I was going to mod you up but decided to reply instead. I am a tenure track asst prof at a top 50 university. My postdoc was at an Ivy League med school and I was totally psyched to get a faculty job at a Big 10 Ag school. I can't speak to engineering/physics, but on the biology side of the fence, PhDs tend to self select. Some colleagues in my postdoc liked the research only aspect of being in a med school. Sure, the grants game is cutthroat, but you never need to speak to an undergrad, and realistically, possibly not even a grad student. Conversely, I left wonderful friends and a city I loved, to move to the middle of nowhere. Why? Because I *enjoy* teaching undergrads and grads, both formally in the classroom and informally in the lab. Like I said, I can't speak for the other STEM disciplines, but in biology, faculty do have a choice and nobody is *forced* to take a job that involves teaching.
That said, you are spot on. It all depends on the benchmarks for tenure. Great teaching evals won't get you there but pubs will. At my school, teaching evals have a step function - you can't totally suck, but as long as they are passable, and your scholarly output is strong, you'll get tenure. Generally, us faculty types aren't stupid - when presented those contingencies, where would you put your maximal effort?
I lived in Syracuse for 19 years and then Ithaca for another 5. Since moving away, I've also lived in California (Oakland Hills) and southern New England. And you are absolutely right - the snow simply isn't a big deal as the municipalities have the knowledge, equipment, budget, and planning to cope.
I've seen CT and RI cities paralyzed by snow that CNYers would laugh at. But here is the critical distinction - it's not that folks are more hardy, it's that the towns deal with it in a timely and appropriate manner. Here in Rhode Island, they do a halfassed job plowing, and then cross their fingers and pray it will melt. Well, that's fine assuming it doesn't then melt and refreeze into sheets of ice, which it seems to do more times than not. In contrast, after a CNY storm, the road is dry and black 1 or 2 days later, even when your lawn still has 6-12 inches of accumulated snow.
Besides, update is incredibly verdant the rest of the year. As I said, I've lived in Northern California, and the 'golden hills' are just a nice euphemism for brown.
Most cities are NOT like NYC, LA, SF, etc. They're usually more like Atlanta. The suburbs are fairly safe, and the downtown is a big ghetto full of crime and drugs. There's a reason white people (or rather, middle-class people) have been moving out of cities: they want to get away from all the crime, or in places like NYC or SF, they want to go someplace where they can afford a decent-sized house on their income because the housing is too expensive.
Density is actually much nicer than the 'burbs when done right - here in Providence, I walk out the door with my kids and within 5 minutes be at 3 playgrounds, 7+ restaurants, a pharmacy, an amazing bakery, a florist, my barber, lots of retail, etc. I also enjoyed living in New Haven and I know plenty of people enjoy Boston and Philly. Now the commonality between all these cities is that their development predates auto-based sprawl. SF and Oakland are the only western cities I know of that share this benefit. If you've only ever lived in the car based 'burbs, you have no idea how nice quality of life can be as a new urbanist.
There is a TED talk by Hans Rosling which demonstrates Africa is actually making insanely rapid progress, but it isn't apparent to us because they started at so far behind.
It doesn't have AF One, but the American Hanger at the Imperial War Museum Duxford is truly impressive. No B2, but a blackbird, a U2 and a B52 all under one roof is still amazing.
North American AT-6D Texan (s)
Consolidated B-24M Liberator
North American P-51D Mustang (r)
Douglas C-47 Skytrain (s)
Boeing B-17G Flying Fortress
Republic P-47D Thunderbolt
Grumman TBM-3 Avenger (s)
Boeing B-29A Superfortress
North American B-25J Mitchell (s)
Lockheed SR-71A Blackbird
Boeing B-52D Stratofortress
Lockheed U2-C (s)
North American F-100D Super Sabre (s)
Bell UH-1 Huey
McDonnell Douglas F-4J Phantom II
General Dynamics F-111E
Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II (s)
This controversy concerns just the works created by NIH (government) employees. The policy of open access should extend equally to academics who receive NIH funding.
