Slashdot Mirror

Not trees? :\

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130428144921.htm

They could burn shit from sewage plants. Yes, some would say "it is fertilizer", but not really thanks to industrial waste dumped into it.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130410201824.htm

So, dry and burn the shit while limiting heavy metal emissions. Dry shit burns really really well.

having friends maimed is pretty sure what scared me. I could have easily been there....But some middle class person gets maimed, it is scary.

True, but middle class people are hurt in car accidents, injured in gun accidents and neglected by their health insurance every day, yet this doesn't scare you.
My point, more people are hurt by irrational fear, [Citation provided].

if some jackass can use bold to mark something up and look smart, well kudos to you. I just say fuck you I can use more than html effects than just bold

I know this is the internet, but that's no reason to chicken out of a discussion with profanities (normally I would respond to that)...
But I think that using text formatting to emphasize my point makes sense, in a world here I rarely bother read more than bullet points :)
By the way, next time you rant about your HTML skills you might want to emphasize your skills :)

Science News ... from universities, journals, and other research organizations
Can Organic Food Feed the World? New Study Sheds Light On Debate Over Organic Vs. Conventional Agriculture

6 Surprising Facts About Organic Foods
Organic food continues to show strong growth, despite a weak economy. Find out what's behind the label.

Scientists have been able to reduce the smallest cell down to around 182 genes (159,662 base pairs).
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/10/061012184647.htm

I agree, the probability of getting all those base pairs just in the right order is going to be something like 24^159662, though that might be reduced slightly if those 182 genes can be reorder randomly, and even more if the number of "don't care" base pairs could be calculated. Human mitochondria consists of 16,569 base pairs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_mitochondrial_genetics)

However, when you look at the number of viruses and bacteriophages per square meter (5 x 10^7 per square millilitre or 4 x 10^30 bacteriophages in the oceans), it would seem quite possible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_bacteriophage)

I have read about the history of compilers and the "chicken and egg" situation between which came first. The first C compilers were hand written in assembler, and could be used to compile C code which could then be used to write the next generation of compilers with new feature like macros. The code evolution goes on to C++ and scripting languages like Python, and Python based code generators.

I agree, there is still the fundamental problem of moving from self-replicating groups of atoms to something that has its own interpreted instruction set. From Computer Theory class, that goes all the way back to Turing machines and infinite tapes with a small set of symbols.

However, when you look at the number of atoms in the oceans and the total number of combinations, it could be possible
Number of atoms of water in one square meter (Avogadro's constant) = 6.022169 x 10^23 (http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/mole-per-meter-cubed-Avogadro-constant)
Volume of Earth's oceans = 1.5 billion km^3 = 1.5 x 10^9 km^3 = 1.5 x 10^18 m^3 (http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/SyedQadri.shtml)

Combine those two together and you get 6.022169 x 10^18 m^3 x 1.5x10^18 = 9 x 10^23 = = 9 x 10^41 atoms in the oceans.

Assuming the availability of all the elements then each atom space could be one of 120 atoms. That would raise the total to something like 120 ^ (9 x 10^41).
Look at the number of viruses and bacteriophages in the oceans.

Want proof that Google, Verizon, etc. are in on the privacy nightmares of Android?

They keep releasing new versions that prevent people (who own their phones) from rooting them to

1) block ads ( from their Google Play store)

2) prevent you from using apps to control permissions (like LBE Privacy Guard that now reboots your phone in an endless loop)

With all the time and effort put into their OS, why have they not allowed users to control permissions on apps in any way, shape, or form? Why? Because they are marketing companies that also sell your data to other companies (including all the top mobile carriers). They make deals with these companies and propagate the problem - turning smart phones into a privacy nightmare. And it's not like the iPhone is any better.

Until people take a stand (and stop being a bunch of apathetic consumers), it's not going to change. People allow themselves to be taken advantage of. It's sad. Most don't even care. They'll happily give Facebook and Google all their information because "they don't have anything to hide" - which we all know is the lamest excuse for apathy possible and is easily dismissed as moronic. And it just keeps getting worse - and now our governments collect this data too.

