Slashdot Mirror
Domain: sciencemag.org
Stories and comments across the archive that link to sciencemag.org.
Comments · 1,625
-
Link to the full research paper
http://advances.sciencemag.org...
The authors have not placed a copy on the arXiv preprint server
-
Overload == operator, moderate, optimize for +, &a
Even before Bruce wrote this timely article, I wondered whether more women in open source might be a cause or an effect of better moderation. My brief time working with the late Telsa Gwynn at GUADEC 2003 suggested that moderation was one of her under-appreciated roles. But she was attacked by the misogynistic mob (AKA the open source community.) Were it not for Telsa's thick skin and an overdeveloped sense of forgiveness, none of us would have benefited from her work. Many other women and others outside of a particularly narrow age/race/religion/gender profile have experienced similar when attempting to contribute and most gave up. We tolerate Linus's rantings and ignore that only timing and humility separated Linus from countless other early *nix hackers. We tolerate Gangolf Jobb's racist license and Trumpish rantings because he is a good coder. My family and remote team members met at GUADEC Istanbul where a very well-known opensource developer spewed misogynistic rantings that embarrassed and offended me, projected a terrible impression of Christians and Euro/American society to my global team who were experiencing western society for the first time. He came very near to inspiring at least one person to push him into the Bosporus. Why does this happen? Part of it is the same reason Whitney Houston and other rock , movie and sports superstars are bat shit insane. Society should be a counterbalance to the Id, but when we worship people as superstars, there is no counterbalance and Id rules. The defence mechanism takes over when the inner demons unleashed by bad decisions are externalized, possibly as police brutality. Similar forces were at play when Hans Reiser became our OJ Simpson.
In the past that role of moderation was performed by a central government (e.g. the FCC), a tight group of highly educated individuals, a class/caste system. Twitter and Facebook use something close to a democracy but the S/N ratio can quickly fall to the level of CB radio, AOL and usenet. The more sophisticated merit-based moderation system used by Slashdot, some opensource projects and creative sites such as worth1000 works well, at least above a certain threshold. But these systems must be designed to prevent individuals or small groups from becoming immune to criticism. Within government legal frameworks the censor or impeachment is a mechanism for moderation. We could do something within opensource communities where an individual's ethics could taint their contributions. Each of us would be able to choose whether we want to contribute or use ethically-tainted patches.
Back in the 1980s when I may have been the last male to wirewrap a PDP-11 core memory board, a friend commented, "Did you ever notice that men in the comp-sci program are (80s equivalent of "Meh") but the women are brilliant?" Yes, I did notice that. But whatever happened to Karen Norwood, Maureen T, Kathy Christiansen, Norah K, and the sole woman in our Physics program?
This is where overloading the == operator comes in. Equality is an overloaded word. Here in Ireland, the word was a slogan for LBGT marriage rights which passed referendum with an overwhelming majority. But the word "equality" doesn't apply to gender, race, religion or immigration issues here. But do we really want women to become equal to 20-something males who live in their parent's basement who have the moral and emotional depth of comic book and video game heros? I don't. Let's take the best woman have to offer and not try to force them into our broken mold.
-
Re:Only if you Exclude Technological Limits
UnknownSoldier wrote:
By that logic: * The Big Bang Theory is not Science, * hell, most of Astrophysics is not science either
Yeah, you've got it: there is no Definition of Science that doesn't exclude a bunch of stuff that certainly seems like science. And no, Virginia, Popper's falsification is not accepted by actual scientists as the fundamental principle of science: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Wikipedia.
In the case of String Theory we've got a bunch of smart folks working very hard at making inferences pushing the limits of what's known and what's knowable. If it was easy to do experiments to settle these issues, then they'd have been done already and the frontier would be somewhere else. It doesn't follow that no one is ever going to come up with relevent experimental data, and scientific theories don't actually come with expiration dates, like, "must be verified by Christmas".
Arguably these guys were working on a quickie experiment to settle an aspect of string theory (though I expect someone to jump in with a dogmatic definition of string theory that excludes the theory that the universe has a distributed information character to it in the same manner as a hologram).
-
Re:Rotting eggs?
