emitting lots of greenhouse gases, gobbling up lots of scarce farmland (i.e., chopping down forests), or using up the surprisingly scarce supply of uranium.

The different incarceration rates based on gender correlate to testosterone. Higher testosterone results in more violent behavior in both men and women, and the more violent the crime, the more likely to get harsher sentences instead of, say, community service or posting a peace bond. And given that men have much higher levels of testosterone, this would explain the higher male prison population. It's pretty obvious. There's even an expression that sums it up - men think with their dicks. Don't see the currency of expressions of women thinking with our vaginas, which highlights the disparity of testosterone influencing decisions and actions between men and women.

Higher testosterone levels are related to criminal violence and aggressive dominance among women in prison, says a Georgia State University study released Sept. 23.

The study, published in the September-October issue of Psychosomatic Medicine, measured testosterone in 87 female inmates at a maximum security prison. Their criminal behavior was scored from court records, and their prison behavior was assessed from prison records and staff interviews.

Testosterone was found related both to the violence of the women's crimes and to the aggressive dominance of their behavior in prison. This finding was further supported by assessing how an inmate's age corresponded to her behavior and testosterone levels.

As the amount of the hormone measured decreased in older prisoners -- testosterone declines with age -- so did the aggressive dominance. But the study concluded that testosterone, not age alone, was the significant factor; older inmates who had high hormone levels were not less aggressive or dominant.

"The key to this study is it shows testosterone is linked to dominance in both criminal behavior and behavior in prison," says Dr. James Dabbs, a professor of psychology at Georgia State University and lead researcher on the project.

The findings, by Dabbs and Marian Hargrove, are similar to those in studies of male prisoners. This indicates testosterone's effects on behavior are the same in women as in men, says Dabbs. Testosterone levels were highest among male inmates convicted of violent crimes such as rape, homicide and assault. These men also violated more prison rules.

Consider that both chemical and surgical castration reduce the rate of repeat pedophile offenders from 50% to between 2% and 5%. Testosterone clearly plays a role.

It seems that intensity does matter, even in the elderly.

http://nationalpost.com/health/short-intense-bursts-of-exercise-may-benefit-seniors-health-fend-off-loss-of-muscle

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060920192536.htm

But of course, if starting out, then the intensity should be increased slowly so as to avoid injury.

Refined sugar has never been a requirement for proper nutrition.. Sure it's been a part of making things taste better, but never of proper nutrition.
All sugar's are carbohydrates but not all carbohydrates is a sugar.

Refined sugar by itself is a poison, and the amounts we get today are so much higher than any hunter/gatherer could have ever collected or ingested from natural sources except for maybe honey.

Did you know that before humans started farming we had almost perfect teeth? And for every advancement in sugar-refinement we have made, and had included in the diet for the majority, our teeth's have just become worse and worse..

How sugar messes with our hormones.
https://www.floliving.com/suga...

How sugar effects the brain..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Too Much Sugar Turns Off Gene That Controls Effects Of Sex Steroids
https://www.sciencedaily.com/r...

This is a quite interesting watch about fructose and the difference in ingesting it as a fruit and as juice..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Sure, most people can eat sugar in moderation and be perfectly healthy.. The things i talk about is the amount of sugar we get from all sources of food we have.. Just look at the ingredients for the stuff you buy...

* disclaimer.. i took the first hit on google when i was looking for source material.. I do know there are better sources for the above information but that you have to look up yourself.

How about you stop being as stupid as an anti-vaxxer, and be a bit more scientific and open-minded. I am not saying vaccines are bad. Just that, well maybe we need to look at new formulations of our vaccines for greater efficacy.

http://www.thv11.com/news/loca...

http://www.sciencedirect.com/s...

https://www.scientificamerican...

https://www.sciencedaily.com/r...

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/up...
"Among the 51 measles cases linked directly to Disneyland, six of the people had received their measles, mumps and rubella vaccine, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention" (honestly, since schools mandate this, do you really think less than 12% of people were vaccinated? Or is it more likely they simply couldn't provide proof of vaccination. Can you? Can you provide proof of your own vaccination or your children's? Most folks cannot.

Artificial sweeteners fool the belly buds and trigger a cascade of responses normally associated with sugar. This is one citation, but there are others I have seen. This is pretty settled science it appears.