And what is the effect? People are not getting jobs or losing their jobs due to their Facebook posts. Insurance companies are increasing rates on people who type certain terms into their search engines. And that's just barely getting started!

Wake up, folks!

And the aether has now been reborn as the quantum vacuum which is now hypothesized as the reason for the speed of light.

may I suggest
http://www.sciencedaily.com/

during today's slashdot news shutdown

I think methane is the way to go. It's the simplest hydrocarbon, it can be converted to liquid (LNG) or methanol for transport, and we already have the infrastructure to handle it.

Plus, it can be made from water and atmospheric CO2 . There are already bacteria doing it with nothing but electricity. We just need to hack the little buggers and see how they're doing it.

antibiotic treatments used as placebos for vial infections

I'm sorry but a medical professional should flat out know better.

Why?

Much of the time people are prescribed antibiotics they do not really need them anyway as their own immune system will do the job in the end anyway.

Plenty of people go to the doctor demanding antibiotics just because they have a cold and thinking they will help. If the doctor gave all of these retards antibiotics the few effective ones we have remaining would be depleted in no time, especially as the patient would stop taking them as soon as they felt better instead of finishing the course they were prescribed (which is absolutely essential when prescribed antibiotics).

These people then keep moaning at the GP and refusing to accept the truth: cold and flu very rarely kill you so you should just stay in bed until you feel better. Let your immune system do some work, dose yourself up with vitamin C and stay in bed. Instead they demand an instant remedy that lets them go straight back to work or whatever and keep shouting more and more loudly, going back to see the doctor every other day, and blaming it on the skinflint NHS trying to save money.

In this case why shouldn't the doctor just send them home with something that is far cheaper than his time and makes them feel better (see the multitude of studies that show that placebos actually work: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204720204577128873886471982.html, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/12/101222173033.htm)

If a cold / flu is likely to kill you because you are in a high risk group then chances are you have already been given a flu jab anyway for free, thanks to the NHS. Obviously people in these groups should not be given placebos just to shut them up.

If you have a short term, temporary condition then the best approach is almost always just to let your body deal with it. The problem is that we are put under considerable pressure by our employers to try and go in even when were are sick. In my case I just flat out refuse, but since I probably only average 3 or 4 sick days per year I never get complaints in this regard.

Big Pharma spends about twice as much on advertising and marketing than research. While hedward's points are valid, they are rather irrelevant.

Now, they do spend a lot on research. Just think of how much marketing that corresponds to.

They're still using stem cells. It would be much greater to find the solution or protein that triggers your body to just produce a new set of teeth.

The end of the article source is pretty depressing. 10-15 years away from human trials. They said that 10-15 years ago. I've been watching this research for a long time, as I was one of those kids that lived on mt. Dew soda. Ugh! I was particularly excited when they released a treatment for gum tissue repair this year.

Captcha: puppies

I feel like I should tell you that doesn't require esoteric organisms.

Social behavior requires more intellectual power. Dog brains have evolved to be larger than cat's brains in order to facilitate interactions with people.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101127105348.htm

The asocial behavior of cats is not due to intelligence. It's a mark of limited intellect.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130303154859.htm

It's not like Google magically broke you jackass. Here is one page, and here is another. When reading that second one, remember what is discussed in the first. Also follow the links in the first article. The Government studies are harder to find, but do exist.

There are a variety of ways to simply separate carbon dioxide from most other combustion products based on its mass or freezing point.

So you're suggesting we take screaming hot exhaust gas from coal plants and chill it to -109.3F or -78.5C to separate the CO2 as a solid?

Here's an example of what would be required of a single coal-fired plant:

The Scherer plant in Juliet, GA generates 25.3 million tons of CO2 annually. That 69,315 tons/day or 62.88 millon kg/day. Ignoring the energy required to take the exhaust gas from post-scrubber temps to -78.5C and just considering getting the CO2 to sublimate would take 571 kJ/kg or 35904 GJ/day. a Ton-equivalent of coal is 29.3076 GJ, so you'd be burning 1225 tons of coal a day just to take -78.5C CO2 to -78.5C dry ice.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/08/980806090010.htm

Camera implants are for borgs.. regenerative medicine should provide a viable cure, we need something more like this.