You are incorrect. As of this spring, all NIH funded research, not just work by NIH intramural researchers, is covered by NIH's open access policy.
If you were really a Cornell undergrad, you would have know that:
a) The Ivy League has 8 members, not 7.
b) Cornell's four contract colleges are *not* part of SUNY. Cornell receives money from New York State, but the research agenda, admission standards, degree requirements, and constituent departments are determined by Cornell, not SUNY or NYS.
(The counter example to point B is SUNY-ESF (nee the NYS School of Forestry). It is colocated with Syracuse University but is *administratively separate* from SU. 'Stumpies' live in SU dorms and take their large lecture and liberal arts classes with SU students, but are admitted and tracked via the SUNY system, not SU.)
Actually, this country was *not* founded on secular principles. If you actually read the Mayflower Compact which was pretty much the first basis of law and the foundation of the Constitution, I think it's pretty clear that our country was founded on the Christian faith.
If so, please explain Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli which states:
"...the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..."
And just in case you were wondering, this treaty was read aloud on the floor of the Senate on June 7, 1797 in its entirety at which point it was unanimously approved, and signed into law by John Adams.
Simple economics. The market has supplied what the consumer has demanded. But some people get these ridiculous ideas about licensing software developers or enacting liability laws when there is NO risk to human life. They try to draw comparisons to disciplines where there are, then gloss over the details. Under even the most brief analysis, the argument doesn't hold water.
I read your comment and immediately wondered whether your education skipped the Therac25 entirely or maybe you just skipped class that day? If you want the prestige of calling yourself an Engineer, you need to a) understand and b) live up to the standards of the profession.
An Investigation of the Therac-25 Accidents
Nancy Leveson, University of Washington
Clark S. Turner, University of California, Irvine
Reprinted without permission, IEEE Computer, Vol. 26, No. 7, July 1993, pp. 18-41.
Computers are increasingly being introduced into safety-critical systems and, as a consequence, have been involved in accidents. Some of the most widely cited software-related accidents in safety-critical systems involved a computerized radiation therapy machine called the Therac-25. Between June 1985 and January 1987, six known accidents involved massive overdoses by the Therac-25 -- with resultant deaths and serious injuries. They have been described as the worst series of radiation accidents in the 35-year history of medical accelerators
Hurray. You learned about the Hawthorn effect in some class. How's about you leave the real science to the grownups and go back to studying for finals. Do your really think so highly of yourself that you really believe people that actually have PhDs and do this for a living aren't aware of such things like observer bias?
Without meaning to be rude, you are flat out wrong. It just so happens that I study ingestion behavior for a living. My work is more related to the genetics of eating behavior and food choice, so this facility is less directly useful to me personally, but it absolutely will move the field forward. Unlike armchair quarterbacks that take cheapshots on the intarweb, every practicing scientist recognizes the inherent tradeoffs between experimental control and generalizability.
First, before the Correlation !=Causation weenies get their panties in a bunch, I'm happy for you that you passed stats 101, but you need to understand that RCTs are not the only way to do science. Yes, randomization is really nice for making claims about causation, but at least in humans, I can't assign you a specific gene (TAS2R38) or personality trait (novelty seeking). Yet we can still use the scientific method to make predictions based on theory and test those predictions.
Second, much of this work is done today using self report. Certainly, observation can induce bias, but so can self-report. When separate methods, with separate flaws confirm the same findings, science moves forward.
Finally, your comment about blinds, controls and isolation of variables is totally ignorant. The ability to manipulate this artificial restaurant in ways you could never manipulate a real restaurant is *exactly* what provides those controls.
Here is an example. Imagine I have a theory how socialization influences the time people spent at the table and the amount they consume. In this restaurant, I can manipulate the table size (2 vs. 4 chairs), social attachment between people (sit with friends or random assignment) or gender (do women eat more or less when seated with random men, male friends, just women, etc) to test my theories.