"My HS Chem teacher said it's considered the worst smelling substance known"
Yeah.... not even close. Look up thioacetone.
-
Re:I haven't had flu in years either
IANAB, but I do have a question: If these claims have merit (not saying they do), could it perhaps be something genetic or a compound being excreted by this bacteria that's ostensibly causing this? I know for a fact at least that bacteria are promiscuous and can pass on genetic material to other bacteria. In fact, it's that mechanism by which many forms of bacterial are becoming antibiotic resistance.
-
Re:Déjà vu
The link to our paper is right there in TFS: http://advances.sciencemag.org...
-
Re:Trading on tragedy
They took stem cells and observed their behaviour. This isn't some study where they just averaged incident rates vs. environmental exposure.
https://www.sciencemag.org/con...
Non-paywalled version of the full paper:
-
Links: paper and video interview w/ author
The paper:
https://www.sciencemag.org/con...A short article and interview with Lake:
http://www.ibtimes.com/say-hel... -
Re:Because the shooter was an American?
Why do you imagine that a majority of the American public is hardly concerned? Are they all nuts? [Lonny Eachus]
Why did US NAS & 12 other science academies say this? Are they all nuts? "... the need for urgent action to address climate change is now indisputable." [Dumb Scientist]
because the data was fudged and we all know it now. Nice try, genius. [SmallCorpses4Sale]
Can you link credible evidence that data cited by the NAS statement was "fudged"? Who's the guilty fudging culprit? [Dumb Scientist]
www3.epa.gov/climatechange/...
principia-scientific.org/breaking-new-c... [SmallCorpses4Sale, 2015-12-11]
Your first link is credible, but it doesn't claim that data cited by the NAS statement were "fudged". If you disagree, please quote the relevant passage explaining what data was "fudged".
Your second link leads to one of the many baseless accusations from PSI Sky Dragon Slayer "Steven Goddard". If that's the most credible evidence you can find, please understand that some American patriots might find the US National Academy of Sciences more credible than a rant on a conspiracy theory website run by psychopathic pedophile John O'Sullivan.
And even the baseless accusations on that conspiracy theory website only pertain to US temperature data. Were those data cited by the NAS statement? No. It's difficult to imagine a dozen other countries signing a statement citing data over a mere ~2% of Earth's surface. Why would that matter to them? Why would such a tiny cherry-picked sample matter to any scientist diagnosing global warming?
Scientists studying global warming use global data. If "Steven Goddard's" conspiracy theories were true, wouldn't raw global data show less warming (or maybe even cooling!) over the last century compared to the "fudged" global surface data?
But once again that's not true. Karl et al. 2015 Fig 2(b) (backup) shows that NOAA's global raw surface temperatures ("without corrections") have warmed faster than the corrected (fudged?) temperatures.
Isn't that the exact opposite of what you'd expect from a conspiracy to "fudge" global warming data?
-
Re:Untestable?
If String Theory makes no testable predictions, then why was I just reading this, over at AAAS? FTA:
Working with a few lasers and mirrors, physicists at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (Fermilab) in Batavia, Illinois, have been trying to test a wild idea from string theory: that our universe may be like an enormous hologram.
Maybe because that experiment has nothing to do with any theory at all.
-
Untestable?
If String Theory makes no testable predictions, then why was I just reading this, over at AAAS? FTA:
Working with a few lasers and mirrors, physicists at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (Fermilab) in Batavia, Illinois, have been trying to test a wild idea from string theory: that our universe may be like an enormous hologram.
The full article from Science is paywalled. Is this just an instance of clueless science writing?
-
Here's the link to the story
-
Re:where it the link...
Here is the link to the article.
-
In the Pipeline
-
In the Pipeline
-
In the Pipeline
-
In the Pipeline
-
Re:Redox Mediator
Interesting that the summary explains what a lithium-ion battery is but assumes I know what a charge ferrying redox mediator is. I'm obviously a bit out of touch.
It's a pleonasm if you ask me.
BTW, here's the actual article.
http://advances.sciencemag.org... -
consider silver colloids . . .