"The research, published in the European Journal of Social Psychology, found in a series of experiments that participants processed images of men and women in very different ways. When presented with images of men, perceivers tended to rely more on "global" cognitive processing, the mental method in which a person is perceived as a whole. Meanwhile, images of women were more often the subject of "local" cognitive processing, or the objectifying perception of something as an assemblage of its various parts." This was happening with both male and female survey subjects.

As the actual article is behind a paywall, I can't speak with certainty, but from what I can glean from here - it seems like another case of a badly done study.

In a new study that examined our cognitive process in how we perceive men and women, participants saw a fully clothed person from head to knee. After a brief pause, they then saw two new images on their screen: One that was unmodified and contained the original image, the other a slightly modified version of the original image with a sexual body part changed. Participants then quickly indicated which of the two images they had previously seen. They made decisions about entire bodies in some trials and body parts in other trials.

Looking at the photos in the link, the change in the edited photo is rather obvious. Which makes the following part of the results, rather a no-brainer.

Women's sexual body parts were more easily recognized when presented in isolation than when they were presented in the context of their entire bodies.

Zoomed in details more recognizable for deliberate errors, claim scientists.

As for why it wasn't the case with men...
Besides the fact that all we get to work with is "But men's sexual body parts were recognized better when presented in the context of their entire bodies than they were in isolation."
No actual numbers of results so that we can see if any of it is statistically significant OR correctly measured.
I have a nagging feeling that "a sexual body part" on a man's body may be quite... well... flat and unremarkable.
While that same body part on a woman's body is rather... curved and filled out. More detailed.

Which leaves us with a bit of an imbalance regarding the perceptibility of the changes in the details - namely, they may not be enough details to be noticed in the photos of the male upper torso.
How did they control for that?

Now... That's only ONE theory going against the "women are a sum of objects, men are whole persons" hypothesis.
How about the possibility that the humans (male and female) as a species have evolved a stronger reaction to female than to male breasts? As it tends to be our primary source of food very early in life.
No need to pull the "objectification" card to explain that, but it could very likely skew the results of the study.
How did they control for that too?

Where exactly did the "women are a sum of objects, men are whole persons" hypothesis come from?
All I can see them measure is "Do people notice details more on male or on female body?"
The leap from "we notice more details on women than on men" to "we all objectify women" seems to be made entirely out of confirmation bias.

As for them trying to "condition" the subjects to "perceive globally" (explained here, near the end of the article), again, we don't know if that training reduced the perception of details OR increased the recognizability of women "in the context of their whole bodies".
All we know is that now "Women were more easily recognizable in the context of their whole bodies instead of their various sexual body parts."

Were there changes in results with men, too? If the training works there should be SOME change.
Could

When will we come to the place where we realize that the Earth doesn't need us to clean up from stuff that it already produces, in the places it produces it? Millions of gallons of crude seep from the Gulf floor every day. Nature/bacteria takes care of it. Move along. Nothing to see here. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120911125315.htm

*sigh*. If you're going to quote the scientific literature in support of your argument, you need to at least make some effort to understand it first.

The paper says that cosmic rays strongly correlate with ozone depletion. The data point to cosmic-ray driven reactions of halogenated molecules as being the cause of the correlation. The *only* halogenated molecules present in the stratosphere in any significant concentration are CFCs. I'll repeat that: where the paper talks about "halogenated molecules", it's talking about CFCs, HCFCs and other man-made chemicals.

"Coastal waters of the tropical Western Pacific produce natural halogenated organic molecules involving chlorine, bromine and iodine atoms that may damage the stratospheric ozone layer. "

"Micro-organisms such as macro-algae and phytoplankton form natural halogenated organic molecules, which are released into the air, where they eventually find their way into the stratosphere."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/02/120201093105.htm

And yet - as was pointed out in the paper - the concentration of CFCs in the atmosphere is carefully monitored these days, and has been static since about 1992 which correlates with treaties and provisions phasing out CFC use in industry. The quantities man put up are staggering compared to any natural production.

