Slashdot Mirror

1. CCR5 delta 32 is not super common, with a gene frequency of about .1 across Europe as a whole and maxing at about .23 in Ashkenaz jews. Evidence indicates that the black plague ceased to be common because of human resistance to it; which means that a gene frequency of .1 would not protect a whole population, which means it can't be the sole cause of surviving black plague.

2. You need two copies of CCR5 delta 32 for it to truly protect someone, .1 x .1 = .01 , so about 1% of European are immune to HIV as a result of CCR5 delta 32. In the context of 'today', this is almost completely insignificant.

3. There is evidencethat bubonic plague could not produce the selective pressure necessary to spread CCR5 delta 32 widely, and smallpox is implicated instead.

Here's the Hadley Center's global temperature record. Each of the past 6 years of decreasing solar activity, the waning side of solar cycle 23, have been in the hottest 8 on the 158 year record.

Antarctic sea ice is at record high levels, while Antarctic land-based ice loss speeds up (full paper).

As the summary noted, this is something that people have known about for a very long time. More specifically, this same subject was being discussed on the same website almost eight years ago.

String theory is interesting, actually, in that there are at least a few ideas for how it can be tested. For example, it could be possible using a particle accelerator to detect the effects of the extra dimensions predicted by string theory. The problem for string theory is that even though such a test might be possible, we don't have a high-enough energy acclerator to test it. As mentioned in the article, there are hopes that we might be able to find something with the LHC, but in reality it might require an impractically ginormous accelerator to really find evidence of strings.

The summary = the article.

The original article was on Science Daily a few days back.

The summary = the article.

The original article was on Science Daily a few days back.

Hi!

ScienceDaily.com is a web site. I know it's a novel idea, but you may want to consider provding a WEB LINK to the research paper you're discussing. Failing that -- I know, HTML is HARD -- maybe mention the names of the researchers/authors, their department, the title of the study, or SOME identifying information. These thoughtful "extra credit" measures would enable us lowly readers to use our initiative to do follow-up reading.

With no intentional irony, the foot at the bottom of your stories explain how to cite Science Daily.

You guys are a class act. Real smooth.

Cheers, Jason Osgood / Seattle WA

Human Culture Subject To Natural Selection, Study Shows
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080216175953.htm

I doubt that long term studies have been completed. It doesn't seem like ZIFs are extremely new, this process for creating them and this particular variation are new. That said, several other sources provide better information than the CBC link and speak directly to your question. The CBC article states in first paragraph: "the crystals are non-toxic and would require little extra energy from a power plant."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080214144344.htm/ Suggests that this looks much cleaner than existing state of the art:

Currently, the process of capturing carbon dioxide emissions from power plants involves the use of toxic materials and requires 20 to 30 percent of the plant's energy output, Yaghi said. By contrast, ZIFs can pluck carbon dioxide from other gases that are emitted and can store five times more carbon dioxide than the porous carbon materials that represent the current state-of-art.

Yaghi's initial idea of what to do with the material afterwards appears to involve geologic storage.

It's also always useful to hunt down the primary source. I think this PDF is it (I only skimmed).

and the sea ice is still going to be there in 2013 (as i'm most positive it would be)

According to a recent study, parents are becoming increasingly negligent when it comes to raising their children. The study found that over one-third (38%) of children had been allowed to meet with a stranger they met on the internet. Parental standards have been falling for years, but this recent study gives insight as to the increasing threat of a lack of parental oversight.

In an unrelated study, scientists found that approximately 40% of people aged 9-18 years old should be "destroyed for the good of mankind."

The problem with renewable energy is not technological. It's logistical. Covering the Arizona desert in solar panels is an obvious solution. It just happens to be a feat of engineering that makes the great wall of china look like a tinkertoy suspension bridge. We know what to do. We don't know how to do it in a way that wouldn't end up increasing your electric bill by a factor of ten.

A solar thermal plant capable of producing the same amount of energy as coal fired or nuclear plant would be larger than anything every built by man. Sure it's what's we're going to do sooner or later, it's just going to be more like later.

We really need to get over the idea that nations that don't want to eat melted ice cream in the dark should not have nuclear power. Why? Because if we don't they are going to do crazy shit like this.

[loafula wrote] The pope just shit a brick

The fact that you wrote a joke like this (and that it was given a moderation score of 3 by other readers) indicates confusion amongst the Slashdot populace.

