I feel obliged to point out that isotopic fractionation is not "central" to carbon dating. The key to carbon dating is that radioactive carbon-14 decays to nitrogen-14 with a half life of roughly 5700 years, enabling biological material to be dated by its residual carbon-14 content. That is not isotopic fractionation, it's radioactive decay. Isotopic fractionation would be involved if you observed a difference in the ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-13 in plants versus that same ratio in the air.
Honestly, I'd bet the reason the test designers are using these correct "incorrect" answers is because they know they can't include more appropriate examples of non-testable theories. Specifically: "God created the Earth in 7 days", "God created man in his own image", etc. etc.
Also because what we know about thermodynamics tells us that analogous non-carbon (e.g. silicon) "organic"-molecules are less stable and thus less likely to be the basis for life.
Dead on. It's not like you can just look at a pile of dirt (or ice) and tell whether there's something living in it. And you certainly can't do life detection from orbit unless you have a serious biosphere going, which obviously none of these outer solar system moons have. And the Europa drilling ideas that people like to throw around aren't going to be technically feasible in the time frame of the missions to Mars -- if ever.
I'm not arguing that this is a good or bad idea, but it won't do anything to change grade inflation. In my experience (as a TA for a number of different classes), college professors look at the point totals at the end of the semester and determine the letter grade cutoffs by hand so that they have the grade distribution they want. I'm not saying they're going through and making sure specific students get a particular grade, just that they want, say 50% A's 30% B's and 20% C's and they'll put the cutoffs where they need to be for that to happen. Just because the essays are graded tougher doesn't mean they can't still give half the class an A.
Other criticism of the study aside, a group of people who might be interested in how well pictures are remembered after short glances are advertisers and marketers.
Exactly! What this study ignores, consciously I'm sure, is the affective domain. They basically ask, "which of these image that you don't care about at all do you remember?" They don't ask, "which picture from you vacation is your favorite?"
I think using the word "memorable" is slightly misleading for this reason, because memorable has a connotation that is much broader than merely "remembered". It implies that there is an emotional connection to something.
I wish the people and governments of these island countries well and I certainly think they should try whatever they can to get attention for their plight, but the lesson learned in COP15 is that the major industrial powers of the world are not willing to make major changes in their greenhouse gas emissions. And basically the rest of the world can't do a damn thing to make them.
While that may be true quite often in the media, nothing in the story suggests that's the case here. She had three sets of plants, one shielded with a Faraday cage, one shielded in fiberglass, and one completely unshielded. Her results aren't simply a lack of insect damage.
The reports of journalists being more unofficially banned from beaches where BP contractors are "cleaning" up the oil or from flying over the affected areas of the gulf.
From the article, "CFIT themselves, despite their name, is about as opaque an organization as there is".
So, we have a company we know is evil-ish, a company we think might tend towards evil if we gave them control of.com, and ICANN -- for what they're worth. It seems to me that if we continue essentially the same system we have now that VeriSign (or whoever is ultimately given control) needs to be on a short leash from ICANN. Not that they are necessarily better or more transparent, but at least they can be more directly influenced by the government / public opinion.
14C half life is about 5000 years and a decent rule of thumb is that radionuclide dating is good within an order of magnitude either directions. So from 500 to 50,000 years old.
Why? It's basically just a functions of the number of decays that have taken place and the number of atoms left of the original. Before 500 years the small number of decays makes the process inaccurate and after 50,000 counting the atoms remaining becomes difficult.
I totally agree. The first time I saw a ghost in that game I was totally running the other direction. And more than just that, it was the kind of game where you were even more scared when nothing was happening than when you were under heavy fire.
you could make a killer pyramid scheme out of this. the person at the top could find 10 people who would each send him one piece of spam. then they would each find 10 more who would send one piece of spam to everyone above them and after a couple of weeks you could sue them all for seven million dollars.
i don't know how you would convince people to actually do this, but for that much money you could come up with something.
Slashdot Mirror
You can't stop progress?