*sigh*. If you're going to quote the scientific literature in support of your argument, you need to at least make some effort to understand it first.

The paper says that cosmic rays strongly correlate with ozone depletion. The data point to cosmic-ray driven reactions of halogenated molecules as being the cause of the correlation. The *only* halogenated molecules present in the stratosphere in any significant concentration are CFCs. I'll repeat that: where the paper talks about "halogenated molecules", it's talking about CFCs, HCFCs and other man-made chemicals.

"Coastal waters of the tropical Western Pacific produce natural halogenated organic molecules involving chlorine, bromine and iodine atoms that may damage the stratospheric ozone layer. "

"Micro-organisms such as macro-algae and phytoplankton form natural halogenated organic molecules, which are released into the air, where they eventually find their way into the stratosphere."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/02/120201093105.htm

"because whatever else abortion and gay marriage are, they are most certainly not multi-generational survival traits" http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080617204459.htm Proof you're wrong, at least on the gay part.

They also have some 400 distinct odorant receptors, I knew they smelled
their way around but it's much more than just following a trail.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120910143532.htm

FWIW, some additional info:

Life possible on extrasolar moons "In their search for habitable worlds, astronomers have started to consider exomoons, or those likely orbiting planets outside the solar system. In a new study, a pair of researchers has found that exomoons are just as likely to support life as exoplanets."

Just keep in mind this field is an interesting area of active research. So take things with a grain of salt. But we have huge amounts of interesting new data coming from a.o. the Kepler observatory, and other projects. E.g.:

At Least One in Six Stars Has an Earth-Sized Planet, Analysis Finds "A new analysis of Kepler data shows that about 17 percent of stars have an Earth-sized planet in an orbit closer than Mercury. Since the Milky Way has about 100 billion stars, there are at least 17 billion Earth-sized worlds out there"

Planets Abound: Astronomers Estimate That at Least 100 Billion Planets Populate the Galaxy "There's at least 100 billion planets in the galaxy -- just our galaxy,"

Fifteen New Planets Hint at 'Traffic Jam' of Moons in Habitable Zone "Added to the 19 similar planets already discovered in habitable zones, where the temperature is neither too hot nor too cold for liquid water, the new finds suggest that there may be a 'traffic jam' of all kinds of strange worlds in regions that could potentially support life."

FWIW, some additional info:

Life possible on extrasolar moons "In their search for habitable worlds, astronomers have started to consider exomoons, or those likely orbiting planets outside the solar system. In a new study, a pair of researchers has found that exomoons are just as likely to support life as exoplanets."

Just keep in mind this field is an interesting area of active research. So take things with a grain of salt. But we have huge amounts of interesting new data coming from a.o. the Kepler observatory, and other projects. E.g.:

At Least One in Six Stars Has an Earth-Sized Planet, Analysis Finds "A new analysis of Kepler data shows that about 17 percent of stars have an Earth-sized planet in an orbit closer than Mercury. Since the Milky Way has about 100 billion stars, there are at least 17 billion Earth-sized worlds out there"

Planets Abound: Astronomers Estimate That at Least 100 Billion Planets Populate the Galaxy "There's at least 100 billion planets in the galaxy -- just our galaxy,"

Fifteen New Planets Hint at 'Traffic Jam' of Moons in Habitable Zone "Added to the 19 similar planets already discovered in habitable zones, where the temperature is neither too hot nor too cold for liquid water, the new finds suggest that there may be a 'traffic jam' of all kinds of strange worlds in regions that could potentially support life."

FWIW, some additional info:

Life possible on extrasolar moons "In their search for habitable worlds, astronomers have started to consider exomoons, or those likely orbiting planets outside the solar system. In a new study, a pair of researchers has found that exomoons are just as likely to support life as exoplanets."