You are right that the Walter Reed scandal was a travesty. However you are missing one key detail. It ISN'T a VA facility! Walter Reed is an army hospital, meaning it is run by the Department of Defense. The VA and DoD are separate departments, each with their own cabinet secretary.
Put another way, would it be reasonable or appropriate to blame NIH (Dept of Health and Human Services) for security breaches at Los Alamos (Dept of Energy)? I mean, they both do basic science research, so they must be the same, right?
Of course, I have mod points when this story goes up, but would could I not post on this topic... Anyway, the article summary is painfully wrong (*rimshot*).
First off, TRPV1 is the name of the receptor (formerly VR1), not the nerve fiber.
Second, the substance P depletion hypothesis for capsaicin desensitization fails to explain Barry Green's work on stimulus induced recovery (SIR).
Anybody that has passed intro stats at any level knows (or should know) that effect size and statistical significance are two completely separate measures. You can have a 2% improvement that is highly significant or you could have a 20% improvement that isn't - without the actual data you cannot know.
Now, the question you are trying to ask is if, in medical terms, a 9% improvement is clinically meaningful. If I can show a new drug lowers blood pressure by 2mm hg every single time, the improvement will be statistically significant, but not in any way useful. Just yesterday I was running a hierarchical regression where the final predictor only improved the fit of the model by 3.3%, but the change in fit was certainly significant (p=.004)
If you want to use the word significant as a synonym for meaningful that's ok I guess (I wouldn't). But please don't add the word "statistically" to the phrase in an attempt to make yourself sound smarter. It just makes communicating statistics to the public that much harder for those of us that actually do it for a living.
Oh man, How many times do we need to go over the flawed assumptions and conclusions from the CNW Marketing analysis.
First, it incorrectly assumes that hybrid batteries are not recycled. In reality, Toyota has very successful recycling program, including a $200 bounty on Prius batteries.
Second, it is interesting that TFA mentions the Scion xB. Yet it fails to note that the CNW report data on the xA and xB don't make any sense. They are built on the same assembly line, have the same powertrains, only differ in weight by 50 lbs or so, and have similar efficiency (~35mpg), yet the CNW study shows the lifetime energy use of these vehicles to differ by 50 percent. How's that work?
Third, the CNW report makes really bad assumptions about where the bulk of lifecycle energy use occurs (eg manufacturing vs operation).
In short, it's misinformed at best and is more likely an intentional greenwash to assuage SUV owner dissonance in a post 9/11 world.
Disclaimer: I drive a biodiesel powered Jetta TDI, not a hybrid.
Now, repeat after me: ETHANOL is one thing, ETHANOL FROM NORTH AMERICAN CORN is another thing. You want energy, subsidize the former. You want money for corn growers, subsidize the latter.
Quoted for truth.
This is why a petroleum tax is the way to go. Government sucks at picking the winning technologies whereas markets are quite good at it. The solution? Ditch technology specific subsidies in favor of technology agnostic user fees that incentivize the desired goal, namely reduced petro use.
Now most people don't like taxes, but really it is the fairest way to let the market select the best renewable technology. If you tax petroleum, then biodiesel, ethanol, wind/pv plug-in HEVs, and transit all compete via market forces.
And before the libertarians get their panties in a bunch, we don't have anything close to a free market currently. The market is, and has been, slanted toward petroleum via foreign, domestic and tax policy for the the last 50-75 years. I'm just suggesting we use a petroleum tax to level the field a little.
Are you sure about those numbers? I don't have a consumer reports subscription so I can't double check but I think you may have transposed the 2 numbers.
