Slashdot Mirror

Anyone have any idea how these kind of social interaction problems are being dealt with at NASA?

From several articles (granted, somewhat mainstream), it doesn't seem like there is much publicly-available research on human psychological reactions to sexual issues in long-term spaceflight. I would be surprised if there isn't a more robust body of serious literature in sociology & human behavior journals, and inside NASA, ESA and others.

---

These links are more about alleged events, and short-term issues (mechanical & biological). I remember reading the first when Lisa Nowak was news:

"Do Astronauts Have Sex? In space, no one can hear you moan." - article from Slate.com "Slate's The Explainer thanks Bob Jacobs of NASA and Laura Woodmansee, author of 'Sex in Space.'"

Other Links:

Outer-space sex carries complications
Article about book 'Sex in Space'
ISS On-Orbit Pregnancy Test procedures

---

Off-topic - I recommend the column "The Explainer" on Slate.com. Answers to questions that relate to current news (often with a basic or off-beat slant)

Example footer from the space sex article with related links to other Slate articles:

"Felix Gillette explained how space shuttles fly home. Daniel Engber revealed what exactly space tourists do. Dan Kois also wondered where the atmosphere ends and space begins. Chris Suellentrop argued that astronauts shouldn't be considered heroes. Gregg Easterbrook called the space program a big ol' waste of money. After the Columbia disaster in 2003, David Owen pointed out it's a waste of life, too."

Anyone have any idea how these kind of social interaction problems are being dealt with at NASA?

From several articles (granted, somewhat mainstream), it doesn't seem like there is much publicly-available research on human psychological reactions to sexual issues in long-term spaceflight. I would be surprised if there isn't a more robust body of serious literature in sociology & human behavior journals, and inside NASA, ESA and others.

---

These links are more about alleged events, and short-term issues (mechanical & biological). I remember reading the first when Lisa Nowak was news:

"Do Astronauts Have Sex? In space, no one can hear you moan." - article from Slate.com "Slate's The Explainer thanks Bob Jacobs of NASA and Laura Woodmansee, author of 'Sex in Space.'"

Other Links:

Outer-space sex carries complications
Article about book 'Sex in Space'
ISS On-Orbit Pregnancy Test procedures

---

Off-topic - I recommend the column "The Explainer" on Slate.com. Answers to questions that relate to current news (often with a basic or off-beat slant)

Example footer from the space sex article with related links to other Slate articles:

"Felix Gillette explained how space shuttles fly home. Daniel Engber revealed what exactly space tourists do. Dan Kois also wondered where the atmosphere ends and space begins. Chris Suellentrop argued that astronauts shouldn't be considered heroes. Gregg Easterbrook called the space program a big ol' waste of money. After the Columbia disaster in 2003, David Owen pointed out it's a waste of life, too."

Any more bad assertions you'd like to make?

[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

For an interesting look on why major banks did, in fact want to keep the sub-prime mortgage market running, check out this article from Slate: http://www.slate.com/id/2182709/pagenum/all/ it is really quite interesting. To sum it up, the individual states were working to stop the predatory lenders from selling the loans they made out to investors, but the national banks were making so much money they asked the federal government to exempt them from the state laws, which discouraged the states from passing laws to prevent the mess from occurring in the first place. It all boils down to "follow the money".

It makes me wonder how many MS shills and bloggers they have on the payroll

However many thay have, it can't compare to the staggering number of *unpaid* shills and bloggers that Apple gets basically everywhere. Actually, I take that back - some are "paid". There's a huge ecology out there of Apple Polishers furiously blogging about their Apple, getting high-rate gadget AdSense, and relying on each other for clickthroughs.

Scanning increases the speed. However I think I prefer India's system. Indian voting machines make it hard to cook an election. Slate has an article on what the US can learn from India.

I'd bet $20 that out of the top 25% wealthiest people in America, most of them make their money via mind, rather than muscle.

The German tax-shelter gambit. It is a scam.

http://www.slate.com/id/2117309/

Well, this won't be happening for Olympic athletes, at least. Just today there was news that a double-amputee sprinter has been barred from competing in the Beijing olympics because his prosthetics give him an unfair advantage over 'able-bodied' sprinters. From the article: "[Scientists] found that Pistorius was able to run at the same speed as able bodied runners on about a quarter less energy."