The media have tossed about the word "stem cells" very irresponsibly, making it seem like the religious institutions and others (US President Bush) oppose "stem cell research". What the churches and Bush oppose is embyronic stem cell research, which requires the destruction of the embryo.

This article is talking about Mesenchymal stem cells --- adult stem cells, which are not controversial. In fact, religious groups and Bush and others vigorously support adult stem cell research. Bush in 2001 stated the following:

URL: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/08/print/20010811-1.html
Date: August 11, 2001

I also believe that great scientific progress can be made through aggressive federal funding of research on umbilical cord, placenta, adult and animal stem cells, which do not involve the same moral dilemma. This year the government will spend $250 million on this important research.

Here are some examples of confusing headlines that the media have deliberately chosen:

"Bush vetoes stem-cell funds bill" (from the BBC at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6224134.stm)

"President Bush's cynical stem-cell policy." (an editorial from Slate at http://www.slate.com/id/2090244/ )

"Bush to stem cell community: drop dead" (an editorial from MSNBC at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13935219/).

All of these headlines are addressing the vetoing of bills to fund embryonic stem cell research, but the headlines misleadingly make it seem like ALL stem cell research is under attack.

In addition, it should be noted that Bush et al were restricting United States government funding of embryonic stem cell research. Unrestricted private funding (not provided by the federal US government)of embryonic stem cell research has always been allowed in the United States, such as that provided through the (private) Howard Hughes Medical Institute http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/03/040304074237.htm , and now state governments such as California and New Jersey. (That's the same Howard Hughes that Leonardio DiCaprio portrayed in the movie "The Aviator" directed by Martin Scorsese.)

Are the ethics of embryonic stem cell research to be taken lightly? Dr. James Thomson was one of the first two laboratories to successfully extract them from embryos:

Publisher: New York Times
Article: Man Who Helped Start Stem Cell War May End It
Author: Gina Kolata
Date: November 22, 2007
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/22/science/22stem.html?em&ex=1195966800&en=3d24427925954325&ei=5087%0A

Dr. Thomsons laboratory at the University of Wisconsin was one of two that in 1998 plucked stem cells from human embryos for the first time, destroying the embryos in the process and touching off a divisive national debate.

And on Tuesday, his laboratory was one of two that reported a new way to turn ordinary human skin cells into what appear to be embryonic stem cells without ever using a human embryo.

The fact is, Dr. Thomson said in an interview, he had ethical concerns about embryonic research from the outset, even though he knew that such research offered insights into human development and the potential for powerful new treatments

The article is still there Anthrax Cellular Entry Point Uncovered

Another therapy reported in Science Daily shows reversal of Alzheimer's symptoms in minutes, rather than weeks

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080109091102.htm

From the article:

"An extraordinary new scientific study, which for the first time documents marked improvement in Alzheimer's disease within minutes of administration of a therapeutic molecule, has just been published in the Journal of Neuroinflammation.

"This new study highlights the importance of certain soluble proteins, called cytokines, in Alzheimer's disease. The study focuses on one of these cytokines, tumor necrosis factor-alpha(TNF), a critical component of the brain's immune system. Normally, TNF finely regulates the transmission of neural impulses in the brain. The authors hypothesized that elevated levels of TNF in Alzheimer's disease interfere with this regulation. To reduce elevated TNF, the authors gave patients an injection of an anti-TNF therapeutic called etanercept. Excess TNF-alpha has been documented in the cerebrospinal fluid of patients with Alzheimer's.

"The new study documents a dramatic and unprecedented therapeutic effect in an Alzheimer's patient: improvement within minutes following delivery of perispinal etanercept, which is etanercept given by injection in the spine. Etanercept (trade name Enbrel) binds and inactivates excess TNF. Etanercept is FDA approved to treat a number of immune-mediated disorders and is used off label in the study."

We propose that developmental evolution is primarily governed by selection and/or selection-independent constraints, not stochastic processes such as drift in unconstrained phenotypic space.

Sarah Werning's profile page @ Berkeley -- Her photos

I think the story at science daily is more interesting than the BBC one.

It's an old article, but if you really want to know about Alzheimer's research, look into what they've been able to do using the Pittsburgh Compound.