For thousands of years silver was the antibiotic of choice. Unfortunately nobody can patent silver, so pharmaceutical companies opted for other methods of germ fighting.
According to sciencemag.org "Silver ions perform their deadly work by punching holes in bacterial membranes and wreaking havoc once inside. They bind to essential cell components like DNA, preventing the bacteria from performing even their most basic functions."
In particular a recent article reveals that dead bacteria containing silver ions cause massive death among neighboring bacteria creating a zombie effect. This exciting news for sick people will probably fail to impress the medical establishment because silver still isn't patentable or profitable. http://news.sciencemag.org/bio...
Recent studies of silver suggest that it is not as effective as some would have you believe. Again, who pays for those studies--the medical establishment--can you believe their conclusions? They begrudgingly admit that silver is harmless when used sensibly. Corporations in the US have only one mandate under the law--provide a profit for their shareholders. Is this the correct attitude for a medical institution?
-
Re:Science is Settled
... warmer weather is expected to weaken cyclonic activity, not make it stronger. Until about the end of the century, anyway.
No, read your own link: "It is likely - in my opinion - that manmade global warming has indeed caused hurricanes to be stronger today."
I've answered the more important question of "how much stronger?" by repeatedly showing Jane a paper by Prof. Judith Curry which concludes that "the increasing trend in number of category 4 and 5 hurricanes for the period 1970-2004 is directly linked to the trend in sea-surface temperature".
And once again, Grinsted et al. 2012 helps to answer the question of "how much stronger?" by measuring hurricane surges back to 1923 using tide gauge instruments. This yields a homogeneous record of empirical observations which is totally independent of models and confirms that "warm years in general were more active in all cyclone size ranges than cold years." (By the way, measuring instruments like tide gauges and thermometers aren't proxies.)
Jane, years ago I said that it's not clear how global warming will impact hurricane frequency because of factors like wind shear. I also said that hurricanes (overall, Cat 1+) might not be more frequent in the future for the same reason. That's also what Dr. Landsea's 2010 abstract said: [Dumb Scientist]
I know. You just proved my point: you were contradicting yourself. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-10-28]
No, those links show that I've been consistently agreeing with Dr. Landsea and the IPCC when they say that hurricanes (overall, Cat 1+) might not be more frequent in the future because of factors like wind shear. But once again, the IPCC and Dr. Landsea also agree that "the most intense cyclones" are different. That's why the "global" box at the bottom center of Fig. 14.17 has two metrics which go in different directions: Cat 1+ (metric #1) and just Cat 4/5 (metric #2). Again, that's what I've been saying for years, along with the IPCC and Dr. Landsea:
"... future projections based on theory and high-resolution dynamical models consistently indicate that greenhouse warming will cause the globally averaged intensity of tropical cyclones to shift towards stronger storms, with intensity increases of 2-11% by 2100. Existing modelling studies also consistently project decreases in the globally averaged frequency of tropical cyclones, by 6-34%. Balanced against this, higher resolution modelling studies typically project substantial increases in the frequency of the most intense cyclones, and increases of the order of 20% in the precipitation rate within 100 km of the storm centre.
Jane
-
Heat source?
So in the absence of tidal flexing in Pluto's vicinity, where's the heat coming from?
http://news.sciencemag.org/spa... -
Proxies extend to 1940
No. The Marcott reconstruction has proxies that extend to 1940. The surface station data are shown along side the reconstruction (and so is the Mann reconstuction), but this is for reference. They are not used in the reconstruction. The paper is here: http://www.sciencemag.org/cont...
-
Re:Who believes this? Only everyone...
The way you refute a peer-reviewed study is with better peer-reviewed studies. A spam list of unreviewed opinions all written by the same handful of dissenters refutes nothing. Provide better data, or take your unfounded opinions and baseless accusations elsewhere.
The way you confirm a peer-reviewed study is with more peer-reviewed studies, conducted independently and using different lines of evidence, to see if they arrive at similar results. Like this one, this one, this one, this one, and this one, to cite a few.
-
Re:Martian soil is like toxic....
Perchlorates weren't a confirmed thing when Weir wrote the novel, I'm fairly sure.
