Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
Link to Original Source
Link to Original Source
Selective breeding has been a thing for millennia and that's messing about with DNA, although in an indirect way. Changing foods so as to get rid of traits that are detrimental and add/keep traits that are beneficial is bad, why, exactly? If your opposition is anything resembling "but we don't know that it's good/bad!" then that just means that GMO should be held to a stricter scientific rigour. All things considered, science knows very little about which foods are good/bad for you, including the so called natural foods so the "but we don't know!" can be used for anything you put in your mouth.
However, I've actually read the report released today (not the older arXiv article, but the sifferkoll.se pdf linked in today's summary) and it seems a hell of a lot more controlled and "hands off" with regards to Rossi's involvement than what's been stated about previous experiments.
Not to mention the fact that the opening statements of your linked article directly contradicts the report. Your link says that it took place in Italy with Andrea Rossi's equipment, but according to the pdf in TFS the experiment took place in Switzerland with their own factory calibrated never before used equipment.
So unless the authors of that link you provided had a time machine back in February and are also delusional, they couldn't possibly be referring to this experiment.
Just because English with it's hundreds of thousands of words don't make that distinction doesn't mean other languages don't.
Efficiency varies around the world between 13000-16000 kWh per 1000kg of aluminium.
Assuming the entire quoted weight of 100kg is aluminium (which according to the article the batteries are "made mostly of aluminium"), that's at best 50% efficient assuming your ballpark estimate of 600 kWh. Compared to an internal combustion engine that's not too shabby.
However, I feel like a demonstration like this probably used an extremely lightweight car in order to maximize the range for the test. I'm thinking 600 kWh is probably a bit too optimistic.
I'm currently studying medicine in Sweden (on my second semester, which is somewhat equivalent to "pre med" in the US system) and we are using PBL and focusing on it quite strongly.
Every week we have two PBL-meetings which usually involves a typical case regarding the subject the week's learning is supposed to be about (this week it's about memory and forming memories on a neuronal level in the brain and the case is about an old man forgetting things and getting lost while driving his car).
Anyway, we are in 9 person groups, 1 paid tutor who's usually a lecturer or scientist working at the university and 8 students. It's really hard to not actively take part in such a small group which seems to be the entire point.
This is of course not the only thing we do, we still have lectures as usual but they are not mandatory in any way other than the practical exercises. So far I'm liking it very much and it seems to be an extremely effective way to teach. We need to present our findings for our peers on a weekly basis and the opening session usually includes a lot of debating and discussions which help you "get into" the studying.