In an interesting related article, William Salatan of Slate.com asks "If steroids are cheating, why isn't LASIK?", since many pro athletes are having the surgery to give them an unnaturally keen vision of 20/15 or even 20/10.

Complacency is exactly what we're getting in a crisis situation. As these yutzes are evidently scandal-ridden, what's needed is to get a competent management team in first. As for the way it "should be"? You need to know where you're going before you get there, Princess. Knowing where you "should be" is a good start.

Who's complaining? I'm pointing out the obvious: The emperor ain't wearing a stitch.

The current situation in CA and NY shows political short-sightedness unparalleled. H'wever, "business as usual" isn't going to cut it anymore. New solutions are needed...and where do they start?

"There's no power!"

"Wait, there's power, but we don't want to PAY for indulging our excess!"

Make up your mind.

I never said it was a long-term solution. I was simply refuting your assertation that "OMGPONIES, THERE'S NO POWER!!!"

...and if the other citizens of CA want to let the McMansions you mentioned suck up all available power, fine. Otherwise, get some SANE zoning ordinances. This, once again, is a problem for the politicians to solve instead of fobbing it off on constituents.

...and you're missing the obvious: PG&E does NOT have the field staff to drop these in all at once. Not by a LONG shot. If you look at the time needed to deploy these boxes in a sufficient number of locations to make a difference, you might just find that you could deploy some tidal harnesses like the ones PG&E shanghaied in San Fran instead. Long-term, renewable power. It's what you asked for, but why don't you have it? Thank PG&E, the folks you seem to tout as having a solution. Indeed.

Hospitals have backup generators. So do most datacenters and critical factories. Here's a thought: if you do NOT allow exemptions, how long d'ya think it'd be before "industry leaders" start looking for a solution?

Like it's our fault California uses less power than Texas yet can't meet their power needs due to political maneuvering. Wake up, Buttercup. You need to go look for your prince instead of hand-wringing and wailing.

Bruce jumped the shark for me when in the comments section of his blog he dismissed state election voter ID requirements because voter fraud probably only accounts for a few percentage points here and there, as if that's not enough to sway an election.

If you don't know, this is the very issue that was argued before the U.S. Supreme Court yesterday (Indiana law requiring government issued photo ID to vote). I agree with Bruce's POV, but his argument is NOT STRONG ENOUGH.

In-person voter ID fraud doesn't "probably only account for a few percentage points here and there", but per the appellate arguments, there has not been one single identified case of in-person voter ID fraud in the history of Indiana. NOT ONE.

Great article on the subject posted on Tuesday, before the oral arguments. Written by Walter Dellinger, one of the premier Supreme Court appellate attorneys, who is representing Washington DC in its upcoming Supreme Court case regarding DC's gun control laws. The first such case in the last half-century.

---

"A law said to combat voting fraud by imposing the modest task of showing an ID may seem at first impression to be both sensible and fair. But this law is neither."

"First and foremost, Indiana's law is a "solution" to a problem that doesn't exist. The voting fraud it purports to address is illusory. And the means it employs needlessly make it far more difficult for some citizens--especially those who are low-income, elderly, or lack easy access to transportation--to vote."

"Because a photo-ID requirement exists to prevent a type of fraud that appears to be imaginary, the requirement would be hard to justify even if it imposed only a minimal impact on legitimate voters. But a photo-ID law in fact imposes substantial burdens on the right to vote."

My first reaction to this article was: I smell a spin doctor. The 'news' the audit reveals is the FBI's lax oversight of money used in undercover investigations, which raises serious issues. This anecdote makes it seem harmless. Late payment is perfectly normal even in the most anal retentive organizations that *do* check how every penny is spent. More interesting is how money that went missing was used, and whether there are incentives to be 'lax'. If you want to get away with being lax, it is good to behave incompetently once in a while.

I live in the Netherlands, the world's wiretapping paradise. The number of taps per capita doesn't really bother me, as long as there is proper accountability for use of that power (which, for the record, leaves much to be desired here).

The US in comparison is pretty amateurish when it comes to collecting information about its own citizens, which is pretty remarkable for a country that pretends to be policing, and eavesdropping on, the whole world. It is also pretty unique in granting itself greater investigative powers over the rest of the world population than over its own population, so US citizens shouldn't complain until they have rectified that.