I'm fairly sure they were
-
Re: Libertarian Claptrap
To be a bit more precise: 24% of the successful molecules. 16% transferred from Academia to biotech, 8%, transferred from Academia to Pharma, at which points the billion+ dollars per NDA comes into play. Numbers are 10 years old now though, so I can't say the pattern still holds true.
-
Re:Dat Title
-
Re:Fukushima was NOT WORTH IT
I'm from Sweden, almost half of our electricity has come from hydro power and the other half from nuclear power.
Well, you guys and Finland and the world leaders in this technology. I commend your countries pragmatic approach to spent fuel containment, of which Japan has none.
Just to give other people here some context, one of the most major criticisms of Yucca Mountain was that the DOE's original policy using the 'Defense in Depth' approach to the specification for building a spent fuel containment facility could not be applied to Yucca's geology. The reason to choose a specific geology (in addition to being seisemically stable) was also to have the geologic chemistry of the rock able to control the the amount of time ground water took to travel through the facility carrying radioactive isotopes, eventually, into the water table. If the amount of time it takes exceeds the decay rate of the longest lived radio-isotopes then the facility was providing defense in depth.
In addition, as a site like that would be containing pu-239, whose half life is around 25000 years, after considering the daughter products you need a geology capable of containing it for 500,000 years, which is what the original specification called for.
Studies of the Yucca mountain hydrology (pdf) revealed that the passage cl-36 from atmospheric nuclear testing took less that 50 years in ground water through Yucca mountain so the reality of Yucca is it is inappropriate to contain *any* kind of radioactive products. The reason is Yucca is pumice and volcanic ash.
Feild studies have established that crystaline rocks like granite and bentonite clays can acheive this control. So far Finland is on track to be the first with an active facility with a Swedish facility also in the works.
Curiously, getting this right should be the one thing pro and anti nuclear folk should be able to agree on, if only for their own reasons. For Nuclear power to continue operating such a storage facility is essential so that new reactors can be deployed and materials removed from reactor sites. For people against Nuclear power such a facility would improve the safety of the industry as a whole by providing a place to store the materials permanently where there ingress into the environment can be controlled.
We don't see any improvements to governance, containment or anything else in Japans Nuclear industry thus very little logic in restarting it.
-
Containment Facilities are required
One of the most major criticisms of Yucca Mountain was that the DOE's original policy using the 'Defense in Depth' approach to the specification for building a spent fuel containment facility could not be applied to Yucca's geology. The reason to choose a specific geology (in addition to being seisemically stable) was also to have the geologic chemistry of the rock able to control the the amount of time ground water took to travel through the facility carrying radioactive isotopes, eventually, into the water table. If the amount of time it takes exceeds the decay rate of the longest lived radio-isotopes then the facility was providing defense in depth.
In addition, as a site like that would be containing pu-239, whose half life is around 25000 years, after considering the daughter products you need a geology capable of containing it for 500,000 years, which is what the original specification called for.
Studies of the Yucca mountain hydrology (pdf) revealed that the passage cl-36 from atmospheric nuclear testing took less that 50 years in ground water through Yucca mountain so the reality of Yucca is it is inappropriate to contain *any* kind of radioactive products. The reason is Yucca is pumice and volcanic ash.
Feild studies have established that crystaline rocks like granite and bentonite clays can acheive this control. So far Finland is on track to be the first with an active facility with a Swedish facility also in the works.
Curiously, getting this right should be the one thing pro and anti nuclear folk should be able to agree on, if only for their own reasons. For Nuclear power to continue operating such a storage facility is essential so that new reactors can be deployed and materials removed from reactor sites. For people against Nuclear power such a facility would improve the safety of the industry as a whole by providing a place to store the materials permanently where there ingress into the environment can be controlled.
The DOE have got to build a facility somewhere. The right location has to be chosen because of all the rail and other infrastructure required to move the spent fuel has to be funded and built. This should not be a difficult thing for America to achieve by applying a scientific approach to selecting the site and building it instead of the politics used to select Yucca Mountain.
-
Re:No one reads the article so...
-
Danger, Will Robinson!
