The research is trying to address the subjectivity in evaluating "levels of consciousness" using more objective measures of neural activity explored in recent years (and cited in the introduction). The conclusion addresses potential weakness of the study, including whether increased activity actually means more awareness: "In sum, we found increased global neural signal diversity for the psychedelic state induced by KET, PSIL and LSD, suggesting the psychedelic state lies above conscious states such as wakeful rest and REM sleep on a one-dimensional scale defined by neural signal diversity. Future studies should assess the extent to which entropy and complexity based measures of signal diversity capture and confer the fundamental property of “richness” of conscious states, not only in the psychedelic condition but in conscious states more generally."

If rats have the same asphyxiation response as humans to CO2, this is a very painful way for them to die. The same effect could be had with liquid nitrogen.

I vote Europa. Enceladus is small, so tides are probably powering its weird south polar thermal anomaly. No one knows when the tides started. It's possible the ocean has not been there long enough for life to get started. Even a million years would be a blink of an eye compared with the 4.5 Gyr age of the solar system. From what Cassini observations have revealed, Enceladus's ocean, if it exists, is probably under 40 km or more of ice. In contrast, Europa almost certainly has a global ocean, possibly just a few km beneath the ice (based on Galileo and Voyager spacecraft recon). The surface geology contains hints that perched liquids exist tens to hundreds of meters below the surface. Hubble observations of possible plume-like emissions mean there could be a chance to sample material from the ocean without needing to land on the surface (out of respect for Clarke, of course).

Yeah, I get butterflies thinking about this thing landing. I'm told that the skycrane has been tested extensively on Earth and the engineers involved are not any more worried about that than about the chain of other more mundane things that can go wrong between launch and instrument check-out in situ. As to previous elegant solutions, I think I would have been just as antsy about the beach-ball landing scheme of the MER had I been in the biz back then (disclosure: I'm a scientist at JPL).

I work at a government lab that recently installed a roundabout at a three-way intersection that includes a security checkpoint. This would be great for the people leaving work and not needing to stop for security. True to our lab's inefficient bureaucratic style though, they put in stop signs too. I've made it my small act of civil disobedience to run the stop sign every time I leave work through the west gate. I'm not the only one either.

I'm consistently impressed that my would-be posts appear before I have even read the article. Clearly there are fewer variations between me and other /. readers than I had previously thought.

From the article, which is quoting the bill: "The National Aeronautics and Space Administration shall plan to return to the moon by 2022 and develop a sustained human presence on the moon in order to promote exploration, commerce, science and United States preeminence in space as a stepping stone for the future exploration of Mars and other destinations. The budget requests and expenditures of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration shall be consistent with achieving this goal" To its credit, the bill stipulates that NASA should ask for the money. Of course, it doesn't say that congress should appropriate the money. Way to micromanage, guys. (another disclaimer: I'm also a NASA employee at a NASA center, but not a Civil Servant. It's unclear that my work (science) would benefit or suffer from the passage of such a bill, but, in fairness, I should air any potential conflict of interest.)

I think this would be more useful as a vehicle for social pressure. Imagine all cars have these. You've been to a party and had a few. You get in your car, thinking, "maybe I've had too many". Your car tells you, yup, you have. At that point, you can either drive anyway (to the chagrin of any passengers with you), or find another solution. Better, you're a passenger with someone who either fails the test, or doesn't have the test turned on. You have a definite and quantitative reminder of the risk you may be taking.