You CANNOT "see things as they are" with the HiRISE images.

1) Does your monitor display Infrared?
2) Does your monitor display "red" with the same bandpass that the HiRISE detectors are sensitive to?
3) Does your monitor display the bluegreen that HiRISE is sensitive to?
4) Are your eyes sensitive, in the same way as the HiRISE detectors, to the same bandpasses as the HiRISE detectors?

No.

5) It simply isn't "traditional" to show IR or other non-visible wavelength data as a separate grayscale image. Take a look at Hubble images.
6) The difference between photoshopping and processing these images is: a) there's documentation on exactly how it's done, and why, b) the "original--whatever that means" images are available to anyone who actually has an interest in the imagery rather than complaining about scientists.
7) Mars doesn't look dull compared with Earth. The bandpasses were chosen for science. The public images are just that, to excite the public. If you want to do science, then go to the original source. If you want to look at pretty pictures, then look at the pretty pictures.

What, precisely, would you like to see?

Would you like to see the raw numbers that come out of the detectors? Those won't do you much good since you clearly don't know anything about Mars science or remote sensing. Some amount of the "signal" is actually generated by the instrument. In addition, some amount of the "signal" is due to heat generated by the spacecraft, other instruments, etc. If you would like to see the raw data, go here:

http://hirise-pds.lpl.arizona.edu/PDS/EDR/PSP/ORB_001500_001599/PSP_001552_1410/

Those raw data are reduced (calibrated) as soon as they hit the ground. Would you like to see those values? Would you like to see a representation of those values on your screen, in the form of an image?

Realize that the images you can view are different because your screen is an 8-bit display and the data acquired through HiRISE are 14-bit compressed to 8-bit, downlinked to Earth, uncompressed to 32-bit, processed in floating point, and recompressed to 10- or 8-bits, depending on the output format. Your screen can't display what was actually detected (raw) by the HiRISE instrument.

Instead of assuming that everyone in the world but yourself is dishonest, try doing a little---very, very, very little---digging and learning instead of trolling.

Here's the main page for the frost-covered gullies shown in the article:
http://www.uahirise.org/PSP_001552_1410

The mosaic of the red bandpass CCDs is here (not map projected, because I'm sure you'd find something to complain about there, too):
http://hirise-pds.lpl.arizona.edu/PDS/EXTRAS/RDR/PSP/ORB_001500_001599/PSP_001552_1410/PSP_001552_1410_RED.NOMAP.browse.jpg

The mosaic of the blue-green, IR, and red bandpass CCDs is here:
http://hirise-pds.lpl.arizona.edu/PDS/EXTRAS/RDR/PSP/ORB_001500_001599/PSP_001552_1410/PSP_001552_1410_IRB.NOMAP.browse.jpg

The color mosaic, with the stretching to enhance the color differences, is here:
http://hirise-pds.lpl.arizona.edu/PDS/EXTRAS/RDR/PSP/ORB_001500_001599/PSP_001552_1410/PSP_001552_1410_RGB.NOMAP.browse.jpg

Realize that NONE of the images here show Mars as it would look to your eyes. None.

Also, all of those data are directly available from the front page for the image, including the raw data. So, clearly you didn't bother trying to find what you want to see, you just started bitching because you have some bone to pick with scientists.

Time to feed the troll.

1) These images are not photoshopped (at least not the ones on uahirise.org). If you knew anything about remote sensing, CCD sensors, image processing, or science, you'd know that.
    http://www.uahirise.org/pdf/color-products.pdf

2) Press releases do absolutely nothing for scientists except get their work out to the public. In a "publish or die" world, press releases are absolutely worthless. In a "publish or die" world, peer-reviewed work is publishing.

3) All scientists in a given field (and often across fields) compete with each other for funding, so making claims that are easily refutable (by real scientists, not worthless internet trolls like yourself) means you won't get funding in the future because a) your work is peer reviewed by your competitors, and b) your grant proposals are peer-reviewed by your competitors. If you're a shit scientist, your competitors will point it out to the funding and publishing agencies and your papers won't be published anymore and you won't get any more funding.

4) Do a little research yourself before making such asinine claims about "weasel words" and "without a single theory." Scientists use words like "may" and "could" and "potentially" when they have good reason to believe it's possible, but also good reason NOT to state something with certainty.
      Here, I'll do it for you.
    scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Holden+crater+lake+deposits&hl=en&btnG=Search&as_sdt=801&as_sdtp=on
    scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Holden+crater+megabreccia&hl=en&btnG=Search&as_sdt=801&as_sdtp=on

   

Why does /. never link to the original source?

http://www.uahirise.org/

Has anyone bemoaning the new rules actually read them? No, of course not. They read an opinion, with which they already agreed, and then started whining. Typical of the American public, really.

