Then again, AC, Science means you spend a lot of time replicating the obvious. Obviously, /. is beneath you. Don't visit.
I don't read most of the articles, or posts for that matter. There was something about yours...
You claim slashdot owners don't post anti-President Obama (correct address by the way) because of a hidden political agenda. Yet they are willing to post your comments.
Please, reply and post your own links to FACTS backing up your CLAIMS about how the spacecraft was painted. I'm going to love seeing how NASA interprets a cthulu creature. I hoping for something in high heels.

They should have started sooner, AND
They need to put the full-press on congress to improve the patent process. Patents mean almost nothing today. The office is overwhelmed, and it's up to patent courts to try and sort through the mess.

This is an EXCELLENT video. Thanks for the link.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIflReRmynk

NASA is filled with bureaucrats and lifers. I know a lot of them personally. I think they're all great, and give our world more bang for my buck than any other agency (sorry NSA).

Look at what Musk is doing by riding herd over his people - he fires them when they can't perform - and guess what? SpaceX performs.

Time to create a government agency (or two) whose sole purpose is to get a colony going on the moon. Maybe another agency for unmanned exploration. And that's it. The aeronautical functions can be let loose to the private sector.

Maybe we should call it, Starfleet?

There was a great article in Science a few weeks ago evaluating 6 extremely complete skeletons that were "collected" by a giant cat about a million years ago. (reference below)
The biggest revelation to many biologists was the amount of variation among the skulls. If they'd been found independently, they probably would have been put into different species. It's almost as if biologists haven't figured out that people vary quite a bit within species.
Why can't we just see ourselves as one big amorphous mass of metabolism - still trying to climb out of the primordial ooze?

A Complete Skull from Dmanisi, Georgia, and the Evolutionary Biology of Early Homo, by David Lordkipanidze, Marcia S. Ponce de León, Ann Margvelashvili, Yoel Rak, G. Philip Rightmire, Abesalom Vekua, and Christoph P. E. Zollikofer Science 18 October 2013: 326-331. An early Pleistocene adult skull illuminates the evolution and morphology of the first hominins outside Africa.

The article doesn't say anything about soaps or other drugs, only that the resistant genes exist.

This is a general observation of how our greater biome is adapting to our generally anti-bacterial ways - including hospital grade antibiotics.

And judging from the research done, it looks like it's already in the environment. I'm guessing that we're looking at a dip in life expectancy. Oh well.

I've been in the soap making business since 2009. We make an all-natural powerful blend designed for men working in factories. Turns out women love it. But this is beside my point.

The real point is that I designed this stuff using as much science / true research that I could find. And there's almost nothing out there. In fact, I still haven't found a shred of research that proves why soap works. Does it dissolve cellular membranes (as I was taught in school long ago?) or does it increase the tiny forces acting against their anchoring ability so that they wash away in the great flood? We really don't know.

And my guess as to why we don't know is this: We have 'known' it works for several thousand years. Therefore, if I'm applying for grant money to 'prove' this, I'm going to be laughed at. There's no money, no potential money, not even any potential bragging rights for being the guy that proves soap works.

It may be that our recent discovery of the microbiome will change all this. I hope it does. I can tell you from personal soap-selling experience now, and interviews with hundreds of women, that it really is far more complicated that it first appears. I used to think I knew the answers. Now I just have lots of questions. And my personal advice as for the majority of washing that we do? Water. That's it. Just rinse and you're done.

Please mod this guy down a few points. It's one thing to do physics as a hobby, it's another to be a professional getting written up in Science.

They'll just pop up again somewhere else like bad mushrooms.

It's only one solar dia away at it's closest - more than enough room for a light tan!

Wish we were all in Alaska.

Making it public is always a choice, and it's the harder of the two obvious choices.

One of the things that has kept minorities silent for so long is the fact that they were intimidated to raise their voices.

One of the powers of the web is the fact that it does create instant communities where none existed. In this case, a flippant insult that would have normally been passed off as 'normal' macho behavior. To her credit, Dr. Lee has turned that instant into an social event where Scientific American becomes the one on trial. Why SciAm? They implicitly sided with the macho ingnoramus by trying to silence her. Then they tried to deflect their own actions on the basis of some journalistic or moral code, that doesn't exist. Finally, they seem to be coming around to the fact that this insulting event is causing them true harm in the form of degrading the brand. (I was a long time subscriber, and sent them a letter yesterday saying goodbye, and equating them to the status of "People" or "Us." I certainly don't mean to insult those other magazines, though.)

Science is about open communications. By going public, Dr. Lee has helped further science, in some small sense. We may not agree with her theories, her discipline, or anything else about her. But as reasonable beings we must respect her, and help her put down those who do would do harm to her, and indirectly, to the rest of us.

Thank you for going public Dr. Lee.

SD

Seems to me that the Circuit court's job was to evaluate the application of law by the inferior court - not reappraise the penalty. It wasn't a question of law, so SCOTUS was right to reject it. OTOH, the 1st Circuit shouldn't have overridden the lower court's decision.

The JoC is bogus as far as I can tell. Hidden publishers, a headline asking if Jesus can explain evolution, and lots of dubious articles. They even claim Sir Roger (Penrose) as a sometimes editor. I wonder if he knows?

The point is that we've seen unknown conservative entities hijack 'liberal' academic institutions in an attempt to legitimize their own agendas.

TO THE EDITORS AND READERS OF /.
please don't fall prey. This is one of the last
bastions of true skeptics. Don't believe me?
Run the whois on these guys. Find the editorial
board. Run the academic background of the
referees who would "peer review" an article
BEFORE it is published.

The rest of the world is counting on you.

I agree with Darien. It's important for every geek, but especially scientists living at the grace of the public, to remember that you have to tell some kind of story with what you know and learn.

A great book on the subject is Visual Display of Quantitative Information by Tufte. The same principles, along with the addition of an intriguing story line would make far more interesting material for everyone.

I hubbely recommend that you try taking Darien up on his offer and see what kind of story you can weave into your anaglyph.

Good luck and keep up the great work!