I'd like to caution the reader to take TFA with a grain of salt, lest they decide to use it as an excuse to feel better about getting less than the recommended 7.5-8 hours of sleep. Specifically, I'd like to note the following:
1. The study in question concerns the sleep requirements of people who have a lifestyle incomparable to yours.
2. The sleep pattern in TFA for a primitive society is different not only from yours, but also from what appears to have been the natural tendency for pre-industrial civilization (at least I Europe) for quite a few centuries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
3. The study does not and is unable to take into account any of the very long-term effects of less sleep, in terms of possible influences on old-age brain diseases such as Alzheimers or other dementias. A primitive forager doesn't usually live to an age where such things are an issue. The physiological evidence, though, ought to make you pause and think about the fact that you need enough deep sleep in order to allow microchannels in your brain to expand and allow increased flow of cerebrospinal fluid to wash away harmful metabolic byproducts. There's more to sleep than, as was fashionable to think for a while, consolidation of memories into long-term storage. See http://www.sciencemag.org/cont... and several related papers.
** Having compete sleep cycles is more important than the exact time. If you look at various somnograms, you can see that the average sleep cycle (down to the deepest sleep stage then I again into REM) is around 90 minutes long, except the first sleep cycle of the night which is closer to 120 minutes (the 8 hour recommendation corresponds to five sleep cycles). It's worth making sure your alarm is set such that it doesn't wake you during a deep sleep stage of a cycle, because you'll wake feeling worse than even if you had woken up earlier at the end of the previous sleep cycle (during REM). This is why a half hour offset from your usual alarm time in either direction can potentially make a huge difference. -
Re:It's buzzfeed
It's more than just buzzfeed.
Here's Science magazine if you prefer:
http://news.sciencemag.org/sci... -
Some skepticism
Here is a story from Science that reports some skepticism in the conclusions: http://news.sciencemag.org/hea....
-
Re:Who cares
I know it's hard to see your viewpoint from the US (which I assume you're from), but many in Europe do indeed feel that we're being bombarded. Near where I live in the UK and even London, I feel like a stranger in my own country, where whites are nearly a minority. Multi-culturalism has failed, and bringing more immigrants in will not make things better.
I'm scared that these quotas won't stop coming. Instead of the variety in the races, in the long run, we'll only have a single EU race, where the original cultures are lost and where there's no white skin, or black skin anymore (the latter is less likely as they're coming into the EU not vice versa). I also think that some cultures are less advanced than others and that the less advanced ones may dominate over time, and set us all back decades or even centuries. Africa's population is set to quadruple apparently (here's an article and the source), and that would be the final nail in the coffin if we were just as open then.
There is an alternative, and that is to let a billionaire look after them as he's promised to buy them an island and give them the essentials including education. He just needs the governments' permission. -
Re:Nothing New Here
The oldest paper I know of on the topic was presented to 4th Annual Mars Society Convention at Stanford University on August 24th, 2001 and has far more content. The pdf http://palermoproject.com/Seep... is from this page
That's a year after the Malin and Edgett paper in 2000, "Evidence for recent groundwater seepage and surface runoff on Mars", which was published in Science and got a lot of attention.
Or this one, from 2002, which suggested that the reason the water carving the gullies was liquid was due to salt content suppressing the freezing point: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/n...
thank you! why has nobody else pointed this out? Even early this year there was an announcement or something about this. Im curious as to how come this has been announced multiple times.
-
Re:I'm probably too cynical
How does you Occam's Razor calculation change when you consider that this is based on chemical analysis of the same suspected flowing water streaks that were observed years ago (and published in Science 4 years ago http://www.sciencemag.org/cont... ). These streaks (called RSLs) have been continuously studied - and results published - since then with everyone being almost sure that the best explanation (Occam's Razor!) has to be flowing water. And yet, the scientists and NASA waited for the final clinching confirmation based on spectroscopy before making this announcement. You think they hastily concocted some story to get funding? You have no idea how these things work!