Just keep in mind this field is an interesting area of active research. So take things with a grain of salt. But we have huge amounts of interesting new data coming from a.o. the Kepler observatory, and other projects. E.g.:

At Least One in Six Stars Has an Earth-Sized Planet, Analysis Finds "A new analysis of Kepler data shows that about 17 percent of stars have an Earth-sized planet in an orbit closer than Mercury. Since the Milky Way has about 100 billion stars, there are at least 17 billion Earth-sized worlds out there"

Planets Abound: Astronomers Estimate That at Least 100 Billion Planets Populate the Galaxy "There's at least 100 billion planets in the galaxy -- just our galaxy,"

Fifteen New Planets Hint at 'Traffic Jam' of Moons in Habitable Zone "Added to the 19 similar planets already discovered in habitable zones, where the temperature is neither too hot nor too cold for liquid water, the new finds suggest that there may be a 'traffic jam' of all kinds of strange worlds in regions that could potentially support life."

FWIW, some additional info:

Life possible on extrasolar moons "In their search for habitable worlds, astronomers have started to consider exomoons, or those likely orbiting planets outside the solar system. In a new study, a pair of researchers has found that exomoons are just as likely to support life as exoplanets."

Just keep in mind this field is an interesting area of active research. So take things with a grain of salt. But we have huge amounts of interesting new data coming from a.o. the Kepler observatory, and other projects. E.g.:

At Least One in Six Stars Has an Earth-Sized Planet, Analysis Finds "A new analysis of Kepler data shows that about 17 percent of stars have an Earth-sized planet in an orbit closer than Mercury. Since the Milky Way has about 100 billion stars, there are at least 17 billion Earth-sized worlds out there"

Planets Abound: Astronomers Estimate That at Least 100 Billion Planets Populate the Galaxy "There's at least 100 billion planets in the galaxy -- just our galaxy,"

Fifteen New Planets Hint at 'Traffic Jam' of Moons in Habitable Zone "Added to the 19 similar planets already discovered in habitable zones, where the temperature is neither too hot nor too cold for liquid water, the new finds suggest that there may be a 'traffic jam' of all kinds of strange worlds in regions that could potentially support life."

http://www.nature.com/news/2003/030120/full/news030113-10.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/11/111122112023.htm

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/07/120730-caffeinated-seas-pacific-northwest-caffeine-coffee-science/

http://researchmatters.noaa.gov/news/Pages/caffeine.aspx

Man, if you want to start getting down to the part-per-trillion and part-per-quadrillion levels, we'll be able to see variation in 'pollution' levels for any known substance. Example, the National Geographic article notes the 'polluted' seas had caffeine levels of 45 ng/L. Compare that to a 12 oz. drink with 100 mg of caffeine in it. The 'pollution' we're talking about is at 0.0000016% the concentration found in caffeinated drinks.
I know a lot of scientists really want to ask and answer questions like "can increasing caffeine levels 0.000002% in the environment cause problems?", but the fact is until we actually understand how the environment works as a system and how living creatures' bodies work as a system, we will not have the tools at hand to answer them. The statistical tools we have developed instead of this systemic knowledge are constantly abused, either by failing to control for variables, or simply ignoring basic assumptions underlying the physical and/or statistical model.

Top level scientists in the 21st century are dropping the ball.

How about 1000 TW of power plants running mass drivers timed to fire at a specific intervals in a precisely calibrated direction with a velocity of 30km/s over a period of a century? Would that move the orbit enough to change temperatures?

Global power production is about 5TW, so this would be a little bigger. Solar irradiance at Earth's surface is about is about 141,000 TW, so that power level is not impossible (requiring 11.3% of all land mass, deserts make up 33%) - even with solar thermal power. Nukes would be much more compact.