Here, read the summary and then whine.
    http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303745A1.doc (PDF wasn't available.)

More definitions are included in the document above, as well as additional discussion.

Following are key excerpts from the Report and Order adopted by the Commission to preserve the open Internet:
Rule 1: Transparency

A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service shall publicly disclose accurate information regarding the network management practices, performance, and commercial terms of its broadband Internet access services sufficient for consumers to make informed choices regarding use of such services and for content, application, service, and device providers to develop, market, and maintain Internet offerings.

Rule 2: No Blocking

A person engaged in the provision of fixed broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not block lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices, subject to reasonable network management.

A person engaged in the provision of mobile broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not block consumers from accessing lawful websites, subject to reasonable network management; nor shall such person block applications that compete with the provider’s voice or video telephony services, subject to reasonable network

Rule 3: No Unreasonable Discrimination

A person engaged in the provision of fixed broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not unreasonably discriminate in transmitting lawful network traffic over a consumer’s broadband Internet access service. Reasonable network management shall not constitute unreasonable discrimination.

Select Definitions

Broadband Internet access service: A mass-market retail service by wire or radio that provides the capability to transmit data to and receive data from all or substantially all Internet endpoints, including any capabilities that are incidental to and enable the operation of the communications service, but excluding dial-up Internet access service. This term also encompasses any service that the Commission finds to be providing a functional equivalent of the service described in the previous sentence, or that is used to evade the protections set forth in this Part.

Reasonable network management. A network management practice is reasonable if it is appropriate and tailored to achieving a legitimate network management purpose, taking into account the particular network architecture and technology of the broadband Internet access service. Legitimate network management purposes include: ensuring network security and integrity, including by addressing traffic that is harmful to the network; addressing traffic that is unwanted by users (including by premise operators), such as by providing services or capabilities consistent with a user’s choices regarding parental controls or security capabilities; and by reducing or mitigating the effects of congestion on the network.

Do you have physics to back you up? No, I didn't think so.

Take a new Toyota Tacoma. Assume weight savings in replacing bumper with foam metal is used elsewhere so you have the same mass vehicle. A Tacoma weighs approximately 4000 pounds, which is approximately 1800 kg.

Kinetic energy is given by:
e=0.5*m*v^2
m = mass
v = velocity (or speed for our purposes).

The kinetic energy of a Tacoma moving at 28 miles per hour is approximately 141 kJ.
The kinetic energy of a Tacoma moving at 5 miles per hour is approximately 4.5 kJ.

That is, the foam bumper only has to absorb 31 times as much energy as the solid bumper to perform to the quoted standard.

See quote below, which is from here: http://www.rexresearch.com/rabiei/rabiei.htm
We see they estimate a factor of 80 improvement of energy absorption over the foam metal's equivalent bulk material. They don't say, but let's assume (reasonably) that they are talking about linear compression. Let's assume for a second that the stock bumper is made of a block of solid steel that doesn't absorb any energy. It's not, and it does, obviously.

If their estimate is correct, and a foam bumper of the same size will absorb 80 times as much energy as its solid counterpart, then the passenger in the 28 mph impact would feel 1-2 kJ of energy instead of ~140 kJ of energy. Obviously the bumpers are not solid metal, and they already have some energy absorption capabilities built into them.

Based on the factor of 31 between the kinetic energies of the vehicle at different speeds, I think their claim is the opposite of bullshit. It's reasonable.

Researchers at NC State have developed, processed, and tested a new high-strength ultra-light material that combines the advantages of metal matrix composites with metallic foams. Dr. Afsaneh Rabiei has produced a new generation of metal foams showing 5 to 6 times greater strength to density ratio and over 7 times higher energy absorption than that of currently available metallic foams. As a result, the energy absorption of these materials is estimated to be over 80 times greater than the bulk material from which the foam is made. Dr. Rabiei was interested in maintaining the advantages of metallic foams (excellent rigidity/ weight ratio, durability, isotropic absorption of energy at low and constant stress) while improving the mechanical properties under cyclic compression loading. The performance advantages of this metal foam are based on improving foam cell structure and reinforcing the cells with a metallic matrix. The resulting novel, closed-cell, metallic foam composite is made from preform hollow metallic spheres and exhibits a strength of over 130 MPa in compression. The densification for the new foam occurs at strains of approximately 50-65%.