The truth is that the intermittency problem with wind and solar is so severe that when you get more than a few percent tied into the grid it actually has negative value.

Only if you do it stupidly. California is already seeing days where renewable make up 50% of their electric usage and their problems with negative value are relatively small, manageable and are in the process of being mitigated. BTW, the term for what you call intermittancy is the duck curve.

The smart way to do it is:

1. Improve the grid so that, for example, when the wind stops blowing off the east coast you can bring in electricity from the plain states to fill the gap.
2. Build natgas plants that can easily and rapidly spin up and down to also buffer the supply.
3. Include storage as part of the plants. California has recently added that to the law regulating all new forms commercial power generation in the state.

What you can't do is rely on baseload power (like nukes and coal) which get tons of subsidies in the form of guaranteed returns.

What's more, most of the energy used to PRODUCE solar panels, and much of the energy used to produce wind turbines, comes from soot-belching, coal-fired power plants in China, and most of the energy REPLACED BY these devices would have been produced in clean power plants with state-of-the-art "scrubbers" in North America, Europe & Australia.

That's all bullshit of the highest degree.
The energy required to manufacture wind turbines is recouped within about 6 months of operation.

And, in case anyone is interested:
The energy required to manufacture solar panels is a tiny fraction of how much they will generate over their lifetime.
In Middle Europe, where irradiance is about equal to that of Alaska, PV panels built with 10 year old manufacturing technology reached a net energy cost of zero within 3 years. In Southern Europe it was between 0.5 and 1.5 years.
Furthermore for every doubling in solar manufacturing capacity energy used to produce solar panels decreased by 12-13 percent, and greenhouse gas emissions dropped by 17-24 percent. Over the last decade, solar manufacturing capacity has increased 10x.

As for "scrubbers" and coal, China is way ahead of the US.
China recently cancelled construction of 104 new coal plants equal to one third of the US's total installed coal capacity. Even then, China's coal regulations are so much cleaner than the US's that by 2020 not one single US coal plant would be clean enough to legally operate if it were in China.

Regardless cold weather apparently is much more harmful to humans than hot weather so on balance... I'm not sure it is worthy of concern.
The true enemy of mankind

Abstract of the original article: https://www.nature.com/nclimat...
Press release from Nature East Asia: http://www.natureasia.com/en/r...
Press release from U. Hawaii Manoa (the institution of the lead authors): http://www.hawaii.edu/news/201...
Article at phys.org: https://phys.org/news/2017-06-...
Article at Science Daily: https://www.sciencedaily.com/r...

Interactive map of number of deadly heat days: https://maps.esri.com/globalri...

Yes, and it's some really neat stuff - research talked about in these articles is fascinating:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/r...
https://medicalxpress.com/news...

And here's a site that lets you experience just one of the ways the brain manufactures some of the detail you perceive: http://www.uniformillusion.com...

A common theme in all of these is that "sight" isn't entirely achieved with our eyes, but our brains get involved very early in the signal processing stage and even make up a lot of info based on what it expects.

Who knows how much of this can be practically applied to things like video compression, but we've already been doing it to a limited degree for years (e.g. x264's psychovisual enhancement setting, see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...).

Health benefits of moderate drinking may be overstated, study finds

The benefits of light alcohol consumption, as well as the risks associated with not drinking at all, might not be as great as previously thought, according to researchers who examined the drinking habits of middle-aged adults.

Is moderate drinking really good for you? Jury's still out

Many people believe a glass of wine with dinner will help them live longer and healthier -- but the scientific evidence is shaky at best, according to a new research analysis.

Moderate drinking decreases number of new brain cells

Moderate to binge drinking significantly reduces the structural integrity of the adult brain. The new research indicates that daily drinking decreases nerve cell development in the hippocampus part of the brain -- necessary for some type of learning and memory -- by 40 percent.

And another interesting subject is "confirmation bias":
See! I was right

people are reluctant to change their minds, even when facts don't match what they believe ...

Once people reach a conclusion, they aren't likely to change their minds, even when new information shows their initial belief is likely wrong ...

Health benefits of moderate drinking may be overstated, study finds

The benefits of light alcohol consumption, as well as the risks associated with not drinking at all, might not be as great as previously thought, according to researchers who examined the drinking habits of middle-aged adults.