E10 (E10% EtOH/90% gasoline) and E85 (85%EtOH/15% gas) are the common blends sold in the US. The first can be used in any conventional spark ignition engine while the latter requires a flex-fuel vehicle. Some states require that all gasoline sold is actually E10 - if I remember correctly CT, NY, HI and MN are some that come to mind.
Anyway, yes, E85 contains about ~30% less energy per gallon than straight gasoline, so yes, it requires more to go the same distance. However, E85 also has an octane rating of 105, meaning you can tune the engine to run on E85, as Saab did with the 9-5 Biopower. It has a 2L turbocharged inline 4 producing 180hp optimized to run on E85.
people like you trolling a debate they know nothing about would make me ashamed to be an American (if I was one). Here's a hint: this story is talking about adult stem cells, which has no significance at all in regard to the current political/moral question of embryonic stem cells.
Actually, they are completely relevant to the moral/political question of embryonic stem cells, in so far as embryonic stem cell opponents have been using these adult stem cells to have their cake and eat it too.
Specifically, they've been tying the hands of researchers due to their religious beliefs and then shielding themselves from criticism by claiming "oh, we don't need embryonic cells anyway, because adult stem cells are just as good." Here is one example.
I read an paper by a colleague last week in a reputable Elsevier journal. The text referred you to Table 1. There was a Table 1 in the paper, but it wasn't the Table 1 being referred to, which was missing entirely. Doh!
This is exactly how the system is *supposed* to work. Dr. Verfaillie publishes her team's findings, and others try to replicate it. If they can, the original finding is supported. If not, the failure to replicate usually leads to other insights. My old boss was usually more excited when an experiment failed than when it worked, because was what led to breakthroughs instead of mere confirmation.
Yes, the process can take time, and god forbid you were the poor grad student that spend 3 years heading down a blind alley, but this episode just reaffirms that overall, the process works.
Slashdot Mirror
I was going to mod you up but decided to reply instead. I am a tenure track asst prof at a top 50 university. My postdoc was at an Ivy League med school and I was totally psyched to get a faculty job at a Big 10 Ag school. I can't speak to engineering/physics, but on the biology side of the fence, PhDs tend to self select. Some colleagues in my postdoc liked the research only aspect of being in a med school. Sure, the grants game is cutthroat, but you never need to speak to an undergrad, and realistically, possibly not even a grad student. Conversely, I left wonderful friends and a city I loved, to move to the middle of nowhere. Why? Because I *enjoy* teaching undergrads and grads, both formally in the classroom and informally in the lab. Like I said, I can't speak for the other STEM disciplines, but in biology, faculty do have a choice and nobody is *forced* to take a job that involves teaching.
That said, you are spot on. It all depends on the benchmarks for tenure. Great teaching evals won't get you there but pubs will. At my school, teaching evals have a step function - you can't totally suck, but as long as they are passable, and your scholarly output is strong, you'll get tenure. Generally, us faculty types aren't stupid - when presented those contingencies, where would you put your maximal effort?
I lived in Syracuse for 19 years and then Ithaca for another 5. Since moving away, I've also lived in California (Oakland Hills) and southern New England. And you are absolutely right - the snow simply isn't a big deal as the municipalities have the knowledge, equipment, budget, and planning to cope.
I've seen CT and RI cities paralyzed by snow that CNYers would laugh at. But here is the critical distinction - it's not that folks are more hardy, it's that the towns deal with it in a timely and appropriate manner. Here in Rhode Island, they do a halfassed job plowing, and then cross their fingers and pray it will melt. Well, that's fine assuming it doesn't then melt and refreeze into sheets of ice, which it seems to do more times than not. In contrast, after a CNY storm, the road is dry and black 1 or 2 days later, even when your lawn still has 6-12 inches of accumulated snow.
Besides, update is incredibly verdant the rest of the year. As I said, I've lived in Northern California, and the 'golden hills' are just a nice euphemism for brown.
