Cap'n Refsmmat

They did not repeat the tests. The paper doesn't have much statistics at all besides a basic ANCOVA for each experiment, and does not make any comment on the influence of sample sizes or confounding variables. However, In the sample sizes they had I'm not sure strong that evidence is, but it's interesting regardless.

I've just opened up a Science News Forum here on SFN. We've observed for a long time that there's no good place to put new research and development discussion on SFN, so here's your chance. Minor disclaimer: Please do not just copy-and-paste entire articles and post them on SFN. We don't want copyright lawyers chasing after us. You can use a short quote or two, and perhaps write a summary yourself, and then provide the link.

Is this any better?

http://www.science-direct.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WJB-4W99W49-1&_user=10&_coverDate=05%2F15%2F2009&_rdoc=14&_fmt=high&_orig=browse&_srch=doc-info%28%23toc%236874%239999%23999999999%2399999%23FLA%23display%23Articles%29&_cdi=6874&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=72&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=423a696535751f5ce6496af88f1514c1 I'd like to see the full paper behind this one. I wonder if I can get journal access from my university yet... edit: yes, I can. If you have questions about how they did the study, fire away. I have the manuscript. The article suggests that boys' underachievement in schools compared to women may be a result of this phenomenon, rather than purely because of motivation and personality differences. Too much of their cognitive resources are spent impressing women. An argument for single-sex schools?

Discussion about the merits of alternative medicine has been split to this thread.

I'd suggest you take a look at Bell's theorem and the experiments involving it.

Perhaps there are certain airtight components inside (the screen, memory bits, whatever) that would risk rupturing at high altitudes. I'd imagine there are parts of an LCD that are airtight, although the shuffle doesn't have an LCD... something else, perhaps?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automated_theorem_proving What's the difference between a computer that gets intelligence by "number crunching" and a brain that gets intelligence by chemistry? In the end, I think that as long as it acts intelligent, it's close enough.

How do you "get to know" them when they're anonymous?

The way I've always imagined it is a system either with a vast database of knowledge or the ability to rapidly research information, and with the power to "comprehend" that knowledge and use it to form conclusions and make decisions far more rapidly than a human ever could. So, for example, a superhuman computer could have a great understanding of mathematics and be capable of solving mathematical problems faster than a human can (already possible in certain cases). The key difference between this and, say, Mathematica, is I would want an artificially intelligent system to be able to teach itself how to solve new problems and develop new abilities -- and then solve them better and faster than a human could.

It's... it's... it's ALIVE!

It only happens once. Time doesn't repeat, so far as we know.

Why should Adam New have a different set of genes from Adam Original? Adam New's Y chromosome and one half of his genes are taken from his father, Adam Original. So Adam gives himself his own genes. The dilemma I'd see is "where'd the Y chromosome come from originally if Adam's merely giving it to himself?"

You can save Python files and have them executed later. It's just easier to learn Python when you can get results immediately.

Parrots? Some have shown a decent vocabulary and problem-solving abilities, and I understand they can be rather clever.

You can scroll through the rest of that post and see some other small screenshots. We'll see when a beta comes out.

Now there's an interrogation technique I can agree with.

If it mutates into a more potent strain your immune system will probably not recognize it from exposure to the weaker variant. If the virus mutates enough to become far more virulent, it will probably also be unrecognizable by your immune system.

Tell you what. The PSD of the original logo is attached to this post. If anyone wants to make a stab at a new, shinier logo, go for it, and we'll choose a winning logo once a few entries are in. Please note, however, that when vBulletin 4 arrives in a while we may have to change the style of the logo to fit vB4's new style. You can see the style in this vB blog post. Be sure your entry will be able to adapt to the new look when it comes out. Have fun, everyone! sfn.psd

I want to go back in time fifty years and sit in on a high school class and see what they're like. It'd be entertaining. Are modern kids really any worse?

Why do they have to schedule it right in the middle of my college orientation?

Okay, look. Religious topics were ditched years ago when we removed the religion forum. I realize that this thread had moved away from the religious end when Severian brought it up, but it appears it's back now that he's mentioned it, so a warning: If this thread does devolve into more religious discussion it will be closed. That's not censoring worldviews, that's the rules. Please move back to the original topic.

From what I understand solid-fueled boosters can provide more power but are uncontrollable: once you light them up they just go. Liquid-fueled boosters have the advantage of being fully throttlable, and some can even be turned on and off multiple times throughout the flight.

It burns kerosene, which doesn't leave much of a smoke trail. American rockets (like the Space Shuttle) have solid rocket boosters which leave quite a smoke trail. If you look carefully, you'll notice the liquid-fueled engines on the Space Shuttle (the center ones) leave no trail -- they burn liquid hydrogen.

To see if the drugs might be useful in humans.