Any astrophysicists here? Would moving the Earth's orbit out potentially bring Mars closer, increasing its habitability as well? For anyone thinking really long term, it's relevant.

http://www.nature.com/news/2003/030120/full/news030113-10.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/11/111122112023.htm

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/07/120730-caffeinated-seas-pacific-northwest-caffeine-coffee-science/

http://researchmatters.noaa.gov/news/Pages/caffeine.aspx

Actually I think the doctor over prescribing antibiotics stuff is overblown. If you're not taking the antibiotics every day for years, the resistant bacteria in your body have a chance of vanishing after a while.

Whereas at the hospitals and farms that are using antibiotics EVERYDAY for decades, it should no surprise that bacteria at those places are resistant - it gives them a significant edge over the nonresistant ones.

I bet most people catch the superbugs (e.g. MRSA) from hospitals and farms- whether directly or indirectly.

Nowadays the meat is contaminated too:

Nearly half of the meat and poultry samples -- 47 percent -- were contaminated with S. aureus, and more than half of those bacteria -- 52 percent -- were resistant to at least three classes of antibiotics, according to the study published April 15 in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110415083153.htm

So if you're unlucky you might get an infection from contaminated food whether handling or consuming.

Here's an example of the sort of thing of thing I'm talking about: New Target for Treating Wide Range of Cancers: Promising Binding Site On Mutant P53 Protein. This is a major breakthrough on the path toward finding treatments for a wide range of cancers. The team is led by what appears to be one of these so-called free-riding immigrants, an Austrian. If you read the names on this publication list you'd be forgiven for thinking this was in a foreign country. Meet some of the team members who are f'ing curing cancer - a sizable percentage of them are "foreigners", and many are probably immigrants who are supposedly being "given" an education at the "expense" of the US. I bet the jerks who are so eager to kick all "foreigners" out of America would gladly accept that cancer cure when it comes round, when they get cancer from sitting on their lazy asses eating junkfood. I really think we benefit from this ... this example is just one, but you can look at just about any leading-edge research to find the same pattern.

There are actually several noteworthy bacterial species that live almost exclusively in the mid and upper atmospheres.

For instance, here is a story from 2008 about 'rain making' atmospheric microbes.

This announcement is neither new, nor unexpected, and the hype injected by the media about it serves only to convey how poorly educated certain segments of the population actually are.

Seriously, if there is even the slightest possibility that life could exist in any given environment on earth, there is a reasonable expectation that given a sufficient sampling of those environments, you will find thriving lifeforms that have adapted to that environment. Life is just that pernicious and invasive.

Something as profoundly in contact with huge numbers of open biomes, like the atmosphere, with direct mechanisms of mixing low and high atmosphere contents, it really isn't surprising that microbes have adapted to conditions in the upper atmosphere.

For goodness sake, we have novel species of microbe that have adapted to the extreme conditions of nasa JPL cleanrooms, including intense, sustained UV bombardment. JPL hasn't be around nearly as long as the stratosphere. This isn't hard.

http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/109/21/2655.full http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120605121700.htm Have I got a case yet ?

A better one, ya. I appreciate the links.
Though I'd still be curious to know if CO2 is the relevant cause. These links discuss airborne pollutants, like particulates. And that's a case less people are prone to question.

http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/109/21/2655.full
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120605121700.htm

Have I got a case yet ?

>Do you have a source

I... did.

I wish I had bookmarked it now.

I guess you could say "photosynthesis in general" because they all use the same mechanism - chromophores- just different wavelengths and "packaging schemes"

These are related

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120524092932.htm

http://phys.org/news/2012-01-role-quantum-effects-photosynthesis.html

How different wavelengths affect yield:

http://www.plantcell.org/content/early/2012/05/21/tpc.112.097972.abstract

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940): "Why do you think neanderthals had dark hair and brown eyes? Doesn't it seem a little odd that the only place you can find blonde hair, red hair, blue or green eyes and white skin also happens to be the same location that the neanderthals were mostly last seen in?"