Most cities are NOT like NYC, LA, SF, etc. They're usually more like Atlanta. The suburbs are fairly safe, and the downtown is a big ghetto full of crime and drugs. There's a reason white people (or rather, middle-class people) have been moving out of cities: they want to get away from all the crime, or in places like NYC or SF, they want to go someplace where they can afford a decent-sized house on their income because the housing is too expensive.
Density is actually much nicer than the 'burbs when done right - here in Providence, I walk out the door with my kids and within 5 minutes be at 3 playgrounds, 7+ restaurants, a pharmacy, an amazing bakery, a florist, my barber, lots of retail, etc. I also enjoyed living in New Haven and I know plenty of people enjoy Boston and Philly. Now the commonality between all these cities is that their development predates auto-based sprawl. SF and Oakland are the only western cities I know of that share this benefit. If you've only ever lived in the car based 'burbs, you have no idea how nice quality of life can be as a new urbanist.
There is a TED talk by Hans Rosling which demonstrates Africa is actually making insanely rapid progress, but it isn't apparent to us because they started at so far behind.
http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_reveals_new_insights_on_poverty.html
Here's one: http://www.vcom3d.com/VcomMobile/nate/
Just imagine... a beowulf cluster of cancer cells! Woo!
From my sofa, iStumbler shows 15 different networks, all at 2.4Ghz. Switching to an AEBS with 802.11n at 5 ghz made a huge improvement for me. YMMV.
It doesn't have AF One, but the American Hanger at the Imperial War Museum Duxford is truly impressive. No B2, but a blackbird, a U2 and a B52 all under one roof is still amazing.
North American AT-6D Texan (s)
Consolidated B-24M Liberator
North American P-51D Mustang (r)
Douglas C-47 Skytrain (s)
Boeing B-17G Flying Fortress
Republic P-47D Thunderbolt
Grumman TBM-3 Avenger (s)
Boeing B-29A Superfortress
North American B-25J Mitchell (s)
Lockheed SR-71A Blackbird
Boeing B-52D Stratofortress
Lockheed U2-C (s)
North American F-100D Super Sabre (s)
Bell UH-1 Huey
McDonnell Douglas F-4J Phantom II
General Dynamics F-111E
Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II (s)
http://aam.iwm.org.uk/
This controversy concerns just the works created by NIH (government) employees. The policy of open access should extend equally to academics who receive NIH funding.
You are incorrect. As of this spring, all NIH funded research, not just work by NIH intramural researchers, is covered by NIH's open access policy.
http://publicaccess.nih.gov/
If you were really a Cornell undergrad, you would have know that:
a) The Ivy League has 8 members, not 7.
b) Cornell's four contract colleges are *not* part of SUNY. Cornell receives money from New York State, but the research agenda, admission standards, degree requirements, and constituent departments are determined by Cornell, not SUNY or NYS.
(The counter example to point B is SUNY-ESF (nee the NYS School of Forestry). It is colocated with Syracuse University but is *administratively separate* from SU. 'Stumpies' live in SU dorms and take their large lecture and liberal arts classes with SU students, but are admitted and tracked via the SUNY system, not SU.)
Actually, this country was *not* founded on secular principles. If you actually read the Mayflower Compact which was pretty much the first basis of law and the foundation of the Constitution, I think it's pretty clear that our country was founded on the Christian faith.
If so, please explain Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli which states:
"...the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..."
And just in case you were wondering, this treaty was read aloud on the floor of the Senate on June 7, 1797 in its entirety at which point it was unanimously approved, and signed into law by John Adams.
Ummm. OSX is just NeXTstep v5 (or 6 by now?), and NeXTstep is a flavor of BSD.
Please turn in your geek card on the way out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Unix_history.en.svg
I read your comment and immediately wondered whether your education skipped the Therac25 entirely or maybe you just skipped class that day? If you want the prestige of calling yourself an Engineer, you need to a) understand and b) live up to the standards of the profession.