I feel obliged to point out that isotopic fractionation is not "central" to carbon dating. The key to carbon dating is that radioactive carbon-14 decays to nitrogen-14 with a half life of roughly 5700 years, enabling biological material to be dated by its residual carbon-14 content. That is not isotopic fractionation, it's radioactive decay. Isotopic fractionation would be involved if you observed a difference in the ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-13 in plants versus that same ratio in the air.
Honestly, I'd bet the reason the test designers are using these correct "incorrect" answers is because they know they can't include more appropriate examples of non-testable theories. Specifically: "God created the Earth in 7 days", "God created man in his own image", etc. etc.
Also because what we know about thermodynamics tells us that analogous non-carbon (e.g. silicon) "organic"-molecules are less stable and thus less likely to be the basis for life.
Dead on. It's not like you can just look at a pile of dirt (or ice) and tell whether there's something living in it. And you certainly can't do life detection from orbit unless you have a serious biosphere going, which obviously none of these outer solar system moons have. And the Europa drilling ideas that people like to throw around aren't going to be technically feasible in the time frame of the missions to Mars -- if ever.
I'm not arguing that this is a good or bad idea, but it won't do anything to change grade inflation. In my experience (as a TA for a number of different classes), college professors look at the point totals at the end of the semester and determine the letter grade cutoffs by hand so that they have the grade distribution they want. I'm not saying they're going through and making sure specific students get a particular grade, just that they want, say 50% A's 30% B's and 20% C's and they'll put the cutoffs where they need to be for that to happen. Just because the essays are graded tougher doesn't mean they can't still give half the class an A.
That's true. You could have at least chosen a bird instead.
Other criticism of the study aside, a group of people who might be interested in how well pictures are remembered after short glances are advertisers and marketers.
Exactly! What this study ignores, consciously I'm sure, is the affective domain. They basically ask, "which of these image that you don't care about at all do you remember?" They don't ask, "which picture from you vacation is your favorite?"
I think using the word "memorable" is slightly misleading for this reason, because memorable has a connotation that is much broader than merely "remembered". It implies that there is an emotional connection to something.
I wish the people and governments of these island countries well and I certainly think they should try whatever they can to get attention for their plight, but the lesson learned in COP15 is that the major industrial powers of the world are not willing to make major changes in their greenhouse gas emissions. And basically the rest of the world can't do a damn thing to make them.
In other news, I just pre-ordered my iPad Nano.
While that may be true quite often in the media, nothing in the story suggests that's the case here. She had three sets of plants, one shielded with a Faraday cage, one shielded in fiberglass, and one completely unshielded. Her results aren't simply a lack of insect damage.
The reports of journalists being more unofficially banned from beaches where BP contractors are "cleaning" up the oil or from flying over the affected areas of the gulf.
From the article, "CFIT themselves, despite their name, is about as opaque an organization as there is".
.com, and ICANN -- for what they're worth. It seems to me that if we continue essentially the same system we have now that VeriSign (or whoever is ultimately given control) needs to be on a short leash from ICANN. Not that they are necessarily better or more transparent, but at least they can be more directly influenced by the government / public opinion.
So, we have a company we know is evil-ish, a company we think might tend towards evil if we gave them control of
I've got one of these in my pocket right now. Do you think it would raise any suspicion if I posted it on eBay now?
Nokia 1100 L000000K! RARE! HACK BANKS!!!
Can we just get CmdrTaco(1) in here to put an end to this?
14C half life is about 5000 years and a decent rule of thumb is that radionuclide dating is good within an order of magnitude either directions. So from 500 to 50,000 years old.
Why? It's basically just a functions of the number of decays that have taken place and the number of atoms left of the original. Before 500 years the small number of decays makes the process inaccurate and after 50,000 counting the atoms remaining becomes difficult.
I totally agree. The first time I saw a ghost in that game I was totally running the other direction. And more than just that, it was the kind of game where you were even more scared when nothing was happening than when you were under heavy fire.
you could make a killer pyramid scheme out of this. the person at the top could find 10 people who would each send him one piece of spam. then they would each find 10 more who would send one piece of spam to everyone above them and after a couple of weeks you could sue them all for seven million dollars.
i don't know how you would convince people to actually do this, but for that much money you could come up with something.
she never said whether she'd go out with me.
Lets hope they can prove there are other, less annoying advertising models that work
Do popups work?