Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Submission Summary: 0 pending, 27 declined, 3 accepted (30 total, 10.00% accepted)

×
User Journal

Submission + - Wikipedia as news

mapkinase writes: Did anybody notice how fast the info on Wikipedia is updated?

When Altman (some film director) died, there was two full pages of changes at that day (11/21/2006) the first being posted at 16:31, 21 November 2006 the next day, while, say Reuter's report came out on Tue Nov 21, 2006 11:51am ET.

Does anyone use the Wikipedia as their source of news?
User Journal

Submission + - Human factor on carbon dioxide concentration

mapkinase writes: Total yearly consumption of oil worldwide:
2.5e10 barrels oil = 3.97e15 grams,

gas: 9.5e13 cub feet = 6.65e31 molecules at atmospheric pressure = 3.97e15 grams of pure carbon

coal: 5.44e9 short tons = 4.94e15 grams

Total mass of carbon consumed 1.02e16 gram (assuming oil and coal are pure carbon)

Total mass of earth atmosphere: 5.1e21 gram
At 0.0368% mass concentration of CO2 gives roughly 6.26e17 grams of carbon (for the sake of quick calc mass of C,N and O atoms) as part of CO2 in atmosphere.

So if we assume that total worldwide yearly consumption of carbon in oil, coal and gas is entirely converted to CO2, then we have to say that humans produce early 1.64% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere. This is ball park figure, let us take +-2 half an order magnitude error:

0.5-5% of total CO2 in the atmosphere.

Now I can cautiously formulate what I think on the influence of humans on CO2.

Do we influence it remarkedly? This is scary part. In complete reversal of my earlier position, I say: yes.

Now we know that in the last 20 years annual CO2 increase was 1.5ppm per year which is 0.3% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere.

The changes in the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere are comparable to the emissions! One can do even wilder assumtion that "nature" is "trying" to reduce CO2 by 1.3% a year, while "humans" are "overcoming" this resulting in increase of CO2 by 0.3% a year, but I am not going to do that.

Now the second question:

Can we do something significant about it? No.

Kyoto protocol proposes to cut emissions by 5.3%. Even if we assume that 0.5-5% of total CO2 make the difference, 0.025-0.25% of total CO2 in the atmosphere hardly will make a difference.

After doing my assessment I found on the web a different LOWER figure for carbon emissions: 6.50E+15 grams of carbon which is 30% than my assessment. 30% is not a bad error for a small lab work. :-)
User Journal

Submission + - The child of many mothers

mapkinase writes: Science magazine editor refered to an article in Genetics about mitochondrial heteroplasmy in many organizms.
mothers that were heteroplasmic were shown to pass it on to their offspring, and the pattern of inheritance suggested that heteroplasmy was genome-wide (in the mitochondria) and not locus-specific. Although these findings may be taken as consistent with biparental inheritance, the fact that high levels of cytoplasmic male sterility, caused by cytonuclear interactions, are known to occur in S. vulgaris suggests that heteroplasmy may be selected for within female individuals in some populations.
User Journal

Submission + - Global warming already killing species, analysis

mapkinase writes: CNN tells the story:

At least 70 species of frogs, mostly mountain-dwellers that had nowhere to go to escape the creeping heat, have gone extinct because of climate change, the analysis says. It also reports that between 100 and 200 other cold-dependent animal species, such as penguins and polar bears are in deep trouble.

"We are finally seeing species going extinct," said University of Texas biologist Camille Parmesan, author of the study. "Now we've got the evidence. It's here. It's real. This is not just biologists' intuition. It's what's happening."

Her review of 866 scientific studies is summed up in the journal Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics.

866 studies sounds impressive. 2 buts:

1) it seems though that the full text of the article was not made available to public yet
2) how many species became extinct during circa 1400 (take or add a century), when a significantly colder climate crippled in? (that is a rhetorical question).
User Journal

Submission + - Rape in Pakistan: Astounding hypocracy of western

mapkinase writes: BBC article is salivating over the rape horrors in Pakistan:
A woman is raped every two hours and gang-raped every eight hours in Pakistan, according to the country's independent Human Rights Commission.