An Investigation of the Therac-25 Accidents
Nancy Leveson, University of Washington
Clark S. Turner, University of California, Irvine
Reprinted without permission, IEEE Computer, Vol. 26, No. 7, July 1993, pp. 18-41.
Computers are increasingly being introduced into safety-critical systems and, as a consequence, have been involved in accidents. Some of the most widely cited software-related accidents in safety-critical systems involved a computerized radiation therapy machine called the Therac-25. Between June 1985 and January 1987, six known accidents involved massive overdoses by the Therac-25 -- with resultant deaths and serious injuries. They have been described as the worst series of radiation accidents in the 35-year history of medical accelerators
from http://courses.cs.vt.edu/~cs3604/lib/Therac_25/Therac_1.html
Hurray. You learned about the Hawthorn effect in some class. How's about you leave the real science to the grownups and go back to studying for finals. Do your really think so highly of yourself that you really believe people that actually have PhDs and do this for a living aren't aware of such things like observer bias?
Disclaimer: IAAFS
Without meaning to be rude, you are flat out wrong. It just so happens that I study ingestion behavior for a living. My work is more related to the genetics of eating behavior and food choice, so this facility is less directly useful to me personally, but it absolutely will move the field forward. Unlike armchair quarterbacks that take cheapshots on the intarweb, every practicing scientist recognizes the inherent tradeoffs between experimental control and generalizability.
First, before the Correlation !=Causation weenies get their panties in a bunch, I'm happy for you that you passed stats 101, but you need to understand that RCTs are not the only way to do science. Yes, randomization is really nice for making claims about causation, but at least in humans, I can't assign you a specific gene (TAS2R38) or personality trait (novelty seeking). Yet we can still use the scientific method to make predictions based on theory and test those predictions.
Second, much of this work is done today using self report. Certainly, observation can induce bias, but so can self-report. When separate methods, with separate flaws confirm the same findings, science moves forward.
Finally, your comment about blinds, controls and isolation of variables is totally ignorant. The ability to manipulate this artificial restaurant in ways you could never manipulate a real restaurant is *exactly* what provides those controls.
Here is an example. Imagine I have a theory how socialization influences the time people spent at the table and the amount they consume. In this restaurant, I can manipulate the table size (2 vs. 4 chairs), social attachment between people (sit with friends or random assignment) or gender (do women eat more or less when seated with random men, male friends, just women, etc) to test my theories.
You are right that the Walter Reed scandal was a travesty. However you are missing one key detail. It ISN'T a VA facility! Walter Reed is an army hospital, meaning it is run by the Department of Defense. The VA and DoD are separate departments, each with their own cabinet secretary.
Put another way, would it be reasonable or appropriate to blame NIH (Dept of Health and Human Services) for security breaches at Los Alamos (Dept of Energy)? I mean, they both do basic science research, so they must be the same, right?
Of course, I have mod points when this story goes up, but would could I not post on this topic... Anyway, the article summary is painfully wrong (*rimshot*).
First off, TRPV1 is the name of the receptor (formerly VR1), not the nerve fiber.
Second, the substance P depletion hypothesis for capsaicin desensitization fails to explain Barry Green's work on stimulus induced recovery (SIR).
Please turn in your geek card on the way out.
Anybody that has passed intro stats at any level knows (or should know) that effect size and statistical significance are two completely separate measures. You can have a 2% improvement that is highly significant or you could have a 20% improvement that isn't - without the actual data you cannot know.
Now, the question you are trying to ask is if, in medical terms, a 9% improvement is clinically meaningful. If I can show a new drug lowers blood pressure by 2mm hg every single time, the improvement will be statistically significant, but not in any way useful. Just yesterday I was running a hierarchical regression where the final predictor only improved the fit of the model by 3.3%, but the change in fit was certainly significant (p=.004)
If you want to use the word significant as a synonym for meaningful that's ok I guess (I wouldn't). But please don't add the word "statistically" to the phrase in an attempt to make yourself sound smarter. It just makes communicating statistics to the public that much harder for those of us that actually do it for a living.