Because

"A team at the University of Copenhagen have tracked down a genetic mutation which took place 6-10,000 years ago and is the cause of the eye colour of all blue-eyed humans alive on the planet today. [...] Originally, we all had brown eyes”, said Professor Eiberg from the Department of Cellular and Molecular Medicine. “But a genetic mutation affecting the OCA2 gene in our chromosomes resulted in the creation of a “switch”, which literally “turned off” the ability to produce brown eyes”. The OCA2 gene codes for the so-called P protein, which is involved in the production of melanin, the pigment that gives colour to our hair, eyes and skin. The “switch”, which is located in the gene adjacent to OCA2 does not, however, turn off the gene entirely, but rather limits its action to reducing the production of melanin in the iris – effectively “diluting” brown eyes to blue."

From http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080130170343.htm

"Neanderthal extinction hypotheses are plausible explanations on how Neanderthals became extinct around 30,000 years ago."

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal_extinction_hypotheses

So, the Neanderthals died out some 20,000 years _before_ there were blue eyes.

And no, the large dinosaurs like T-Rex weren't around at that time either.

I'm increasingly having trouble remembering why it seemed like a space mission would be so much cooler with a person onboard

I would think this should be more obvious, but it's "cooler" for the people onboard. Do you think it would have been a whole lot cooler if the Spanish had just sent robots to the New World?

Humans are going to colonize space, and it's not for your personal entertainment, but because people with a spirit of exploration want to see what's out there and want to set foot on and colonize new worlds. The early settlers didn't migrate to the New World for the purposes of entertaining those back home. Public Space Programs may be entertaining, but they're not primarily entertainment programs (likewise for projects like Elon Musk's).

Of course, projects like Hubble wouldn't be any better with 'a guy in it'. But is there advantage to acquiring the know-how to have humans in space? Absolutely. If you can't see why it's "cool" to get humans to Mars, then rather just go back to playing video games or whatever entertains you, because there's not much else in this universe that is going to fire your imagination.

That humans are going to colonize space is by now a matter of 'when and how', not 'if'. I think it's time we got our butts over to Mars, and it's time we thought about how to get our butts over to the nearest stars and look for habitable new worlds to colonize. Time's wasting, and I want to retire someday (if we cure aging then this may be reasonable even at well below light speeds) on one of the planets around Tau Ceti, or something similar.

Plastic bottles contain the chemical BPA that we were recently warned about. Here's an article that claims the previous claims are false. Make of it what you will. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130102140526.htm

Danger and Ineffectiveness of Flu Vaccines The fact is that the masses ARE receiving the flu shots from a multiple dose vials, and irresponsibly the medical facilities, clinics, and pharmacies that provide those flu shots are NOT informing the person getting that shot that there is 25 mcg of thimerosal content in that shot. Pregnant women, same thing; irresponsibly in all of those places giving the flu vaccine, there are no medical personnel informing the recipient of the vaccine, of what is in it. To claim that a known poison and neurotoxin is harmless or less harmeful, due to the claim of it being metabolised as ethylmercury verses methylmercury, should not in way way be reassuring as to toxicity; nor is there any source that has proven in any way, that claim. You need to go to the unbiased sources to realize that any study that claims to significant effectiveness of a flu shot, is always connected to pharmaceutical companies or those who stand to profit from it. When large evaluations have been done including all or many of the main line studies, it is found that the only studies that show the real truth about the lack of effectiveness and benefit of the flu shots, are those are not connected to direct profit, or a biased interest in the promotion of the flu vaccine. Those studies of course show an entirely opposite story regarding effectiveness. When you look at the ingredients in a flu shot and potential toxicity, and as well the chance for contamination from the sources the vaccine is made from; there enters from that point a balance where you really need to question if the flu shot over-all involves the potential for doing more harm than good. If you think it is not all about money and profits, think again. Modern medicine in general has never been about staying healthy; it is about selling chemical pharmaceuticals to alter an illness and/or disease condition that they really have no comprehension nor want to, about the root of the cause. Flu Shot ingredients http://www.novaccine.com/specific-vaccines/vaccine.asp?v_id=16 Children Who Get Flu Vaccine Have Three Times Risk Of Hospitalization For Flu, Study Suggests http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090519172045.htm

You're joking, right?