Wow! That is a lot! Right? Or not?
12 rapes a day, 4380 rapes a year for a country of 165M.

Now let us take another country that reported rate is 0.4 per 1000 of population in 2004. For that country that make it 400 per million and 40,000 per 100M and, finally, 120,000 per 300M.

You recognized the country by the total population, right? That is exactly what USA celebrated recently - 300M of people, 120,000 females of which are raped annually.

Here is the reference to US statistics, if you do not believe

I propose to measure the level of hypocricy of reporting in Western media by this number: 15, which is the ratio of crimes in this case in the West.

Other countries:

France: 14.45 per 100,000. Level of hypocricy: 14.45/100,000/4380*165000000=
5

Same - UK.

I predict the standard answer: "rape is underreported in Pakistan". Eat it, my friends. Come up with real numbers, and then we talk.
User Journal

Submission + - Elephants pass mirror test of self-awareness

mapkinase writes: Guardian reports:

Elephants have been found to recognise themselves in a mirror, putting them in an exclusive club of self-awareness whose other members are great apes (including humans) and bottlenose dolphins.

The peer-reviewed article in PNAS says in its abstract:

Considered an indicator of self-awareness, mirror self-recognition (MSR) has long seemed limited to humans and apes. In both phylogeny and human ontogeny, MSR is thought to correlate with higher forms of empathy and altruistic behavior. Apart from humans and apes, dolphins and elephants are also known for such capacities. After the recent discovery of MSR in dolphins (Tursiops truncatus), elephants thus were the next logical candidate species. We exposed three Asian elephants (Elephas maximus) to a large mirror to investigate their responses. Animals that possess MSR typically progress through four stages of behavior when facing a mirror: (i) social responses, (ii) physical inspection (e.g., looking behind the mirror), (iii) repetitive mirror-testing behavior, and (iv) realization of seeing themselves. Visible marks and invisible sham-marks were applied to the elephants' heads to test whether they would pass the litmus "mark test" for MSR in which an individual spontaneously uses a mirror to touch an otherwise imperceptible mark on its own body. Here, we report a successful MSR elephant study and report striking parallels in the progression of responses to mirrors among apes, dolphins, and elephants. These parallels suggest convergent cognitive evolution most likely related to complex sociality and cooperation.
User Journal

Submission + - Mmm, honey

mapkinase writes: Nature reports on completed sequencing of honeybee genome.

Why honeybee genome is important:
Two other insects have already been sequenced: the malaria-carrying mosquito Anopheles gambiae, and one of science's great model organisms, the fruitfly Drosophila melanogaster. Like these, the bee is much easier to manipulate and study than, say, the monkey. But unlike the mosquito and the fruitfly, the bee's social behaviour is of special interest.

Another article in the same issue clarifies more:
The genome is helping to reveal some of those [such as the bees' dance language and the division of labour in the hive] mechanisms. For instance, there are 65 spots in the genome that seem to code for short RNA molecules called microRNAs (miRNAs), molecular switches that can turn genes on or off. The researchers found that miRNA activity differs between bees doing different jobs.

The abstact of the original article, however, does not say anything about how their sequences contributes to the insights into social behaviour of honeybees.
User Journal

Submission + - One man spoke the truth, causing "furor" of the cr

mapkinase writes: Australian mufti suggested that women who dressed provocatively provoke rape attempts. No wonder that the liberals reacted with "furor".

And, of course and unfortunately, there are some Muslims that are joining the chorus:
The country's most prominent female Muslim leader, Aziza Abdel-Halim, said the hijab did not "detract or add to a person's moral standards"

thus negating that commandments from the Creator revealed in The Holy Qur'an's have any relevance to the moral standards. Her website says:
The MWNNA works closely with leading progressive Muslim figures in Australia and overseas.

While the situation is more or less clear with this "pro-regressive" sister,
too bad to read similar remarks from this brother (who was more couragious on numerous previous occasions attracting fire from the infidels):
while an Islamic Council of Victoria spokesman, Waleed Ali, said it was "ignorant and naive" for anyone to believe that a hijab could stop sexual assault. "Anyone who is foolish enough to believe that there is a relationship between rape or unwelcome sexual interference and the failure to wear a hijab, clearly has no understanding of the nature of sexual crime," he told the Australian.