Is moderate drinking really good for you? Jury's still out

Many people believe a glass of wine with dinner will help them live longer and healthier -- but the scientific evidence is shaky at best, according to a new research analysis.

Moderate drinking decreases number of new brain cells

Moderate to binge drinking significantly reduces the structural integrity of the adult brain. The new research indicates that daily drinking decreases nerve cell development in the hippocampus part of the brain -- necessary for some type of learning and memory -- by 40 percent.

And another interesting subject is "confirmation bias":
See! I was right

people are reluctant to change their minds, even when facts don't match what they believe ...

Once people reach a conclusion, they aren't likely to change their minds, even when new information shows their initial belief is likely wrong ...

Health benefits of moderate drinking may be overstated, study finds

The benefits of light alcohol consumption, as well as the risks associated with not drinking at all, might not be as great as previously thought, according to researchers who examined the drinking habits of middle-aged adults.

Is moderate drinking really good for you? Jury's still out

Many people believe a glass of wine with dinner will help them live longer and healthier -- but the scientific evidence is shaky at best, according to a new research analysis.

Moderate drinking decreases number of new brain cells

Moderate to binge drinking significantly reduces the structural integrity of the adult brain. The new research indicates that daily drinking decreases nerve cell development in the hippocampus part of the brain -- necessary for some type of learning and memory -- by 40 percent.

And another interesting subject is "confirmation bias":
See! I was right

people are reluctant to change their minds, even when facts don't match what they believe ...

Once people reach a conclusion, they aren't likely to change their minds, even when new information shows their initial belief is likely wrong ...

Health benefits of moderate drinking may be overstated, study finds

The benefits of light alcohol consumption, as well as the risks associated with not drinking at all, might not be as great as previously thought, according to researchers who examined the drinking habits of middle-aged adults.

Is moderate drinking really good for you? Jury's still out

Many people believe a glass of wine with dinner will help them live longer and healthier -- but the scientific evidence is shaky at best, according to a new research analysis.

Moderate drinking decreases number of new brain cells

Moderate to binge drinking significantly reduces the structural integrity of the adult brain. The new research indicates that daily drinking decreases nerve cell development in the hippocampus part of the brain -- necessary for some type of learning and memory -- by 40 percent.

And another interesting subject is "confirmation bias":
See! I was right

people are reluctant to change their minds, even when facts don't match what they believe ...

Once people reach a conclusion, they aren't likely to change their minds, even when new information shows their initial belief is likely wrong ...

Here is the quote from the scientific source: https://www.sciencedaily.com/r... "Worldwide, such facilities have been responsible for the deaths of 140,000 to 328,000 birds and 500,000 to 1.6 million bats, raising questions about their effects on population sustainability."

Sure cats and windows kill times more, and this problem is being addressed too. But wind turbines kill large valuable rare birds. This is the issue. Again the quote from the same article of 2016: "Eagles tend to use that habitat around the turbines. It's windy there, so they can save energy and soar,..."

As for the CFL lamps, - they contain toxic mercury. They are not on sale anymore, it is LED lamps nowadays.

Any time someone is proclaiming doom now I look for the agenda behind it - and sadly these days it is always there.

Any and all statements made have an agenda. What you just did is take a single anecdote about this story, namely that the permafrost layer is not constant (which no-one anywhere has ever claimed to begin with), and used that to arrive to the unfounded conclusion that there cannot possibly be a problem with the observed thawing of the permafrost layers across the arctic regions:

The study published in Nature Climate Change and led by Northern Arizona University assistant research professor, Christina Schädel, analysed 25 Arctic soil incubation studies and discovered that the majority of that carbon emitted was in the form of carbon dioxide even in the low oxygen conditions, with only five per cent of the total anaerobic products being methane.

This means that even though methane packs 34 times the climate warming punch of carbon dioxide, methane fluxes were not high enough to compensate for the smaller total quantity of carbon released under low oxygen conditions in wet soils.

Dr Hartley said: "In different boreal and arctic ecosystems, permafrost thaw can expose previously-frozen organic matter to very different soil conditions. The results of our study indicate that where the soils remain dry there is much greater potential for large amounts of carbon to be released to the atmosphere and for there to a positive feedback to climate change."

Scientists in the international Permafrost Carbon Network that Schädel co-leads with Northern Arizona University professor of ecosystem ecology, Ted Schuur, provided much of the data.

