Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

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).

×

Comment: Re:Bzzzt! Thank you for Playing! (Score 1) 573

by harlequinn (#49311087) Attached to: Greenpeace Co-Founder Declares Himself a Climate Change Skeptic

No, he's correct. Evolution has not been observed happening in real time at a genetic level. We have observed the long term effects of it. I.e. we can compare the DNA of one batch of bacteria in the E. Coli long-term evolution experiment with another batch and see that they have changed, but we don't know which exact bacterium started the change and why or how that change occurred during cell replication. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...
Or, as in your example, we can compare the DNA or RNA of a virus with a previous generation and we know it has changed. We didn't see it changing. We don't know why it has changed. I.e. we didn't see it evolve, but we observed the effects of the evolution (a changed organism).

Comment: Re:This is interesting.... (Score 1) 573

by harlequinn (#49311015) Attached to: Greenpeace Co-Founder Declares Himself a Climate Change Skeptic

Science is almost never settled and is always up for debate (don't be a bigot).

Climate change science has not been settled. Every year better and better models come out superseding the older models. This comes about by climate scientists debating the merits of their existing models.

"Does climate change happen naturally? Yes? Is the current experience of climate change natural? No."

In regards to the second question you posed the answer is yes and no. "Natural" (non-anthropogenic) climate change has not paused while anthropogenic causes increased in effect.

Comment: LEDs are bright (Score 1) 182

by harlequinn (#48007469) Attached to: Breakthrough In LED Construction Increases Efficiency By 57 Percent

"they still fall behind more conventional forms of lighting in terms of brightness."

The most advanced consumer LEDs have a higher luminous efficacy than HID, fluorescent, and incandescent lights. They have for several years now.

The luminous flux of LEDs is good as well. Although the total power of LEDs tapers off after around 30W, manufacturers use large arrays of the more efficient low power LEDs and achieve incredibly high luminous flux. E.g. Cree sells a flood light that is 850W and outputs 75000 lumens.

For domestic use, LEDs have higher luminous flux than competing lighting techniques.

 

Comment: Re:My power bill has never been higher (Score 1) 169

by harlequinn (#47989817) Attached to: South Australia Hits 33% Renewal Energy Target 6 Years Early

The SA price is about 0.40 USD per kW/h (including taxes). That is a conservative number from the cheapest providers. It only goes up from there.

http://www.energymadeeasy.gov....

Compare that to the USA

http://www.eia.gov/electricity...

They average about 0.13 USD per kW/h.

Comment: Re:Let me get this straight (Score 1) 387

by harlequinn (#47219933) Attached to: Geothermal Heat Contributing To West Antarctic Ice Sheet Melting

"In fact probably less than 10% is affected directly by the geothermal heat."

"In fact" and "probably" don't mix.

The paper doesn't support your assertion. If you look at Fig. 3 you'll see that almost the entire glacier has twice the average geothermal flow at 100mW/m^2 or greater (with hot spots up to 200mW/m^2).

Comment: Re:Hooray! Science works (Score 1) 61

by harlequinn (#47169315) Attached to: Key Researcher Agrees To Retract Disputed Stem Cell Papers

Whether someone is anti-science or not, pointing out corruption in the field of science is a good thing. Corruption wastes time, money, and can hurt people.

The same thing can be said of gross errors that drastically change results.

It is a reasonable example of science working. I say reasonable because it wasn't initially a lack of duplication of results that sparked concern, it was alleged plagiarism and image manipulation.

It's a pity all research results weren't required to be duplicated by an independent team as a prerequisite to being published. And then peer reviewed in light of the secondary results.

Felson's Law: To steal ideas from one person is plagiarism; to steal from many is research.

Working...