The website of Islamic Council of Victoria does not mention him as a "spokesman", BTW, only as a "member".

Subhan Allah! Have some Fear of the Creator, brothers and sisters.
User Journal

Submission + - Not cash, recognition is behind X Prize

mapkinase writes: Nature published another piece on popular X Prize for sequencing 100 people's genomes in 10 days. This time it focuses on the fact that recognition overshadows the cash reward. $10M seems to be a lot (about 10 Nobels), but given the fact that technology required is a little bit more costly that what brought to fame Grisha Perelman, it is not that large at all. The editorial says:

As with the first X prize, those chasing the genomics award will probably invest much more than $10 million. The true pot of gold is not cash, but publicity and a head start at grabbing a slice of a growing market.

The downside of it is that the emerging technology will likely choke current databases for storing genetic information (like NCBI's). It is time for those folks to sweat more for our tax money ;-)

Another piece in the same issue reports on the advances in relating protein aggregation (like in "prions") and neurodegenerative deseases (like bovine spongiform encephalopathy).

The clinical trials could also settle the century-old debate about causality [of the deseases - MAPK].

I am interested in this because I followed the controversy of awarding Stanley Prusiner a Nobel Prize for his work on prions and relating them to that type of deseases.
User Journal

Submission + - Science: Humanity. Definition

mapkinase writes: Many people erroneously believe that what distinguishes humans from all other creatures is the intellect, abstract thinking, making theories, generalizing, etc...

This is wrong. The mentioned features being unique to humans as a whole are not unique to humans in their purpose. They are not unique in the fact that main reason of existence of all those traits is to ensure the survival of humans as a biological species. In that aspect the intellect is not different from dog's ability to bark or amoeba's ability to change the shape of its cell.

What truely distinguishes humans from animals is the existence of a moral code that is not related to the survivial at all, namely, the sole recognition of the Creator and submission to Him. This recognition is not related whatsoever to the survival of humans as a race in this world, but is solely important to the existence of human's soul in the Hereafter.

There are many indications in the modern world that this moral center - monotheism - is in no connection of superficial scientific cause and effect to the biological survival either of individuals or the human race as a whole.

1. The religion teaches us that we have to love God and his Messenger, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, more than anything else in this world, including ourselves (sic! survival of the individual) and our children (sic! survival of the human race).

2. The religion teaches us to give and to sacrifice: our money, our belongings, our time, our lives to the cause of the Creator that is in contrary to what biological instincts are telling us (this including modern models of "altruistic" behaviour that pop up from time to time in the Nature magazine). Moresoever, it teaches us to do it preferably anonimously, so not to get any recognition in this world for the acts of charity (thus making it different from the aforementioned "altruistic" models).

3. The religion teaches us to rely on the Creator above that what he created: the recognizable order of this world, that is called science. You know, statistically speaking, relying on science will give you best results in this world. Yet the believer, who relies only on Allah, will certainly sometimes neglect scientific indications which will lead to his physical demise statistically more often. The truth is, sometimes we need just to die instead of holding to life.

One might say that despite all this, religion, especially Islam, have a viral tendency to survive over the centuries of persecution. It is true that one of the consequences of the following of the moral conduct is to restraint from harm to yourselves and to other humans, to be moderate in consumption and in emotions. That is of course, "healthy". But, this is in no way a primal motivation of any religious person, since he knows that this life takes a day and may be a little more compared to the life of Eternity. Of course, Islam teaches us not to restraint from having kids, except out of the concern for the well-being of the mother. That leads to the faster growth of little Muslims compared to the "material girls" and boys. But again, this is not the main purpose. In fact, Islam teaches us to marry only to protect ourselves from doing what is forbidden, namely copulating like an animal with everything that moves, from fornication, sodomy and all other perversions. Not for the pleasure, not because it is better for our prostates to have a regular intercourse, not to procreate. The rest is left to our animal nature: the desire to have sexual intercourse with our wives and the love for kids.