Concussion in Rugby is hidden epidemic

Concerns rise over rugby concussion risk

Concern at lack of rugby head injury reporting

Rugby players urged to donate their brains to help head-injury research

The saddest part is your bullshit got modded as interesting and insightful.

A few years ago, the kilogram reference standard was losing mass -- coincidentally, they said it had lost 50 g, the amount of mass it's now said to have gained. So it should be just right by now.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070921110735.htm

First off, RoundUp is the most talked about, but far from the only pesticide used

Second, the whole big thing with pesticide resistant crops is that it allows you to use more of the pesticide on your farm. This is leading to increased pesticides in soil.

Manufacturers have a history of toxic pesticides being used than proven dangerous decades later only to be replaced by new products.

We are now getting reports that manure compost is testing at times with high enough levels of herbicides to post a problem.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/02/us-usa-study-pesticides-idUSBRE89100X20121002

http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2012/10/how-gmos-ramped-us-pesticide-use

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/02/genetically-modified-crops-pesticides_n_1931020.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/04/pesticides-gmo-monsanto-roundup-resistance_n_1936598.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090817143610.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8308903.stm

http://www.motherearthnews.com/killer-compost-herbicide-contamination-zl0z1211zkin.aspx

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate#Human

GMOs infected non GMO products. Yes, we were originally told this wasn't a risk.

The SCIENCE is there...you just want to be ignorant.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129010499

From "Lead Poisoning Causes Crime?"

Blindingly obvious? As far as I know there are no national data series (other than crime statistics) related to societal levels of agressivity and impulsivity, but there are data on national trends in average IQs and ADHD. And those data cut against the lead/crime hypothesis. Take ADHD trends; even as blood lead levels have been dropping the diagnosed rate of ADHD has been rising steeply, up 66 percent in just the past 10 years. And despite the rise in ADHD, crime rates are still falling.

In addition, even as exposure to tetra-ethyl lead rose, average American IQ scores have been increasing at the rate of about 3 points per decade for nearly a century, up about 22 points since 1932 [PDF]. This increase is the well-known Flynn Effect, named after the New Zealand researcher, James Flynn, who first identified the steady rise in average IQ scores. Note that average IQ scores have been increasing ever since tetra-ethyl lead was first added to gasoline in the mid-1920s.

How well are the most important climate models able to predict the weather conditions for the coming year or even the next decade? Potsdam scientists Dr. DÃrthe Handorf and Prof. Dr. Klaus Dethloff from the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research in the Helmholtz Association (AWI) have evaluated 23 climate models and published their results in the current issue of the international scientific journal Tellus A. Their conclusion: there is still a long way to go before reliable regional predictions can be made on seasonal to decadal time scales. None of the models evaluated is able today to forecast the weather-determining patterns of high and low pressure areas such that the probability of a cold winter or a dry summer can be reliably predicted.

In other words, we can't test the long term predictions of these models because they haven't happened yet. But we can test the "medium term" predictions and those just aren't working out very well.

Entry: "chemical compound"

Entry: "chemical compound"

Entry:"chemical compound"

What definition of "chemical compound" are you using exactly, that perchlorate ion would not be a chemical compound?

As for the question: calcium perchlorate.

Recent evidence suggests otherwise.

I learned new concepts today regarding the Global Warming.

• An anoxic event, which is related to the sea temperature, could potentially lead to increased hydrogen sulfide emissions, which can poison the atmosphere.
• Vast areas of Earth can be rendered uninhabitable because of the "sudden" rise in the wet-bulb temperature. No time to adapt.
• Evapotranspiration may already be severely disrupted. The consequence may be a feedback loop to a drying Earth.
• Clathrate gun hypotesis - the rising temperatures lead to a feedback loop of ever increasing methane

It's worrisome that currently everything is pointing to an increased possibility of aforementioned things happening. All of this while the humanity itself is releasing as much CO2 into the atmosphere per year as an extinction level super volcano.

I'm not sure what to think of this. I feel like we already all past the point of no return. The forced reduction of the human activity because of the change in the external conditions can be considered as a natural negative feedback cycle.