I could not, would not, on a boat.
I will not, will not, with a goat.
I will not eat them in the rain.
I will not eat them on a train.
Not in the dark! Not in a tree!
Not in a car! You let me be!
I do not like them in a box.
I do not like them with a fox.
I will not eat them in a house.
I do not like them with a mouse.
I do not like them here or there.
I do not like them ANYWHERE!

Here's a question that's been on my mind lately. How would most of you rate changes to how your mind has worked over the years? Have you noticed your reflexes aren't what they were when you were a teenager? Looking at any older writings of yours, have you ever had the feeling that your imagination may have grown more refined, but also lost some of it's raw power at some point? Regardless of the cognitive rewards of time and experience, are there any earlier capabilities that you feel you may have lost some grip on, or even noticed more clearly in younger coworkers or relatives than you used to?

Well, as you've mentioned aging and reflexes I suppose I have some leeway here.

I'm male and now well into my 32nd year of life, and I'm forcing myself to whack off a lot more these days.

Wait, wait! Upon all that might be holy, I swear this is not a troll.

I was reading through the Slashdot firehose stories just yesterday when this one caught my attention: Fatherhood Linked To Prostate Cancer Risk. I voted it up and hoped that enough other people would notice it and do the same for it to become a front-page story, but evidently that did not happen. The gist of the story is that males with no children are at lower risk for prostate cancer than men who do have children. But, amongst those men who do have children, the more kids they have, the more their risk begins to decline again! How about that.

Of course, me being a male Slashdot reader, I immediately came to the conclusion that the root cause of this is the amount of ejaculation going on. (Again, I swear this is not a troll.) Seriously ... think about it. As a bachelor male, at worst there's still a decent amount of masturbation going on and at best, actual sex (likely with as many women as possible). No kids, no woman dragging you down ... really nothing to kill your sex drive. But if you get saddled with kids (with or without a wife), how does sex (real or imaginary) have any appeal at that point? For most, not a whole lot. And if you are still interested in sex, how much does your now-a-mom wife or girlfriend really find sex interesting anymore? So your prostate starts to atrophy. It is part muscle, after all. The exception is if you're one of those really sex-crazed males or uber-religious types (and some will argue they're one and the same) who just continues bonking his wife and cranking out yet more kids. In that case, your prostate is still getting exercise.

So, umm, yeah. I've come to the conclusion that the prostate is much like any muscle ... use it or lose it. Or in this case, get cancer.

But getting back to your original question (and I hope by this point you've figured out why I'm posting this anonymously), when I reached a little past 31, my sex-drive died. I mean in a bullet-to-the-head kind of a way. I'd been absolutely obsessed with sex since before my teens, then all through them, and then clear through my twenties. Then I got to about 31.5 and it all came crashing to a halt. But with this somewhat unorthodox theory now on my mind, I've actually been forcing myself to masturbate as often as I humanly can. Yah, I know. If you folks are finding this just a little hard to believe, all I can say is that 10 years ago I'd have agreed with you. I'd be asking how the hell can any male have to force themselves to do something like that. It's like second nature for a male! But again, I tell you I can't believe how much my sex-drive has just come to a complete halt. It's like someone threw a switch. I only hope if you're having a hard time believing any of this now, that you never come to understand it yourself through first-hand experience, because it's actually kind of emasculating and depressing.

So in conclusion, as much as you may think aging may have affected you, there's always room for it t

Whilst I have no particular opinion on the issue of Intel's guilt or otherwise, I have to laugh at:

the only court I am interested in is the court of public opinion. In that court Intel is Guilty PERIOD.

In that court, half the US public subscribe to creationism. 73% believe in miracles, 61% in the devil, and 34% believe that the Earth is being visited by alien spaceships. According to Time, 36% of Americans think that the government were complicit or actively involved in 9/11. Almost a third of Americans believe that electronic devices like cell phones cause cancer, and the vast majority believe that the risk of dying of cancer is increasing.

So what? Only this: the court of popular opinion and reality (or justice) have very little in common. That does not negate the importance of said institution. The mere fact that we are in the words of Douglas Adams a lot of useless bloody loonies doesn't negate the fact that these are the nation's voters and consumers. But it does mean that pointing at 'the court of popular opinion' to justify your language is scraping the bottom of the barrel. OLPC are publicly held to be darling happy fluffy bunny types who can do no wrong... and?