In fact, Islam is complementary to our animal nature. It offsets what is forbidden to us in our animal nature - killing in competition, fornication, overconsumption, aggression and suppression (alpha-males), rape (there is a species of scorpions that have males with special tools for that) and allows freely what is Halaal in our animal nature - having children, moderate consumption of food, water and sexual intercourse. The most offset trait of us as animals is of course our intellect - this is the area the religion restricts us the most. The foremost perversion of intellect is denial of Creator. That is the sin of the clever, the sin of the scientist. The denial of Unseen. "I see only wallpaper". Closely related to that is the forbidding of arrogance, which is also a sin of intellect. Pride is closely related to arrogance.

In other words, humanity is not what we do, it is first of all, what we do not do, never, under no circumstances. Humanity is defined by taboo.

The choice is yours, dear reader. Whether you are submitting to your animal nature, either by freely following your bodily desires restricted only by the same desires of others and by playing intellectual games, charades, solving puzzles, again, for the pleasurement of yourself, pride, honour and social recognition. Or you are humbly submitting to your Creator.

Do you want to be like other animals: "cat meouws, dog barks, human animal thinks", or you want to be the summit, on the top of the world, vicegerent of God on this Earth?
User Journal

Submission + - Ask Slashdot: The rise and fall of gender-segregat

mapkinase writes: CNN writes about recent decision of Randolph-Macon Woman's College officials to start admitting men:

In the eyes of the board of trustees, going coed could help stabilize the school's finances as interest in all-women schools wanes.

Question: why admissions to women only colleges are falling? It is obvious that attending women-only college diminishes the social interaction with the opposite gender. There are recent studies that such segregation is actually good for academic achievements of girls in high schools. Do female applicants of typical freshman age feel that they lose something without interacting with peers of opposite gender? Is it because of general decline in the discipline imposed on youngsters by adults in the past that young women are more inclined to do what young men and women naturally want to do - have fun? The paper compares the current admission rate to 60s:

Enrollment this fall was about 700, down from a student body of almost 900 in the 1960s.

and

Across the United States, only about 60 women's colleges remain, from nearly 300 in the 1960s, according to the Women's College Coalition.

60s are usually associated with civil rights movement, women lib included. In the 60s women felt that women-only colleges empower them and help them to fight the gender-gap in education. Not in 2000s? Does it mean that now feminists finally "won"? According to this paper:

In the fall of 2000 there were 5,578,000 men and 7,377,000 women enrolled in college as undergraduates.

So was it all about winning a battle in the war of the sexes and not about the quality of education?
User Journal

Submission + - Millenium Technology Prize and Nobel Prize

mapkinase writes: This year Millennium Technology Prize was awarded to Prof. Nakamura for invention of white, blue and green light emitting diods (LED):
White LEDs could provide a sustainable, low-cost alternative to lightbulbs, especially in developing countries.

His other inventions such as blue LEDs are used in flat-screen displays, while blue lasers are already being exploited in the next generation of DVD player.
Later in the artcile:
The Millennium Technology Prize is the world's largest technology award, equivalent to the Nobel Prizes for science. It recognises technological developments that have a positive impact on quality of life and sustainable development.

It is awarded every two years. The first prize, awarded in 2004, was presented to Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the World Wide Web.
Good first two choices. Nowadays when there are fewer and fewer real developments of the real basic science, this prize would eventually eclipse the Nobel Prize in its coverage and popularity.

I hate the word "Millennium" though. 6 (or 5) years after this "historic" event the word have not became less pompous.
User Journal

Submission + - Science: teenagers are still kids

mapkinase writes: According to BBC:
Now we know why the surly teenager storms off in a huff after being told to tidy their bedroom.

Adolescents do not put the part of the brain that considers others' feelings to full use, scientists have found.

It seems our neural decision-making processes mature quite slowly, and researchers think this might help to explain typical teenage behaviour.


Duh!

Slashdot Top Deals

Lots of folks confuse bad management with destiny. -- Frank Hubbard

Working...