Dangit! Missed another point I wanted to make..

When we say we have "proved" something, we generally mean we've shown, to our satisfaction, that the competing hypotheses are not as strong as the hypothesis we have "proven."

So, what these guys are doing is working to show why these possible fossils are not likely to have formed on Earth, are not likely to have formed as precipitates, etc. Eventually, they expect to show that all of the competing hypotheses for the formation are weaker than (or have even been falsified) their hypothesis that they were formed by microbial life on Mars.

You're welcome! It's good to see people genuinely interested instead of automatically dismissing because they think they thought of the one thing wrong with the analysis that was missed by the possibly hundreds of scientists who do this day-in and day-out...

A clarification on my post:
A) I don't think it was misunderstood, but want to clarify that the "whether they are falsified or not..." statement was meant to say that whatever the final conclusion about the possible fossils, the initial (1996) work raising the possibility that AH84001 had fossilized martian life was good work, not that the authors might have faked their data. They did not.

I'm of two minds about holding press releases about these kinds of conclusions. 1) It's important to share this with the world. 2) It's important to be sure you've accounted for as many of the possible controversies with your data before going to the public who may not understand the details.

Disclaimer: I am a planetary scientist but do not work directly on the martian meteorites.

1) We know that the rocks are from Mars because they all have consistent isotope ratios between the various meteorites that are inconsistent with those isotope ratios on Earth but consistent with isotopic ratios on Mars
http://wapedia.mobi/en/Neutron_activation_analysis
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V6T-41WBDHD-8&_coverDate=10%2F31%2F2000&_alid=445411040&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_qd=1&_cdi=5823&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000053194&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=1495569&md5=1c1b0d04dba7f06365b072655bef68b3 (May need a subscription)

2) The age(s) of the possible fossils are greater than the time the meteorites have been on Earth. Again, this can be calculated using various isotope ratios. In essence, these things formed while the rocks were still on Mars.

3) I agree with your discomfort with the word "prove." Most scientific study is based on the Popper philosophy of disproving something rather than proving its opposite.

A) The new instrumentation and techniques being used on these meteorites are greatly advancing our understanding of them. The press announcement that AH84001 might have evidence of life was premature (what we call "science by press release"), but the publications by the team were certainly good and valid work, whether they are falsified or not...

B) The scientific word "prove" is more about the lack of any valid competing hypotheses. If you can't come up with a reasonable alternative explanation for the data, you have to accept the presented explanation.

1) Your 9 billion value is wrong, as already pointed out.
2) Sure, we can make the reasonable assumption that we'll eventually (centuries, probably) be so far over the carrying capacity of the Earth that we'll need to move or a lot of us will die off.
3) Before that, however, we need to deal with some other problems like human-induced climate change.
4) Human-induced climate change is a problem of resource utilization, not population.

Consider:
We're expected to hit seven billion people within the next decade. For this little thought experiment, let's go with something simple and extreme and say we have no (0) births for 10 years. That is, we leave the world population at a maximum of 6,790,062,216 (July 2009 est. from CIA) for the next 10 years. Our emissions of CO2 are growing at a rate of about 2-3% per year. Assuming all of that is due to population increases (which it isn't) and we would stop increasing our CO2 emissions by stopping population growth (but not stop emitting), we'd still be emitting about 1.8 ppmv per year. So, we'd still be increasing our CO2 concentration over the 10 years of no population additions (and some population decreases, which I'm ignoring for the moment). So, we wouldn't stay at 385.99 ppmv over the Decade of No Births. We'd still be increasing, and we'd still be causing irrecoverable harm.

I ignored deaths in the above estimate. Let me correct that here. Let's assume, for a second, that the 1.8 ppmv of CO2 emissions per year is evenly distributed to all humans (it's not--more in a bit). Let's also assume the CIA estimate for death rate (8.2 per 1,000 people) is an accurate average. First, there would be an average of 56 million deaths per year (assuming no increase) for the Decade of No Births. That's a decrease in the world population of 560 million people. Out of 6790 million people. We'd be down to 6230 million people (6.23 billion). Let's now go back to emissions. 1.8 ppmv per year for all 6790 million people is about 2.7 x 10^-4 ppmv per person per year. If we had "only" 6230 million people at the end of the decade, we'd be down to 1.65 ppmv per year. Or a rather slight decrease in emissions by the end of the Decade of No Births. We'd still be emitting too much, and it would be too late to do anything about it.