Dr Schädel said: "Our results show that increasing temperatures have a large effect on carbon release from permafrost but that changes in soil moisture conditions have an even greater effect," says Schädel. "We conclude that the permafrost carbon feedback will be stronger when a larger percentage of the permafrost zone undergoes thaw in a dry and oxygen-rich environment."

As the permafrost thaws, microbes wake up and begin digesting the newly available remains of ancient plants and animals stored as carbon in the soil. This digestion produces either carbon dioxide or methane, depending on soil conditions. Scientists want to understand the ratio of carbon dioxide to methane gas released by this process because it affects the strength of the permafrost carbon feedback loop: greenhouse gases released due to thawing permafrost cause temperatures to rise, leading to even more thawing and carbon release. Furthermore, the Arctic permafrost is like a vast underground storage tank of carbon, holding almost twice as much as the atmosphere. At that scale, small changes in how the carbon is released will have big effects.

Yeah, those infernal scientists with their nasty 'agenda' of trying to understand the ecosystem better so we can actually do something about the issue. Surely all the data must be irrelevant, after all it'd be unfathomable to think that permafrost can still form in some places whilst its total amount is going down, and this entire process could still have vast negative feedback-loop effects because its self-accelerating. Everyone knows after all that either it's warming universally everywhere making frozen reindeer impossible, or it's not warming at all! Checkmate.

I was convinced of this based on all the data and research, but your astute observation that 75 years ago a patch in Siberia was cold enough to freeze (gasp!) has totally changed my mind on peer-reviewed research. The clever scientists thought they could get away by making silly claims about the climate being a complex system which can have extreme temperatures on both ends of the scale even as the total energy of the system is going up, but NO MORE thanks to brave warriors like you!

This singul

Would that it were so simple! I love a nice single-malt, but have been advised that whiskey before bedtime is not conducive to good sleep hygiene. For reference, consider this review that purports to have "for the first time consolidated all the available literature on the immediate effects of alcohol on the sleep of healthy individuals".

Quoting from the linked article:

... short-term alcohol use only gives the impression of improving sleep, and it should not be used as a sleep aid.

... alcohol on the whole is not useful for improving a whole night's sleep. Sleep may be deeper to start with, but then becomes disrupted. Additionally, that deeper sleep will probably promote snoring and poorer breathing. So, one shouldn't expect better sleep with alcohol.

Not sure. Not saying one way or the other, but higher CO2 does not necessarily mean higher temperatures, eg: https://www.sciencedaily.com/r.... But yeah, the most recent ice ages _ended_ when atmospheric CO2 elevated to 300 ppm from way lower. Today we're at 400.

The article you cite says the glaciation at the end of the Ordovician was likely because of rock weathering drawing down the levels of CO2 from the high levels they started out as.

Just a bad summary... this article is better: https://www.sciencedaily.com/r...

"Anthropogenic forcing is still dominant -- it's still the key player," said first author Qinghua Ding, a climate scientist at the University of California Santa Barbara who holds an affiliate position at the UW, where he began the work as a research scientist in the UW's Applied Physics Laboratory. "But we found that natural variability has helped to accelerate this melting, especially over the past 20 years." ...

"In the long term, say 50 to 100 years, the natural internal variability will be overwhelmed by increasing greenhouse gases," Ding said. "But to predict what will happen in the next few decades, we need to understand both parts."

Since you don't seem to be able (or willing) to google this, here are a few results from the first page:

http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/...

http://cardiobrief.org/2016/11...

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/n...

Note that these are from science based publications... not fake news sites.

Also, animal saturated fat causes cancer:

http://www.pcrm.org/nbBlog/ind...

https://www.sciencedaily.com/r...

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/n...

Then what is the advantage over living in an artificial environment in space?

Creating such an artificial environment in space "from scratch" may be much harder, than using the readily-made planet. The colonists may need to adapt it, but they may also find it easier to make some adaptations to themselves — meeting the planet half-way, as it were.

If Escimo and Inuit and related peoples adapted to the environment unlivable for their African predecessors naturally — even if they still can not live there naked, we may be able to make similar adaptations faster (in fewer generations) to make Martian environment suck less. But, as often point out, Antarctica ought to be first — much closer and much cosier for humans than Mars.

