I am quite pleased to announce that, since The Secret of Newton blog seems to have gone off the grid, duties to host the classic science blog carnial, The Giant’s Shoulders, has fallen to yours truly! A special thanks to gg at Skulls in the Stars for giving me the opportunity to host and organizing everything (for every month for almost a year now).
The rules for blogging are still the same… blog about a classic science paper/experiment in your favorite scientific discipline. After you’ve done that send me the link by leaving a comment here or dropping me an email by June 15th.
I’m also happy to announce my own personal addition to carnival #12. Whoever has the best post (determined by some fair voting system TBD) will win a $15 Amazon gift card (or different website of the winners choice).
Yes, I know it’s not much, but hey I’m financing it myself – and I’m technically unemployed right now!
Another great experiment from Improv Everywhere. The MP3 experiment 6 took place on Roosevelt Island, a small strip of land east of Manhattan. Participants downloaded the Mp3, put it on their ipods and took instructions from the omnipotent Steve. Official photos are on their website, and here is one participant’s video.
I wonder how the group is able to solve the collective action problem against social pressures of not looking foolish in public.
Brazil air force pilots think they’ve spotted debris from Flight AF 447 in the Atlantic ocean. But does anybody else have the nagging suspicion that the passengers are somewhere on the island from Lost?
This map would would put the island somewhere between South America and Africa. Or somewhere completely different than that.
UPDATE: The alleged debris apparently does NOT come from the Air France flight. The plan and passengers are still Lost.
I couldn’t believe this story. Apparently, when smoked, the drugs are hallucinogenic. The problem is, of course, that there’s a limited resource of these drugs for the people that need them, but like any drug market, targeting abusers is more lucrative. HIV+ and health workers are the main suppliers to users in South Africa, which are mostly teens or high school age (15-21).
Apparently these scientists have been turning Tequilla into diamonds. No, really. Apparantly, Mexican scientists have found another use for their most exported beverage. Anyone want to explain how they do it? I’ll buy a round for the first/best explanation.
I guess you can’t really just sue anyone. I think scary part of this is that the court acknowledged the existence of God and “a consequence of that acknowledgement is a recognition of God’s omniscience.” Apparently, the only reason you can’t sue God is that there’s no address to serve the papers to
Look out Shiva, Zeus, Thor and FSM… you might be getting served next (I recommend de-listing your addresses from the phonebook).
Life, Liberty and the pursuit of property are inalienable rights granted in the US constitution to “We the people of the United States.” Though these natural rights are afforded to US citizens, truly they also belong to all the people of the world. It is any government’s job to protect these rights of their citizens and a government which fails to do so is assuredly broken. I cannot imagine that any free person would disagree that these rights should be granted and protected for all people but some, like the nation of Ecuador, are debating whether these rights go far enough. After all, why is it only people who are granted these rights? A proposed change to an article Ecuadorian constitution would grant Nature the right to “exist, persist, maintain and regenerate its vital cycles, structure, functions and its processes in evolution.” In addition, it would grant legal status to any person attempting to protect these rights in court. Obviously, this is the farthest a government has gone in re-examining natural rights. In a way, the Ecuadorians have a point. Why do humans think we’re more special than other animals, plants and ecosystems? We are, after all, just one of many different propositions of life that Nature came up with. Surely, if we’re reasoned enough to appreciate that people should have rights extending from Nature, how can we not afford these rights to Nature itself? Self serving ideas that Nature exists solely for the exploitation of man will not get us very far, considering the delicate balance we are currently in, which, by most accounts, is tipping towards the side of disaster. From that perspective, I appreciate what the Ecuadorians are trying to do. Our founding fathers realized that it is easy for a government to lose its way, and set up a system in which balanced powers ensures government doesn’t exploit their fellow man. It is just as easy for people to exploit Nature, even though it is our equal, as sustainable ecosystems are required to fuel all life. This constitutional change will probably serve the people of Ecuador well, but the same effect of this new article can be achieved in the US without a constitutional amendment. The idea of property rights is protected in the US constitution. This may seem like an anthropocentric view, but Nature, which is the land we live on and farm, the air we breathe and the water we drink, is property. Some of that is private property, but much of nature is common property, belonging to the greater public and communities. As long as we afford the protection of Nature as public or private property from environmental harm and degradation, then we need not change the constitution. Environmental issues such as pollution and global warming, become an issue that should be dealt with in the courts under civil rights arguments. If the inalienable rights of man are “natural” rights which we must protect for each other, how can we, in turn grant rights back to nature? As much as we hate to admit it, humans are basically selfish and work better when working for ourselves. However, we can be persuaded to work together and protect each others rights in the form of modern governments. Therefore, we can be persuaded to protect Nature’s rights if we understand that Nature is needed collectively and individually by us all. It seems unfortunate, but it is a natural thing for us to treat Nature as a possession. That doesn’t mean a trinket we can just toss away, but as a sacred possession that we must honor and treat with respect. We don’t have to grant rights to Nature in human documents, because the natural world will be here long after us humans are gone. If we want to extend that time, however, we have to realize that, if Nature is property, it has to be protected for everyone’s good.
This story has been big in the news lately. As you probably have already heard, the person who sent anthrax spores (Bacillus anthracis) through the mail has commited suicide. The culprit is army scientist Bruce Ivins.
Ivins worked with Anthrax in order to develop a vaccine, so one might think this is hypocritical to his work. However, current investigations lead us to beleive that Ivins was psychologically disturbed. Prosecuters speculate that Ivins was hoping to incense the public awareness of anthrax and hopefully get more funding. I guess scientists will go a long way to get research grants these days, but this is a new low.
My concern is how this event will ultimately change things for microbiologists and infectious disease researchers (a community I consider myself a part of). My lab doesn’t have anthrax, but we do have plenty of other deadly infectious diseases like Francisellatulerensis (tularemia), Yersinia pestis (bubonic plauge) and Borellia (Lyme’s disease).
Will researchers now have to get psych evals before we’re allowed to work with pathogens? Are intitutions going to tighten security, make us take even more safety classes, hire guards to check bags and not let us work alone? I hate to be the one to point this out, but it wouldn’t be exactly difficult to take pathogens out of the lab and even undergrads are given keys to the labs.
I have to sacrifice ease of access for security, but maybe the risks aren’t worth it? It just takes one incident to ruin it for the rest of us.
Perhaps (and hopefully) I’m wrong, and this will blow over as a unique incident, but it wouldn’t surprise me if universities, national and armed forces labs will at least start to discuss greater security measures.
The legal battle between Google and Viacom seems to have fallen on the side against ‘the people.’ Google is being forced to turn over the veiwing records of every user (including IP addresses) to Viacom to ensure that no copyright infringments are taking place.
Because these infringements are almost assuredly taking place, a word of warning to all Youtubers out there, your privacy may be at risk.
global RSS feed.