Select and undertake only those actions which are also worth undertaking for other reasons or for their own sake, until the emergency itself becomes certain. -linky

Fuel consumption - true, pollution - debatable. Most bikes don't have catalytic converters so they produce proportionally more pollutants.

A swiss study concluded 'motorcycles collectively emit 16 times more hydrocarbons, three times more carbon monoxide and a "disproportionately high" amount of other air pollutants compared to passenger cars' though it has also been disputed.

Well, you can believe whatever you want to believe, I'm not about to try and stop you in this type of debate. I think if we ever ended up with empirical evidence supporting evolution in the sense of macro evolution, they would at least have to acknowledge it. I don't see how they could make a claim further along the chain then that point, it either exists or it doesn't exist.

On another note, the definition for species has changed over the years. This is probably why it is so hard of a topic to get straight and keep everyone on board. It used to be that we just looked at animals that were different enough in characteristics and called them a different species. This is why Blacks were at one time considered only part human and mostly of a different species. But we got wise and realized that couldn't be true and added the idea of sexual reproduction. It was then, with sexual reproduction being a pivoting point, the macro verses micro evolution became a popular issue. Now the reproduction requirement is watered down so much that if it can reproduce but decides not to naturally, they are a different species. This of course creates more problems, problems like now Racists, White or black or whatever nationality, would be considered a different species because they choose not to breed with others not like them.

I give this because you seem to think this is some settled issue that creationist are attempting to turn upside down. While that may be true, science in and of itself has turned it around more in the last 2 centuries then any religious organization. But this is part of the scientific process that makes it so great. While there isn't any empirical evidence proving a common ancestor and speciation, There is a lot of circumstantial evidence suggesting it. And while most of the Newer attempt to point to speciation further twists the definitions of species to make the point. The definition of species shouldn't exist just to discredit creationist, that is the farthest from scientific we can get with science.

It also seems that you haven't explored the "other way" yet want to cast it in a dim light. Thats fine but it is also non scientific. You should at least understand the argument's you are rejecting. Simple rejecting them for the sake of doing so or to favor your pet project and procedures leads to an almost religious interpretation of science. One of the founding principles of science is that it can be wrong and we can correct our knowledge when we find these things out. An association with god doesn't automatically make something untrue, It doesn't make it true either. But think about that, If god willed you to fill a glass with watter and drink it, the only thing not testable (unscientific) is God willing you to do something. Getting a glass and filling it with water and then drinking it at some point in time could be a reality. The same would be true is evolution did end up with a macro verses micro reality. If it is found that one doesn't actually happen, then the only thin unscientific could be the God created part, the rest can be testable to some degree. You also have different theories of evolution inside the science community like the Bubble theory of evolution that I heard back in the mid 70's that to some degree supports the macro verses micro separations.

In the end, we just have to look at why we are discrediting something. If it is because of sound facts, then it is one thing. If it is because of disdain for a group of people or whet they might claim in and of itself, then it is sort of doing the same things you don't like about them.

They could also use the same sugar-based markers that sperm uses. This makes the cell universally ignored by the immune system. Of course, certain cancers use the same trick, so I'm not sure you want to put a bunch of them in your body.

Personally I think I'd rather have my own personal cell line which matches my immune system exactly. The latest cloning news of adult cells shows it's quite likely in my lifetime.

Great points. For those interested here are some links dealing with the many issues surrounding "global warming". http://links.veronicachapman.com/OriginsOfOil.htm http://www.iceagenow.com/Growing_Glaciers.htm http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...9-68c808e8809e http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...n2871211.shtml http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/New...s/Aerosols.pdf http://nasadaacs.eos.nasa.gov/articl...6_highlow.html http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17997788/site/newsweek/?ic http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,269886,00.html http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/20_1-2_CO2_Scandal.pdf http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=438 http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2007/arch07/070507martianwarming.htm http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=8gfbewe7&keywords=global%20warming#dest http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071211101623.htm

It would do us no good to have to stop every 2 hours of driving to charge for 5 mins.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/10/031015031752.htm

a researcher at the University of Missouri-Columbia discovered that the development of a plug-in fuel cell hybrid, with as little as 20 miles of range from rechargeable hydrogen, could cut the amount of gasoline consumed in the United States by more than 50 percent. In addition, this technology could be mass produced in the next five years.