-
Re:Nothing New Here
The oldest paper I know of on the topic was presented to 4th Annual Mars Society Convention at Stanford University on August 24th, 2001 and has far more content. The pdf http://palermoproject.com/Seep... is from this page
That's a year after the Malin and Edgett paper in 2000, "Evidence for recent groundwater seepage and surface runoff on Mars", which was published in Science and got a lot of attention. Or this one, from 2002, which suggested that the reason the water carving the gullies was liquid was due to salt content suppressing the freezing point: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/n...
-
Re: there is no
Those papers have nothing to do with the von Storch paper. Von Storch's central argument that "we find that the continued warming stagnation over fifteen years, from 1998 -2012, is no longer consistent with model projections even at the 2% confidence level." is wrong and based on faulty statistical analysis.
We can talk about the global warming 'hiatus' separately, but the fact of the matter is that you really can't make a strong conclusion either way based on the data we have. The time period in question is just too short. These links put forth an alternate explanation based on faulty ocean temperature measurements that seems pretty plausible to me:
-
Re: there is no
For chrissake, step out of the basement and READ.
I went one better than that - I actually looked at the data. Global satellite-based microwave sounding measurements, which provide an unbiased measurement of the temperature of the atmosphere, show a clear long-term warming trend, but almost all of the increase is in the first half of the epoch since measurements began in 1979. (I actually downloaded the raw data to play around with it, but you can do the basics with their online tool.)
The news story you linked is about this paper in Science. It involves reanalysis of surface temperature measurements, which provide a more complete, but more biased, temperature record. (The biases arise because of the distribution of the temperature-measuring stations, changes in the way ships gather water samples that might cause them to receive engine heat before being measured, that sort of thing
Which researchers are right? That isn't clear. This is merely the most recent in a series of papers on the subject, and is unlikely to be definitive. Science (the magazine, not the process) is typically reserved for high-impact bleeding-edge results - but, as a result, it tends to have a higher-than-average retraction rate (of papers that later turn out to be incorrect). I'd wait for a matter like this to be hashed out in a more specialised journal, rather than latching onto the most widely-publicised result.
On a theoretical basis, we expect heat to get added to the system by the greenhouse effect, but there's room for uncertainty in exactly where it will go, and what mechanisms determine it. Apparently it isn't going into the atmosphere just recently; it may or may not be going into the surface layer; other researchers are looking into whether it's going into the deeper layers of the ocean.
Global warming has, unfortunately, become a political issue, with people - and media outlets - picking a side and promoting it to demonstrate their allegiance. That's a bad thing, even if their side is generally in the right: they refuse to concede on any nuance, because admitting to even the slightest uncertainty in their position means giving ground to the enemy. My impression, for what it's worth, as a scientist in a different field who's read a bit of the literature, is that there's a clear consensus that global warming is happening, but honest disagreement about its extent and consequences. A real climatologist would, I suspect, be somewhat embarrassed by the parent poster's confident declarations of certainty.
-
Re: Scum of the Earth
Bullshit. They are doing no R&D and have no plans to do any. The CEO as noted by the GP epitomizes the therm "of scum of the earth". This is the second time he has abused the same loophole to jack the price of a generic life saving drug.
-
Re:Shop elsewhere if you need this drug
Some enterprising company willing to spend the money to get approval to import the drug from the UK would put this startup out of business. Hopefully.
They can't, because of the loophole (which is not explained in this article, but is in other articles like http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pi... ): You are not allowed to sell a generic equivalent unless you can prove it is as effective as the nongeneric version. In order to prove it is as effective as the nongeneric version, you need to do trials that compare it to the nongeneric version. The company that owns the nongeneric version refuses to sell you any, so you can't do trials, so you can't prove it's effective, so you can't sell it.
-
Re:Evidence of the Great Filter?
Humans are the only animal with a neocortex
You need to re-evaluate your collection of facts.
"They are the second most encephalized beings on the planet," says Marino.
But it's not just size that matters. Dolphins also have a very complex neocortex, the part of the brain responsible for problem-solving, self-awareness, and variety of other traits we associate with human intelligence.
(from http://news.sciencemag.org/brain-behavior/2010/02/dolphin-person
-
Here is the actual article
http://www.sciencemag.org/cont...
Not the gibberish version the editor chose to link.