Why can't they use something like this: http://www.slate.com/id/2107388/

More information here: http://www.eci.gov.in/Audio_VideoClips/presentation.asp

and

http://www.eci.gov.in/faq/evm.asp

I agree with hherb on this issue. We are way to harsh on sex offenders. It seems that we can keep on passing new laws that find new ways to punish sex offenders. Are the current laws not strict enough? Other than murder, sexual assault convictions carried the longest median prison sentence in New Jersey. I think if someone suggested we add an extra 2 years onto minimum sentences for all sex offenders it would pass in any state. We have since 1980 consistently upped the penalties for sex crimes since the 1980s. There is no evidence that it has helped. Now states are considering the death penalty for worst case sex crimes. There is a guy in Louisiana who is on death row for a sex crime without murdering anyone.

But no matter how harsh the punishment, we can always make it a little worse. We could insist that sex criminals serve a minimum of 25 years. Then we could restrict their privileges in prison even if they were well behaved. We could ban them from having a television. We could ban them from lifting weights. We could stop them from wearing civilian clothes. We could lock them up for 23 hours a day like those on death row. But no matter how much we punish them the public desire for revenge is never satiated. We always want more. When do we finally say that some punishment is enough?

About 400 municipalities in New Jersey have enacted local zoning ordinances restricting where sex offenders can live within their boundaries. This vengeful justice is getting so out of hand that an ex sex offender cannot function in society. They can't get a job because firstly they have a criminal record and secondly they are a sex offender and have to register as such. They can't live in many places. We are forcing them into a life of crime to survive. Many towns like to ban sex offenders from living within 2,500 feet of any place where there might be children. This list gets very long. It starts with schools and parks. Then it moves on into movie theaters and churches. Now the vogue is to also ban them from 2500 feet of libraries and bus stops as well. There are increasingly states and counties where there is no place a sex offender can live legally.

As to the specifics of the internet ban for sex offenders. Firstly if they have already served their sentence haven't they already paid back their 'debt to society'. Or is this to keep society safe and not as a punishment. Well what if their original crime had nothing to do with the internet. What if they raped an adult and have no desire to do anything to kids? Is there any evidence that this would make kids safer? There is no evidence that residency restriction laws do in fact diminish crimes against children. And remember banning people from a using the internet is removing a distant threat from a kid. They can't physically do anything. And all this assumes that they will choose to use the internet to contact kids to begin with. What if they do not? What about other categories? If someone had underage sex, the law is the problem there as opposed to the law breaker.

So what type of person is this law about? Is it about a sex crazed pedophile who cannot help stop themselves. Well in my mind they don't have what we would call free will. the urge is so great. States are starting to use civil commitment with such offenders so they never get out. So what sort of sex offenders are we talking about?

I think banning people from using the internet is also itself ludicrous. In the 1990s the net was nice to have but

Here was TFA from the missing story: http://www.slate.com/id/2180342/pagenum/all/

Why did the summary link to just the second page of a two page article? Here's the full article on one page.

Nothing apparently...
http://www.slate.com/toolbar.aspx?action=print&id=2179393
TFA doesn't even use the word librarian once.
Just trolling for page hits I assume.

There's a lot of research that suggests that it's actually our ultra-sterile environments that are causing all the allergies. Immune systems designed to fight off parasites and bacteria are instead turning on our own bodies.

For example, some folks are deliberately infesting their bodies with relatively benign intestinal parasites as a way to gain relief from allergies, and it's effective. The histamines that attack our sinuses are intended to attack parasites. Give them a parasite to attack and the nasal allergy symptoms go away.

Slate had a great article about the topic entitled: "Why Americans should ingest more excrement." at http://www.slate.com/id/2175569/pagenum/all/

Vaccines are being scapegoated despite a lack of evidence. Remember that correlation does not equal causation. The evidence points to the lack of kids making mud pies and playing outdoors as a more likely cause than vaccines.

Sorry MsGeek, "This is the secret to why immigrant Asian children have been outperforming Anglo children in school." WRONG! This SciAm article is one more example of "scientists" searching for "facts" which make us feel good. In other words, bad science. Here are the real facts: http://www.slate.com/id/2178122/entry/2178123/ http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf Intelligence is mostly genetic. Why wouldn't it be? Get over it. I'm anticipating more Slashdot bad karma due to posting an inconvenient truth, as usual. If James Watson can be fired for speaking the truth, what's a little more bad karma here?

The authoritative study of civilian casualties was done by a group from the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health.

The "iraq body count" guys are just counting dead listed in press releases.