"About 47 percent of all miles put on vehicles in a day are within the first 20 miles of travel," said Galen Suppes, associate professor of chemical engineering at MU. "Furthermore, about 50 percent of the vehicles travel 20 miles or less per day, and this 20 mile distance is usually in inner-city travel where fuel economy for conventional internal combustion engines is poor and emissions have their greatest adverse affects."

... the next grant they get ... will be to research if sad films make ...

Being excellent (otherwise they would not receive grants, wouldn't they?) empirical researchers shading illuminative light into the vast darkness of cinemas, they already did something along the lines:

'"When you're watching movies, your hormones are responding, not just your mind," said Oliver Schultheiss, a U-M psychology professor whose work will be detailed in an upcoming issue of the journal Hormones and Behavior. "This also helps explain why certain people like to go to certain types of movies. Affiliation-motivated people like to see romantic flicks. But power-motivated people prefer movies with more action and violence.' (loc. cit.)

CC.

Most things humans do effect the entire society. By that rationalization, you could justify pretty much any government control over our lives.

People getting fat? Health care costs go up. Ban pizza. Mandate vegetable consumption.

Auto accidents? Ban private cars. Mandate public transportation use.

I've got two children, and I've had them both vaccinated. But lets not pretend that there are no dangers with vaccines. Our doctors were, to their credit, very upfront with us about that. You're essentially taking a chance, playing the numbers when you take a vaccine, as a percentage of people will always have adverse reactions. Those numbers of adverse reactions are statistically low, and your chances are pretty good, but I do have a friend whose daughter lost the use of her legs from a vaccination. It does happen. And as for the HPV vaccine, you can't call all those parents nutjobs when Gardisil has had some unexpected side-effects. And should a vaccine for a sexually transmitted disease be mandatory anyway?

Non-vaccinated people are a danger to no one but themselves. If everyone else is vaccinated, they're safe. And far from under-vaccinating, the New England Journal of Medicine suggests that we may be over-vaccinating . Increasing disease resistance to drugs and immunizations is a far greater threat to the populace than any parent withholding a vaccine.

After Judge Kimball burns SCOX to a cinder, there is hope that something good can come from the remains...

It's depressing to think we'll be long dead before humanity finally understands the universe. Space travel, immortality, ... Take some mianserin then. It might not make you immortal but it might increase your life span. Even if it doesn't, at least you won't be depressed over it anymore.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/06/010608081621.htm says the exact opposite, from about 6 months earlier than the synopsis you provided.

It's an area of debate, to be sure. My understanding is that (like the mammoth in Eurasia example I used in my OP in this thread) there was negative population pressure from both means -- climate change enabled overkill, but overkill was the ultimate cause of extinction.

Also note that the paper you refer to speaks specifically of the Clovis people of 11000 years ago; it hints at the earlier presence of man in the Americas, but a lot has been published since 2001 on when man came to the Americas. Do you know of any recent research on the topic that I would find helpful? I'm guessing by your userID that you're at minimum a serious hobbiest... if you could point me towards additional enlightening materials I'd appreciate it.

If, by widely accepted, you mean that environmental activists try to make people feel guilty by claiming that humans have been destroying their environment since the dawn of civilization.

Extinctions amongst megafauna during the end of the last ice age are better-attributed to {gasp} the end of the last ice age! Large, heavy-coated, cold-adapted animals couldn't deal with global warming. Stone-age humans were certainly hunting individual mammoths, camels, etc. but human society and technology was simply not advanced or numerous enough to kill off multiple species in a short time frame.

This article reminded me of another article I read recently (I was actually suspecting this was a dupe because of it). Basically, these genetically modified mice have the same behavior as mice infected with this parasite.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/08/060804085444.htm

I would like to offer the proposition that scientific humor is targeted for a limited audience and that the form of the publication often parodies that of field-appropriate journals. This later point often makes the joke difficult to translate. It's like having a punchline in a monologue where the timing is badly off. Other elements often depend on an understanding of subtle word play or field specific terminology. This is not to say that scientific humor cannot be understood by non-scientists, but merely that non-scientists are much less likely to find it funny.

One of my personal favorites was published nearly eight years ago. This was a study on diyttrium potassium which was published in Science. I don't have a link to the original (and more humorous -- at least to me -- article), but maybe this one will do.