There's a huge problem with the above estimates: Emissions are not equally divided. In fact, the five largest energy users (68%) account for only 36% of the world's population. That means that controlling population will only have an effect on emissions after many generations, by which time it would be way too late.

We need to control emissions, not population. At some point we'll have to deal with population, but it is NOT the solution to human-induced global climate change. It's not even A solution. It's a solution to exceeding carrying capacity, but it would be too little, way too late to affect human-induced climate change. Unless people are advocating the removal (killing) of the 36% who pollute the most, which I'm sure is not the case since most of the people advocating population control are a part of that 36%. Even if we killed off "the other" 64% of the population as a "solution" we'd only buy ourselves a few decades at our current consumption.

We all know it's faked. Those slimy scientists will do anything to guarantee their funding for another year. Last year it was a decoupled lithosphere on Titan, now it's lakes of liquid hydrocarbons? Sure! Next it'll be seasonal rivers of liquid hydrocarbons, jets of water escaping from Enceladus, volcanism on Io, meteorites on Mars, people on the moon, etc., etc., etc. We really need to reign in these people.

That's all fine and dandy, but there is no correlation between cosmic ray activity and cloud formation.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2002/2001JD000560.shtml
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081217075138.htm

The Maunder minimum was a period of low sunspot activity in the mid 1600s to early 1700s. The "Little Ice Age" lasted from about 1250 (when the arctic ice pack started to grow at an accelerated rate) to about 1820. What does something that happened around 1650 have to do with something that started in 1250?
We've been experiencing a low sunspot activity period since about 1985, during which time we have experienced the highest temperatures on record.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Temp-sunspot-co2.svg

Your math only applies if the bulbs are broken before use. As the CFL is used, Hg becomes chemically bound to the glass of the bulb, with only about 14% remaining at end-of-life. The EPA math is for that end-of-life of the bulb, broken at disposal.

The amount of mercury released in coal-fired electricity generation far exceeds the amount of mercury in CFLs. Do some research and math before spouting talking points, please.

First, as the CFL is used, the mercury vapor becomes chemically bound to the glass, leaving only about 14% to be released, assuming breakage, at the end of the life of the bulb. The EPA http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/promotions/change_light/downloads/Fact_Sheet_Mercury.pdf estimates that if all 290 million CFLs sold in 2007 were destroyed in a landfill (each one broken), they would add about 0.16 metric tons of mercury to the environment. That's 0.16 percent of the mercury released by humans by all other sources.

Electricity generation is the main source of mercury emissions in the US; the average mercury emissions from electricity generation in the US is 0.012 mg/kWh.

The CFL above would---if broken and assuming 4 mg of mercury (worst-case from several CFL generations ago) in the original bulb---add about 0.012*368+0.14*4 = 4.98 mg mercury. The incandescent bulb would produce 0.012*800 = 9.6 mg mercury.

Here's a table for your edification:

__________"CFL (26 W)_____Incan (100W)

Hg (mg)_________4.98______9.6

Elec. (kWh)_____368______800

Cost ($)________42.48____89.15

Life (hours)____8000_____1950x4bulbs=7800

Total cost of the CFL includes the cost to the electric company for the ~50% inefficiency causing line losses that the customer will not see.

There is no scenario in which an incandescent beats a CFL for efficiency, environmental benefit, or monetary concerns. The remaining reason to use an incandescent instead of a CFL is personal preference for the light from an incandescent.

Why is it that the people of Slashdot always seem to get their panties in a twist over things they don't even bother to read?

The actual resolution is:

RESOLVED, BY THE SENATE OF THE NINETY-SIXTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, that as Pluto passes overhead through Illinois' night skies, that it be reestablished with full planetary status, and that March 13, 2009 be declared "Pluto Day" in the State of Illinois in honor of the date its discovery was announced in 1930.

So, all this really says is that 1) the Illinois State Senate would like to see Pluto reestablished, in name, as a planet, and 2) that March 13, 2009 is declared "Pluto Day". There's nothing here about requiring the science books to be changed in Illinois, nothing about legislating the value of Pi, nothing important. Did anyone bother to go through the other resolutions that the 96th general assembly pass? Are they meddling in peoples' ages by passing a resolution that citizens over the age of 49 should be, in their opinion, considered wise and be treated with respect?

Here's why this is important. If this silly overreaction to unimportant issues continues, when it is finally important, your voices are ignored because you all sound like a bunch of whining losers who don't understand the difference between a law and a resolution so your opinion is unimportant.