-
Re:Worthless
The linked article was written by a nitwit. Here's the actual text you want to read:
-
Article link, not a blog page about the article:
-
Re:Seems similar to the Wen Ho Lee case.
Similar to the Valerie Barr case too.
http://news.sciencemag.org/peo...
Researcher loses job at NSF after government questions her role as 1980s activist
By Jeffrey Mervis
10 September 2014Valerie Barr was 22 and living in New York City in 1979 when she became politically active. A recent graduate of New York University with a master’s degree in computer science, Barr handed out leaflets, stood behind tables at rallies, and baked cookies to support two left-wing groups, the Women’s Committee Against Genocide and the New Movement in Solidarity with Puerto Rican Independence. Despite her passion for those issues, she had a full-time job as a software developer—with 50-plus-hour workweeks and frequent visits to clients around the country—that took precedence.
Federal investigators say that Barr lied during a routine background check about her affiliations with a domestic terrorist group that had ties to the two organizations to which she had belonged in the early 1980s. On 27 August, NSF said that her “dishonest conduct” compelled them to cancel her temporary assignment immediately, at the end of the first of what was expected to be a 2-year stint.
-
Re:Nasal rinsing ... use some care
Oops, here's the link to the study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...
P.s., here's a link to another study that I can't access due to paywall. It was cited in the appropriate place, so it's relevant: http://www.sciencemag.org/cont...
-
Re:100% Consensus among scientific organizations
GOP Science Bill
Yep, the GOP passed a bill requiring legislation based on science be open and reproducible. The DNC and the president, who promised to veto the bill, said there is no room for open science in legislation.But, its the GOP that is anti-science....
Whats it called when you refuse to allow science to be reproducible and open. I think that used the be the platform of the Catholic Church back when Galileo was alive. Even the Catholic Church has modernized more than you and the DNC.
See you ran into a leftist with a grudge.
I love the way they support inconvenient truths, but go out of their way to bury inconvenient facts.
-
Re:100% Consensus among scientific organizations
GOP Science Bill
Yep, the GOP passed a bill requiring legislation based on science be open and reproducible. The DNC and the president, who promised to veto the bill, said there is no room for open science in legislation.But, its the GOP that is anti-science....
Whats it called when you refuse to allow science to be reproducible and open. I think that used the be the platform of the Catholic Church back when Galileo was alive. Even the Catholic Church has modernized more than you and the DNC.
-
Re:the real question
Tri-Alpha plans to use hydrogen and boron, both extremely abundant:
Binderbauer says that next year they will tear up C-2U again and build an almost entirely new machine, bigger and with even more powerful beams, dubbed C-2W. The aim is to achieve longer FRCs and, more crucially, higher temperature. A 10-fold increase in temperature would bring them into the realm of sparking reactions in conventional fusion fuel, a mixture of the hydrogen isotopes deuterium and tritium, known as D-T. But that is not their goal; instead, they’re working toward the much higher bar of hydrogen-boron fusion, which will require ion temperatures above 3 billion degrees Celsius.Researchers have several reasons for wanting to go that extra mile. First, tritium doesn’t occur naturally on Earth, so it has to be made by bombarding lithium with neutrons. Physicists plan to do this in the fusion reactors that will one day consume the tritium, but no one has shown that such a process is practical. Because D-T reactions also produce large quantities of high-energy neutrons, the reactors need thick shielding. But the neutrons still degrade the structure of the reactor and make it radioactive. Researchers don’t yet know if it will be possible to find radiation-hard materials capable of surviving the onslaught. Many think these make D-T fusion impractical for a commercial reactor. “I wouldn’t have spent 10 years on [Tri Alpha’s advisory] committee if it was working on a D-T system,” Richter says.
Hydrogen-boron, at first, doesn’t look much more promising. “It takes 30 times as much energy to cook, and you get half as much energy out per particle,” Binderbauer says. But boron is abundant, and the reaction produces no neutrons, just three alpha particles (helium nuclei)—hence the company’s name. Hydrogen-boron fuel “makes conversion to electricity much easier and simpler,” Richter says.
-
Re:record ?
http://news.sciencemag.org/phy...
There's a link explaining the differences.