Should the proposition above not resonate, let me offer this second theory. Scientists generally spend too many hours in the lab, in the field, or at the computer. This has resulted in an atrophied sense of humor such that anything beyond this level of funniness could prove fatal. Believe what you will.

Not in the least, are you, and what does that have to do with it?

No, you just come across that way.

Show me some numbers.

Okay, you asked for it, here are some links. There are thousands of entries in the databases and journals that are not outdated research. Many of which you can not access directly form the web (subscription required). Here are a few links I glossed over quickly:

• Research
• More research
• More Research
• Oblig wikipedia
• Someone almost any father should know about
• More research

Do you really want me to go on? As I had said before, there is a ton of research that shows this. There are many reasons, poverty being but one. Children of single parent households are at greater risk (risk means chance, as in it might be, but might not be), but not doomed. And, I was not making a comment on yourself (just the language you used and the attitude which you came across with.) I have studied and worked in psychology, sociology and recovery. Have you? If you have, what has caused you to believe that economics are the sole foundation of family's woes. That sounds like a very narrow and personal understanding of the issues at hand. I have seen mental health, drugs, accidents, abuse, life crises, market changes, job shifts, marital issues, and many others things cause the issues you so conveniently blame poverty for. On the flip side, I have seen outstanding leaders, students, writers, managers, researchers, etc come from poverty stricken homes. Our world has a fine history of great individuals growing up in poverty to lead and become icons of success.

Poverty is a societal crime anymore in my opinion, but it is not the cause of all of these issues. Having worked in schools, I can tell you from first hand experience that it is the attitude of the parent(s) that make the crucial difference. And, there is also a great deal of research out there to explain to you as well.

It's a cycle, and the cycle typically begins with (drum roll...) Poverty!. Your making a gross exaggeration here.

And you are making a gross simplification of an enormous problem touching on a multitude of issues from mental health to parent's values. How do you explain so many children of well off parents winding up in poverty, so many children of poverty stricken parents winding up great successes? Poverty has something to do with it, but not as much as things have to do with poverty. One of the reasons I support public education over private is poverty discrimination inherent in private educations. Your language reminds me of the teenagers I deal with. That is another reason I asked if you were bitter about your life. The way we use language and the way we disparage others is a very big clue. The more bitter we are on the inside, the more we lash out on the outside. At others we do not know and even more so at those who are close to us.

Honestly I don't think you read what I said, nor do I think you have any fucking right saying that kids with two parents are better off than kids with one.

I read what you typed. there is but one root factor here dipshit[And you wonder why I asked if you are bitter?!?!?], it's money, poor couples are about 40% more likely to argue and split up, the kids are more likely to wind up being yelled at excessively/getting-the-shit-beaten-out-of. this has nothing to do with two working parents, single parents, mixed homes, etc Uh, yes it does. If you have experience researchin

People are seriously working on the 3D printing of human organs using living cells

So the subjectiveness of importance outweighs having things for the few who might need it? Whats good for the goose is good for the gander? I noticed I can't find anything on XKCD....that's kinda messed up. This reminds me a lot of the article in Science Daily that was covered on slashdot previously referencing how things not enough people find important, we are now struggling to document before it is gone/etc. It is for this reason that this whole notability thing needs to be thrown out the window, and appropriateness as well. Of course try to keep information as accurate as possible, but if something was listed only when it is currently notable, then we wouldn't have history on wikipedia. Obviously wiki is a bit more than that.

Heh. It's funny you should say that - recent research indicates that schizophrenics (or people prone to schizophrenia) are much more likely to hear voices in random noise samples :)

I'm willing to bet that you occasionally shopped at the garden center.

Some but I also saved seeds. Where I live now, in Minnesota which shares a border with Canada, I pretty much have to buy seedlings. Now if I had a greenhouse I could start seeds perhaps a month before the last frost date in the greenhouse then I wouldn't need to buy seedlings. Or I could garden hydroponically all year, there's a hydroponic garden store within a few blocks of me. Fertilizer? I compost everything I can, I even add old food or peels such as from bananas and grind any bones to add. I have 2 cats and the corn based litter I also put in the compost. Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle.

Well, GMO'd work animals would still be beneficial. If you could get the local disease resistance of the zebra with the domestication and utility of a mule - that could be very useful.

