Science/math folks easily understand when non-science folk get things wrong. It's obvious. And so we know they need better science ed.

What's harder to see and not as clear cut is when science/engineering people (usually the low to mid-level people) are boring people who cannot think. Dull, spudly people you don't want to work with.

They don't need to take the humanities for the reasons from the article, they need to take the humaninties because they want to. When you find you don't want to, change colleges, change courses. You're getting a crap education when history isn't fun.

Yes, skip Plato. Skip the oldest deadest white guys. You can read the cliff notes there. But when you go to IIT you know to do your damnedest to avoid the required COBOL class they taught until something like 10 years ago. You know to skip the into to programming class they still try to make you take. Colleges make money on the stock crap. Skip that when you can. Skip the intros. You can get that from a book.

Whereas small group seminars in the humanities are chances to try to think. They teach you how to talk and integrate information from the news and from different countries/cultures. Take a class on Melville. Take a class on the history of detective fiction. And take linguistics, polysci and art. Otherwise why the hell are you wasteing your money going to a University? Go to a trade school. Be a drone. Reach the mid-level and stagnate. Because that's who you want to be.

Don't bitch about the humanities versions of the COBOL class without bitching about the CS department's COBOL class in the same breath. It's the same thing. Don't bitch about well-educated humanities people being morons without looking in the mirror and seeing the disfunctional troll you personally sculpted by avoiding investigating culture all your life.

Really, you need to skim more.

The essence of this is by far the best idea here. Build a sound booth. Whether it's egg-shaped or a tardis-shaped box, it's doable and can be very quiet. Make sure there's a window so you can see the fire alarm, though.

Until we sequence a good representitive sample of Neanderthals, this is premature. You could look for mitochondrial progession, and make some judgements about that (see the complete cock-up the Eve hypothesis people made of this in the late 80's) but right now we have the genome of ONE Neanderthal. ONE!

This is a group of people which ranged across Africa, Asia, Europe and Australia and were there for a long time. There's a lot of genetic variation possible. We don't know how much, because we have nothing to compare against.

This is shoddy work.

"Theories that modern humans simply outbred them and replaced them are viable"

Of course they're not. It impies that there wasn't enough food for Neanderthals, once the modern HS came on the scene. Humans (including Neanderthals) are omnivores with big enough brains to adapt to different food sources, and to move on when there's not enough food in one place. The Earth is BIG, and there were lots of prey animals and plants. There are plenty of places Neanderthals could have held out. Remember, the above hypothesis doesn't require them to starve on 99% of the planet. It requires them to starve EVERYWHERE.

They had to have been assimilated or killed. They may have been reduced in number by diminishing food sources, but that wouldn't have eliminated them.

No, if it does, then the data will reflect it. They might be right in their testable hypothesis, and wrong on their guess at causality.

You can't prove anything about the size f the visual cortex in the Neanderthals, so you'd be comparing apples to smoke anyhow. Their paper says "Big eyes means stupid." That's testable.

This is just another in a long string of pointless Neanderthal speculation articles. This one made the mistake of having a testable hypothesis. Finaly, one that can be shown to be a waste of paper!

Yes. And the blind are friggin' geniuses.

This study is being badly interpretted (notably on Nova).

Europeans show a small amount of Neanderthal DNA because we compared them to ONE Neanderthal sample.

When this is done on a respectable sample size including Neanderthals around the world, we'll find that everyone has Neanderthal DNA.

Does that mean we can use all our produced CO2 for FRACKING?

Scale up? Why?

According to the article the reactors currently "each produce about 25 thermal kilowatts" so already they produce .. let's see... assuming they get 100% efficiency in their steam engines... they made more than $1.75 an hour.

No need to scale up at all.

It only cleans up the burning side if we have something to do with all that CO2 that this process produces.

This does nothing. But it completely stops break-ins and it's cheap.

https://spygear4u.com/ds_proddetail.asp?prod=GS-LS-131

Watch the videos you can find of it around. It's very scary. Does nothing, of course, but it's VERY scary. And that will keep your family's store safe.

The obvious answer is DataHand. Nothing else seems so well designed. But you can't get one anymore, and if you could they'd be more than you could afford. They always were, even when they were making them.

A search for a photo of the inside of this car shows a shifter.

People who love their iPhones usually bought them. There are two things going on there. Firstly, it's a self-selecting group. They bought into the idea of the ads they saw for the phone. Secondly, they spent money on it. When you make a purchase, you tend to self-justify. You think what you bought was the best, because otherwise you got suckered. No one likes that, so we tell ourselves we won. What we have is the best.

I was handed an iPhone by my company. It's really nice to have a free phone and I appreciate it hugely. Yes, it's a ball and chain to the company, but if they hadn't given me the phone, they'd be calling me on my personal phone anyhow.

But I hate the iPhone. Hate it. My antipathy for it was nonexistent when I got it. It was way better (in some ways) than the crappy blackberry it replaced. But over time, I've grown more and more frustrated with the potential of the thing which is squandered. Every little thing about it annoys me.

My wife has an android phone. I am so envious. There's still much to hate there, but not nearly as much, and there seems to be progress on Android. Something which annoys you might actually get fixed. On the iPhone, you must learn to love it, for it will never change.