Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Brentai]

The speed of light might not actually be a constant.

Although it sounds like the finding is more long the lines of "a vacuum might not actually be empty", which has real-world implications for the speed at which light actually travels in our universe.

[Büge]

That's pretty  . Anyone who's read A Brief History of Time could tell you that.

[JDigital]

Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation - Sixty Symbols

[Ted Belmont]

The idea of "alpha males" is completely wrong, according to the scientist who first came up with the term.

It turns out, wolf packs in the wild are made up of a male, a female, and their pups; and when the pups grow up, they pair off with pups from other packs and go off to have packs of their own. So the "alpha males" are actually responsible fathers; ie, "betas".

[Classic]

Unfortunately, as the article points out, the analogy is stupid on its face. So any problems with the source science of the modeling system are irrelevant to the stupid non-findings of the PUA "community". To say nothing of the fact that the sorts of people who make and cling to these analogies are, at best, not using their faculties of logic (or they'd realize the analogy is stupid on its face) and aren't likely to ever learn these facts.

Still, hurrah for science.

[Mongrel]

Do nice guys in fact finish first? An NYT story on expanding productivity through giving behaviours.

[Mongrel]

One Greek doctor is slowly pulling the rug out from almost all modern medical research

All those time you see a silly counterintuitive medical study? Or maybe something that feels off or simply absurd? Maybe something that sounds right but is then disproved, reproved, and disproved again as studies compete? This is the man fighting all of that.

EDIT: You have no idea how satisfying it is to see these paragraphs in respectable print:

When a five-year study of 10,000 people finds that those who take more vitamin X are less likely to get cancer Y, you’d think you have pretty good reason to take more vitamin X, and physicians routinely pass these recommendations on to patients. But these studies often sharply conflict with one another. Studies have gone back and forth on the cancer-preventing powers of vitamins A, D, and E; on the heart-health benefits of eating fat and carbs; and even on the question of whether being overweight is more likely to extend or shorten your life. How should we choose among these dueling, high-profile nutritional findings? Ioannidis suggests a simple approach: ignore them all.

For starters, he explains, the odds are that in any large database of many nutritional and health factors, there will be a few apparent connections that are in fact merely flukes, not real health effects—it’s a bit like combing through long, random strings of letters and claiming there’s an important message in any words that happen to turn up. But even if a study managed to highlight a genuine health connection to some nutrient, you’re unlikely to benefit much from taking more of it, because we consume thousands of nutrients that act together as a sort of network, and changing intake of just one of them is bound to cause ripples throughout the network that are far too complex for these studies to detect, and that may be as likely to harm you as help you. Even if changing that one factor does bring on the claimed improvement, there’s still a good chance that it won’t do you much good in the long run, because these studies rarely go on long enough to track the decades-long course of disease and ultimately death. Instead, they track easily measurable health “markers” such as cholesterol levels, blood pressure, and blood-sugar levels, and meta-experts have shown that changes in these markers often don’t correlate as well with long-term health as we have been led to believe.

[Royal☭]

Fast, venomous, face-sized tarantula discovered in Sri Lanka.

[Ted Belmont]

Technically, pretty much all tarantulas are venomous.

[Mongrel]

Man, how the hell did something like THAT go undiscovered all this time?

[Büge]

There were no survivors.

[Brentai]

We didn't discover it.  It discovered us.

[Büge]

Seems we have some trolls at NASA.

[Mongrel]

Crude penis drawings: The one true universal human constant.

[Sharkey]

What? Like we were going to spend however many billion dollars to not draw dicks all over another planet. Pretty sure Holden Caulfield had something to say about that, but I make a point of keeping that book far the fuck away from me. You know why we haven't gone back to the moon? Because Neil Armstrong already teabagged the thing. Right underneath Nixon's signature. The presence of which was already way more obscene. If Mariner 10 has already made it past the heliopause then we've got a drawing of a dick in interstellar space.

Point is, we already did what humanity came to do. Ancient monolith dropping bastards actually engineered us as an efficient mechanism to spread drawings,  impressions, and signatures of dicks all over the goddamn universe. For some inscrotable reason.

[Kayma]

inscrotable

perfect

[Büge]

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/05/02/republican-congressman-introduces-bill-to-require-political-approval-of-scientific-papers/

[Joxam]

Oh fuck that guy, Jesus Christ. FUCK. What the fuck is wrong with people!?

[Royal☭]

Of course he's from Texas. Of course.

[Mongrel]

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh... it's the SOPA guy again. So that's what he's doing now.