Iraq Body Count does not include casualty estimates or projections in its database. It only includes individual or cumulative deaths as directly reported by the media or tallied by official bodies (for instance, by hospitals, morgues and, in a few cases so far, NGOs), and subsequently reported in the media. In other words, each entry in the Iraq Body Count data base represents deaths which have actually been recorded by appropriate witnesses - not "possible" or even "probable" deaths.

Summary article, but there are links:

Proof that internet pron prevents rape.

Thank you! $22 Million to study what is already known or a slippery slope to restricting freedoms by committee. Forgive me if I don't give the benefit of the doubt to the former and start pondering the later. Here's a good article on the bill: http://www.slate.com/id/2178646/

Clearly, this study only serves to destroy the morale of our troops and it should not be permitted to exist on the web.

Yes, it sure does. I just completely owned you, bitch.

Slate has a pretty decent write-up about the bill.

In the right hands, nuclear power can be wondrous. In the wrong hands you get stuff like this: http://todayspictures.slate.com/inmotion/essay_chernobyl

The photoessay link: http://todayspictures.slate.com/inmotion/essay_chernobyl/

I have never understood why we have turkey at Christmas (I'm a UKian not an American so I don't do thanks giving but it applies), it's a very poor meat and far too large for the average family, so how come we do it?

This very topic merited an article over at http://www.slate.com/id/2178388/nav/fix/. Poultry was popular in general because the cows had economic value (milk and labour) beyond that of birds. Pork or ham was common, but not considered fit for special events. Chicken hens were valuable for their eggs and rooster was too tough. Turkey had the advantage that birds that hatched in the spring would have grown to about 10 pounds by Thanksgiving, which was important because it was large enough to feed a big family.

Rowling's ability to stop the Potter pretenders is largely a function of the new regime of international copyright.

The case for preventing literal copying--in which a foreign publisher simply reprints a work without permission--is strong. But Potter follow-ons are different from the American Dickens piracy of the 19th century and DVD piracy of today. Literal copies are what come out when you use a photocopier. Potter's takeoffs are different: They either borrow characters and put them in a new, foreign context (Potter in Calcutta) or just use the themes and ideas of Potter (as in Tanya Grotter's case) as inspiration for a different kind of story. They aren't a direct replacement for a Potter book, the way a literal copy is, but rather a supplement or an adaptation.

Copyright should be no different. So long as it provides Rowling sufficient incentive to write, it should strive to maintain as much competition and facilitate as much international trade as possible.

Much more interesting than Stallman's opinion is an article from 2003 linked by Stallman: http://www.slate.com/id/2084960/

Mass graves are still being filled.

Sill sucks to be a woman in Iraq.

There will be rape rooms as long as there are US interrogators in Iraq.

Saddam's charitable donations to grieving families have been stopped. Wonderful. Giver yourselves a pat on the back.

A few bad guys have been captured and killed. Could have been done a lot cheaper through covert ops than the 1.6 trillion and counting war on terror. That's just the money spent on warfare. The destruction wreaked by the war... I don't think anyone wants to even try to calculate that figure.

The facts aren't very encouraging to anyone outside the military-industrial complex.

When they do set up their own highspeed internal networks or even talk of doing so, slashdotters and the US gvt say omg restriction form the world wide web. A quick google shows this: "China's bid to divide the Internet" where the author slams china's development of a high speed internal network and participation in protocol design.

Give the guys a break.

Yes, it was Will Rogers in 1928.

you can never have too much improvement. There's always room for more people trying to fix up and improve Wikipedia.

Actually, there does seem to be a limit to the amount of "room" available for people who want to try to fix up and improve Wikipedia (e.g. http://forums.xkcd.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=14222&start=0&st=0&sk=t&sd=a, http://www.slate.com/id/2160839/, http://www.slate.com/id/2160222/fr/rss/, etc.)

Personally, I think if you're willing to label "deleting articles that took several hundred man hours to write, and that are of interest to several thousand people on the Internet, because several thousand people, after all, is a very small minority on the Internet" as a form of "improvement", then yes, I think you can have too much improvement.

you can never have too much improvement. There's always room for more people trying to fix up and improve Wikipedia.

Actually, there does seem to be a limit to the amount of "room" available for people who want to try to fix up and improve Wikipedia (e.g. http://forums.xkcd.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=14222&start=0&st=0&sk=t&sd=a, http://www.slate.com/id/2160839/, http://www.slate.com/id/2160222/fr/rss/, etc.)