Oh man, How many times do we need to go over the flawed assumptions and conclusions from the CNW Marketing analysis.
First, it incorrectly assumes that hybrid batteries are not recycled. In reality, Toyota has very successful recycling program, including a $200 bounty on Prius batteries.
Second, it is interesting that TFA mentions the Scion xB. Yet it fails to note that the CNW report data on the xA and xB don't make any sense. They are built on the same assembly line, have the same powertrains, only differ in weight by 50 lbs or so, and have similar efficiency (~35mpg), yet the CNW study shows the lifetime energy use of these vehicles to differ by 50 percent. How's that work?
Third, the CNW report makes really bad assumptions about where the bulk of lifecycle energy use occurs (eg manufacturing vs operation).
In short, it's misinformed at best and is more likely an intentional greenwash to assuage SUV owner dissonance in a post 9/11 world.
Disclaimer: I drive a biodiesel powered Jetta TDI, not a hybrid.
Quoted for truth.
This is why a petroleum tax is the way to go. Government sucks at picking the winning technologies whereas markets are quite good at it. The solution? Ditch technology specific subsidies in favor of technology agnostic user fees that incentivize the desired goal, namely reduced petro use.
Now most people don't like taxes, but really it is the fairest way to let the market select the best renewable technology. If you tax petroleum, then biodiesel, ethanol, wind/pv plug-in HEVs, and transit all compete via market forces.
And before the libertarians get their panties in a bunch, we don't have anything close to a free market currently. The market is, and has been, slanted toward petroleum via foreign, domestic and tax policy for the the last 50-75 years. I'm just suggesting we use a petroleum tax to level the field a little.
Are you sure about those numbers? I don't have a consumer reports subscription so I can't double check but I think you may have transposed the 2 numbers.
E10 (E10% EtOH/90% gasoline) and E85 (85%EtOH/15% gas) are the common blends sold in the US. The first can be used in any conventional spark ignition engine while the latter requires a flex-fuel vehicle. Some states require that all gasoline sold is actually E10 - if I remember correctly CT, NY, HI and MN are some that come to mind.
Anyway, yes, E85 contains about ~30% less energy per gallon than straight gasoline, so yes, it requires more to go the same distance. However, E85 also has an octane rating of 105, meaning you can tune the engine to run on E85, as Saab did with the 9-5 Biopower. It has a 2L turbocharged inline 4 producing 180hp optimized to run on E85.
Wow. Great post. You hit it right on the head.
:(
Too bad you are an AC that probably will never get enough mod points for this to see the light of day.
people like you trolling a debate they know nothing about would make me ashamed to be an American (if I was one). Here's a hint: this story is talking about adult stem cells, which has no significance at all in regard to the current political/moral question of embryonic stem cells.
Actually, they are completely relevant to the moral/political question of embryonic stem cells, in so far as embryonic stem cell opponents have been using these adult stem cells to have their cake and eat it too.
Specifically, they've been tying the hands of researchers due to their religious beliefs and then shielding themselves from criticism by claiming "oh, we don't need embryonic cells anyway, because adult stem cells are just as good." Here is one example.
I read an paper by a colleague last week in a reputable Elsevier journal. The text referred you to Table 1. There was a Table 1 in the paper, but it wasn't the Table 1 being referred to, which was missing entirely. Doh!
This is exactly how the system is *supposed* to work. Dr. Verfaillie publishes her team's findings, and others try to replicate it. If they can, the original finding is supported. If not, the failure to replicate usually leads to other insights. My old boss was usually more excited when an experiment failed than when it worked, because was what led to breakthroughs instead of mere confirmation.
Yes, the process can take time, and god forbid you were the poor grad student that spend 3 years heading down a blind alley, but this episode just reaffirms that overall, the process works.