Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:What's a virus? (Score 1) 414

After RTFA, I checked dsRNA, wiki claims its pretty much specific to some RNA viruses http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA If my cells are trying to make this from some ancient virus, I'll bet my immune system wouldn't be happy about it anyways. There may be other dangers involved, however. They probably would adjust the dose s.t. it wouldn't cause too much damage (hopefully anything like this would come out in the clinical trials.

Comment So silly... (Score 1) 264

They're looking at this all wrong politically, they spent all this money on the study and they got a paper worthy of Science. Money well spent, a very significant part of the problem identified. Got to be someone calling in a favor to slow it down for business reasons, because keeping something secret that's published in Science would be like trying to hide something on the 6 o'clock news.

Comment Re:Nonsense (Score 1) 196

When we say universal speed limit, we really do mean "universal". If event A occurs then observer B who is four light minutes away from where A occurs has absolutely no way of knowing that event A has happened until those four minutes have passed. In fact, from B's perspective, event A hasn't happened until B can see it; there is no such thing as universal simultaneity.

Imagine some being that cannot perceive light, has no tools to help it do so, but can perceive sound. Wouldn't the speed of sound seem to have the same importance to causality?

still, experiments would be able to confirm that things could move faster than the speed of sound, therefore I think the creatures would not try to associate sound speed with a "universal" speed limit, eventually they could use their devices to measure the speed of light. this has more to do with the 'happy coincidence' that light (in a vacuum) travels at the universal limit c, one of the hardest things about relativity is giving up simultaneity, people don't agree anymore that things happen at the "same time", however, observers will always agree about whether one event COULD have caused another (because nobody can say they happened at the "same time")

Comment Re:Nonsense (Score 1) 196

a simple example of this would be to imagine setting off a pulse of light, then traveling superluminally toward an observer, then setting off a second pulse. The observer would see the second pulse arrive first and therefore that event would happen before the first one (in the frame of our observer).

Comment Re:Research money has to be divided more fairly. (Score 0) 306

The state of medical research today is, basically, full of confirmation bias. Take $10,000,000 + "we think X causes cancer" and you will get, surprise surprise, "proof" that X causes cancer. Why not give a small amount, even 10% of that research money go towards helping alternative medicine practitioners prove that their work is actually effective? We know it it from the millions of satisfied patients, now we just need some money and lab space to prove it. Alt-Med has been growing like gangbusters, its popularity at an all time high: it must work.

I love how this goes from 'medical research clearly has confirmation bias' to 'my idea obviously works I just need money to prove it'

Comment Re:A Tale of Two Countries (Score 1) 518

Any private enterprise is good, especially if it does end up creating destructive technologies, because after all, wealth is not work, it's things we produce and can then own.

If I was a betting man, I might wager that this statement was designed to provoke a particular response.

Comment Re:Should result in a prison sentence (Score 1) 504

The article clearly states he received money from API from 2001-2007. I don't see a problem with taking money from organizations interested in the work he is doing. As a climate skeptic, why not market to companies who are interested in funding you. It's only a problem if it compromises your scientific integrity. Still, I wouldn't know if that answer is a minor slip up at the time or a guilty conscience hiding an unfairly biased perspective. Honestly, I hate it when politics gets mixed up with science.

Slashdot Top Deals