Personally, I think if you're willing to label "deleting articles that took several hundred man hours to write, and that are of interest to several thousand people on the Internet, because several thousand people, after all, is a very small minority on the Internet" as a form of "improvement", then yes, I think you can have too much improvement.

Fair use is so 20th century. Now days we have tolerated use.

http://www.slate.com/id/33569/entry/33571/

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/

I'm assuming you're talking about 2000, as he obviously won the majority of votes in 2004.

Several media organizations did a study of the different possible combinations of Florida districts that could have been recounted. All the studies found that Bush would have won regardless of the combination of districts that were ordered to perform recounts. While this obviously doesn't jibe with the dogmas of your political religion, it does jibe with reality.

Before anyone gets too excited about the prospect, it is illegal to buy or sell votes in the United States. If you do it, eBay will pull your auction and you will likely be charged by your local authorities to the tune of thousands of dollars in fines, possibly even jail time.

The funny thing is that the most insidious vote-buying in the country isn't politicians (or other citizens) buying citizens' votes, it's corporations buying politicians' votes. If they outlawed THAT, then we might start making some progress.

I don't think mechanical love will hurt human marriage. In fact, mechanical love has been making human marriages work better since at least the 1880's and possibly as early as 1653. And just a point in fact, the early ancestors of loving robots have been more common than toasters since 1917.

I don't think mechanical love will hurt human marriage. In fact, mechanical love has been making human marriages work better since at least the 1880's and possibly as early as 1653. And just a point in fact, the early ancestors of loving robots have been more common than toasters since 1917.

The problem with Bush on environmental issues is that he's all talk. The environmental policies he promotes may sound good up front, but as with so much of what he says, things look worse and worse the more you look at them.

In 2003 he proposed a "hydrogen fuel initiative". Sounds good. But what if instead of wasting money on something that won't be feasible for ten or fifteen years we concentrate on high-yield biofuels like algae?

You say in his 2006 state of the union address he heavily promoted biofuels? Sounds good. But Bush and the rest of the government seem to back corn ethanol exclusively. Which is a shame since it's practically the least energy-dense crop possible, and there are questions as the whether or not the energy you get is worth the energy put in.

And let's not even talk about the Bush administration's clear skies initiative and clean water act.

To me it's obvious that the problem is a lack of scientific understanding in the areas of the government responsible for implementing policy. Bush's solution is to throw money at things that sound good but aren't practical (giving him a false image of environmental stewardship), while paving the way for big business. Congress doesn't appear to have any idea of the science behind the mandates they argue about. We need realistic and common sense discourse about what works and what doesn't. Unfortunately this topic is too politicized for that. In the end everyone loses.

I really see no true difference between using your iPhone (with a carrier OF YOUR CHOICE) and hooking your landline (with a carrier OF YOUR CHOICE) through your computer's modem so you can use a software phone and answering machine. Also, how is it any different from using your laptop with a cellular card (with a carrier OF YOUR CHOICE) to get internet connectivity on the go?

To my layman eyes, the law in this area seems ad hoc and gives special attention to handheld cellular devices. Fortunately, it seems likely that unlocking is legal. I seriously hope this case will be the first of many to push regulation of companies that maliciously sabotage their customers after they bought the product to maximize profit.

I'm currently a very satisfied Mac user (I'm writing this post from a 3 year old PowerBook G4 17" that still runs like a spotted assed ape) but these sorts of moves sour me on AAPL. I'll give them a few chances to mess up and be forgiven, but as a computer savvy person who's primary love of Apple is for how they've beautifully wrapped what's under the hood, I can just as easily go right back to Linux where I came from. After all, that's what I use on the desktop and in the server rack already. Why is it, just when Microsoft seems to have shot itself in the foot with Vista and controlling what users do with their hardware, that Apple jumps right of the cliff with them?

Those who don't know what they don't know aren't rip off artists.

Cyrus Farivar has some interesting views in Slate http://www.slate.com/id/2174599/fr/flyout He claims no country has actually signed onto this program and the production forecasts have been steadily dropping. He makes an interesting observation that many if not most new technologies that benefit the third world were first deployed (and paid for) in first world countries at much higher prices. Kind of Tesla's plan for deploying expensive rich people electric cars first. It will be fascinating to see how this works.

Nothing to see here, folks. This is a new government program to prevent crime:
http://slate.com/id/2152487