Well, People generally comment on this site that basic research can lead to unexpected outcomes, new questions. It's entirely possible that all of this data can help support something new that we haven't thought of yet. I understand that this isn't basic research, but I feel that it could be applied here.
I've heard that people put one above and below the tongue to look like they have a tongue piercing. The swallowing could just be accidental. Not sure if it works for the tongue, but I've seen it work with ear lobes.
Well, now that the Charles River is, I believe, the cleanest water way in an urban city in the world, then other smells start to get noticed more.
Of course Poison ivy is tasty... for 5 minutes... once.
Hugh Pickens writes "Oil-field service companies lower radioactive units into wells to let workers identify places to break apart rock for a drilling process known as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, which frees oil and natural gas. Now Bloomberg reports that Halliburton workers have discovered that a lock on the container used to transport one such device has gone missing, along with the unit, after employees drove a truck from a site near Peco to a well south of Odessa and while the loss of radioactive rods occurs from time to time, it has been years since a device with americium-241/beryllium, the material in Halliburton's device, was misplaced in Texas. NRC spokeswoman Maureen Conley says the material would have to be in someone's physical possession for several hours for it to be considered harmful as teams comb the route between the two wellsites searching for the seven-inch tube, which is clearly marked with the words 'DANGER RADIOACTIVE' as well as a radiation warning symbol, "Halliburton strongly cautions members of the public that if they locate this source, they should not touch or handle it, stay a minimum of 25 feet away," and contact local law enforcement or the company's emergency hotline if they find the cylinder, says the company which is also offering a reward for information about the tube's whereabouts."
CharlyFoxtrot writes "Steve Wildstrom at Tech.Pinions takes on some of the what he calls folklore surrounding Apple v Samsung, investigating what was and wasn't part of the case and how the media got it wrong: 'There's one serious problem with the first sentence, which was repeated dozens of times in stories in print and on the Web. Apple only has a limited patent on the pinch to shrink, stretch to zoom gesture that is a core element of touch interfaces. And the 826 patent wasn't in dispute in the Samsung case because Apple never asserted it. In fact, this particular patent does not seem to be in dispute in any litigation.'"
Lauren Weinstein excerpts the most interesting part of a BBC story about the safety hazards associated with the Chevy Volt — specifically, the risk that its battery pack could catch fire after even a minor impact. While it might be unsurprising that GM was reluctant to shout out safety warnings that would dampen early sales of its much touted hybrid, according to the linked story the NHTSA was as well, and for the same reason: "Part of the reason for delaying the disclosure was the 'fragility of Volt sales' up until that point, according to Joan Claybrook, a former administrator at NHTSA."
Eh, don't worry about the movie reference. Nobody is looking at that since everybody is now looking at your combination of a and lot to one word.
Thank you for posting that! I've never forgotten the visual of that teacher with the Einstein hair clapping his hands.
disco_tracy writes "Imagine a room where a band is playing. Neighbors can't hear the music, but if someone outside the room is talking, the musicians can hear it. The concept — a kind of one-way mirror for sound — seems imaginary, but two Italian scientists recently pushed this kind of sound manipulating technology closer to reality (abstract)."
Could this be used to help identify a user before allowing access to a computer? Iris scan, fingerprint scan THEN you must french kiss your computer juuuust right. Or an updated form of captcha for websites, just thinking...
Hugh Pickens writes writes "The NY Times reports that an inquiry by the Commerce Department's inspector general has found no evidence that NOAA scientists manipulated climate data (reg. may be required) to buttress evidence in support of global warming after climate change skeptics contended that e-mail messages between climate scientists that were stolen and circulated on the Internet in late 2009 showed that scientists were manipulating or withholding information to advance the theory that the earth is warming as a result of human activity. 'None of the investigations have found any evidence to question the ethics of our scientists or raise doubts about NOAA's understanding of climate change science,' says Mary Glackin, the agency's deputy undersecretary for operations. The inquiry, requested last May by Senator James M. Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma, who has challenged the science underlying human-induced climate change, comes at a critical moment for NOAA, as some newly empowered Republican House members seek to rein in the EPA's plans to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, often contending that the science underpinning global warming is flawed. Inhofe says the report (PDF) was far from a clean bill of health for the agency, and that contrary to its executive summary, showed that the scientists 'engaged in data manipulation.'"
Stoobalou writes "The normally sober and sometimes accurate Wall Street Journal is claiming that Apple's iPad 2 is currently in production. Foxconn might be producing a limited number of prototype samples of the Second Coming of the iPad but we're pretty sure full production won't start until Steve Jobs (or whoever will be donning the black turtleneck in his sickly stead) strides onto the stage at the official launch keynote."
Checking back on this thread has made me think a little about being a bit more fair about viewing this topic, but you are now the second person that has remarked on the tattoo by his eye as a tear drop. Let's be clear that it is the start of a SCAR tattoo that wasn't covered up by the makeup. Now, if it was left visible because it was too close to the eye for makeup to cover then that's one thing, but if it was done intentionally so members of the jury would mistake it as a tear to evoke some sympathy, then I'm back to feeling how I was in the beginning. Cover it up or don't.