In the Andes of South America many people such as Native American Indians use llamas for this, no GMOs needed. They are used much like mules for hauling cargo. Some places in Africa and Southeast Asia use elephants for the same thing. If instead of slaughtering elephants for the ivory more were domesticated they could be used the same way.

imagine wild animals constantly getting into your garden - monkeys and other such things.

At one tyme I used fox urine to control deer where I lived. It was also good for rabbits. Farmers in Africa are catching on to the use of peppers and other natural methods to control pests. Here's a study on the use of Indigenous Technical Knowledge and Use of Forest Plant Products for Sustainable Control of Crop Pests in Ogun State, Nigeria.

If it wasn't for conflicts and politics many would be have enough food without GMOs or chemical inputs.

I strongly disagree. Even the West would have trouble feeding itself without chemical fertilizer - and even that would require giving up most meat and grains. Grain in particular is very dependent on chemical fertilizer. In the West we could survive, though, because we can afford it.

Do you have any evidence? Here's some links, including scientific studies, to support my position: A study, "Comparisons of organic and conventional chemical farming systems" shows that organic farming can be just as productive, if not more so, as conventional western farming. Another shows organics can produce 3 tymes as much as conventional. An article from "New Scientist" is about how "Organic farming could feed the world."

One argument for GMOs is that they are very heavily tested

DO you have evidence GMOs are heavily tested? How can they be thoroughly tested when they relatively new and it could take generations to test? Are they also test in combinations, tested X, Y, and Z altogether? One thing may seem to be safe and so may another but put them together and they can be deadly.

it also allows farmers to use less weed/pest killers

This is entirely wrong. While some GMOs may cut down on the need for chemical inputs others make is easier to use those inputs. Monsanto created Roundup Ready, RR, crops so even more Roundup, one of those chemical inputs or herbicides, can be used. Whereas before there was Roundup Ready crops, herbicides could not only kill so called weeds but could harm the crop itself, but now with RR crops all the herbicide Roundup can be applied to crops the farmers wants to use. Since RR crops have been used there has been a marked increase in herbicide, those weed killers, usage.

I doubt that the widely grown crops will be making any pollen. Most GMOs are designed to be sterile. Plants can hybridize very easily, and reproduce very quickly. You don't want some random species to acquire the modifications, nor do you want natural selection working with the modifications

Yet Super Weeds have been shown to be created by the cross breeding of GMO stock and wild relatives. Genetically-Altered Crops Can Produce Tough, Hard-To-Kill Weeds.

In the case of the farmers, they don't want the surrounding weeds to acquire the herbicide-resistance gene from their crops.

See above.

You are right, and in fact if the study about planting false memories about a Disneyland visit isn't a classic yet, it will be.

For those who don't know this one, the researchers exposed test subjects to an ad about Disneyland describing warm fuzzy childhood memories about being hugged by the Bugs Bunny character (well, someone dressed in the costume). Later, they found that as many as 1 in 3 people ended up remembering the event as actually happening to them, rather than just something they read in the ad.

A report on the study is here.

(Btw, for those of you who want to ask, "What if it just so happens that the test subject really had been hugged by Bugs Bunny at Disneyland before?", please, go ahead, ask. I'm sure there's more than one Slashdotter who would love to pounce on you for asking.)

Thanks for the correction. The military should have the lower capability using ground based technology fairly soon: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070726210931.htm

This is not even correct. As you may have seen, Gore may have been more correct than you think. I've seen reports that if Greenland melts (which is happening much faster than expected), we really could have 7 meters of sea-level rise; about 22 feet.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.php?feed=Science&article=UPI-1-20070908-21002600-bc-greenland-glacier.xml

(this one doesn't have those numbers, but you can see that this is apparently happening much more rapidly than thought)

I really didn't need to know that stuff like this even existed. I swear to the expanding gianormous black hole which our universe is within that I will never open a Troll rated post again. Drat. That would mean I couldn't meta mod. Sigh. Destined to see crap like this.

Thank you, I think I will learn the difference. Maybe you should learn too, so we can put myths to rest?

Animals Exposed THC Will Self-Administer

Why teenagers should steer clear of cannabis

The single most common predator for that entire time was members of other small groups of humans

I was really starting to wonder about all those recent earthquakes