But, hey, adapting to life in space (low-to-no gravity, low air pressure) may take place in parallel. Stephenson — in SevenEves — explores this subject in some detail.

And think of the possibilities: mammoth steaks in every restaurant! My mouth waters at the thought....

Note, for the humour-impaired, that the above was a joke. Now if we were to re-engineer the Dodo (tastes like chicken!), then we'd be cooking....

You jest, but according to this, mammoth was indeed the meat of choice for our neolithic ancestors.

It's up for debate:

http://news.emory.edu/stories/...

https://www.sciencedaily.com/r...

http://www.nature.com/news/wor...

Solar activity predicted to fall 60% in 2030s, to 'mini ice age' levels: Sun driven by double dynamo
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150709092955.htm/

Wow. I had considered coming here to joke about whether the anti-science deniers would come out of the woodwork to claim that the magnetic field wasn't changing at all and they were just after funding, but it looks like the bullshitters are still fixated on climate change.

that is equally as important as co2, but climate change pushers put all the burden on man.

We can't change the magnetic field (as far as we know), but we can change what we do to the environment. Nobody has ever said that it is only man who is causing climate change, but only man can actually do something about it.

i'm no climate change denier...

Yes you are

i just know ther is way more to this than the gov't and most gov't funded scientists pushing the man made global warming agenda would lead you to believe. follow the $.

The problem with that theory is that when the deniers fund their own study, it also comes to the same conclusion; that climate change is real and that the carbon dioxide curve is the best match to global warming. So following the $ is meaningless, unless you can show evidence that anyone has falsified their climate research to get funding. If not, then there is no basis to the corruption claim. With all the leaked emails in the world, and the massive number of people who would have to collude to perpetrate a hoax, it's amazing that nobody has found any proof to this claim. And that is despite the efforts of the well-funded denial groups out there. Sure, follow the $!

Not just "interesting", there are hundreds of cases out there that show shit-transplants are the answer.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150204125810.htm

Why it seems odd to anyone is beyond me - of course the efficacy of the digestion system is CRITICAL to weight control.
This is nothing new, I don't understand why Slashdot is all breathless about it ...

I'm not making this up you morons. Here's another story with the same info this goes back to 2005 at a minimum.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/r...

Did I bring anti-drug politics into this? No. I'm simply pointing out this isn't new info, perhaps the specific instruments and scan details are better but the concept is quite old.

It's a slightly sad tendency I see here on /. - to first overinterpret somebody's comments and then attack them. Personally I don't mind too much, but I'd prefer to have an intelligent conversation sometimes.

So, what I said is '... it is in line with what I have read ..."; a pretty vague statement on any account. Hardly an all-out endorsement of the Daily Mail, I think; it's just that I have read things over the last few years that I think give a bit more reason to hope that it may not be uncrackable after all. I haven't kept notes, but it may well be things that were mentioned in something I read on http://www.sciencedaily.com/in.... Probably not the most breathtakingly exciting science site, but they seem to be mostly about science rather than sensations, and most articles seem to come with a few references in case you want to check the story. In my view it is a good place to keep yourself informed about actual, unglamorous science.

On the inverse, I guess kids should stop playing high school football since the number of kids playing football in HS rarely translates to a professional career in football.

Actually I think they should stop because it is a sport of repeated small brain traumas with an occasional large trauma tossed in here and there.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/04/160425143653.htm

The problem I have with social media is that you become what you do... 10,000 hours of social media usage comes down to less than a decade for normal users and 5 years or less for an addict. So, at the end of that period you have a bunch of people trained to read click-bait and thinking what they read on fB is actually "news" because it resonates with what they think already. So instead of growing and becoming a world changing force many are getting transfixed by a digital mirror that really adds nothing to the person themselves.
If you aren't growing you're dying.

http://thinkprogress.org/clima... the exposure—response between CO2 and cognitive function is approximately linear across the concentrations used,” [500 ppm - 1500 ppm] https://www.sciencedaily.com/r... Carbon dioxide is 'driving fish crazy'

http://thinkprogress.org/clima... the exposure—response between CO2 and cognitive function is approximately linear across the concentrations used,” [500 ppm - 1500 ppm] https://www.sciencedaily.com/r... Carbon dioxide is 'driving fish crazy'