WikiInteresting - Give us some links!
#61
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 13,553
Re: WikiInteresting - Give us some links!
This week we'll start with something strange:
Very strange stuff if you read the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropodermic_bibliopegy
Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_leaf_paradox
Very strange stuff if you read the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropodermic_bibliopegy
Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_leaf_paradox
#62
Account Closed
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 0
Re: WikiInteresting - Give us some links!
I find this sort of stuff interesting...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boer_Wars
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schlieffen_Plan
Having walked the battle fields of the Somme, and been to places like Delville, this is always a good read to refresh what I've seen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Delville_Wood
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boer_Wars
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schlieffen_Plan
Having walked the battle fields of the Somme, and been to places like Delville, this is always a good read to refresh what I've seen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Delville_Wood
#63
Re: WikiInteresting - Give us some links!
Well it’s a pseudo-force that only exists in certain frames IRRC?
#64
Re: WikiInteresting - Give us some links!
Thinking about scientification of the general population:
Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_o..._for_evolution
There simply are some questions science cannot answer in a conclusive manner and even when evidence comes to light people are often slow to accept the implications. Think about this in the context of evolution:
...Almost 60 years after that last discovery and only 48% of people think evolution by natural selection can fully explain the origin of species .
I would like to say that it’s shocking or staggering but actually it’s just really sad and worrying. How can people make rational decisions about issues like the ethics of genetic modification if they don’t even really understand the basic mechanisms through which genes are modified through evolution or viruses or bacteria?
A 2006 UK poll on the "origin and development of life" asked participants to choose between three different explanations for the origin of life: 22% chose (Young Earth) creationism, 17% opted for intelligent design, 48% selected evolution theory (with a divine role explicitly excluded) and the rest did not know.
There simply are some questions science cannot answer in a conclusive manner and even when evidence comes to light people are often slow to accept the implications. Think about this in the context of evolution:
- You might have thought when man domesticated dogs and sheep (around 30,000 BC) and subsequently created new breeds people might have realized that the origin of species wasn’t entirely gods work.
- You might have though when man first started farming at the time of the agricultural revolution (5-8000 years BC) and started breeding plants that the origin of species wasn’t entirely gods work.
- You might have thought when Gregor Mendel started his hybridization experiments that suggested the role of genetics people might have realized that the origin of species wasn’t entirely gods work.
- You might have thought that when Charles Darwin published his works people might have realized that the origin of species probably wasn’t gods work.
- In 1928 when Fredrick Griffith discovered transformation, coupled with the 1944 work of Avery, McLeod and McCarty and subsequent work that really catapulted our understanding of modern molecular genetics and people might have understood that the origin of species probably wasn’t gods work.
- With Watson and Cricks work published in early 1953 that really allowed scientists to, for the first time, examine how the whole system of genetic expression worked. You might have thought that the case for evolution by natural selection was now well enough understood to cast out myths about the origin of species being gods work.
...Almost 60 years after that last discovery and only 48% of people think evolution by natural selection can fully explain the origin of species .
I would like to say that it’s shocking or staggering but actually it’s just really sad and worrying. How can people make rational decisions about issues like the ethics of genetic modification if they don’t even really understand the basic mechanisms through which genes are modified through evolution or viruses or bacteria?
#65
Re: WikiInteresting - Give us some links!
Heres one to warm the cockles, and popular with bats apparently....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felacio
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felacio
That appears on Wikipedia as well:
The Ig Nobel Prizes are an American parody of the Nobel Prizes and are given each year in early October for ten unusual or trivial achievements in scientific research. The stated aim of the prizes is to "first make people laugh, and then make them think".
Examples of their work:
Biology: Libiao Zhang, Min Tan, Guangjian Zhu, Jianping Ye, Tiyu Hong, Shanyi Zhou, and Shuyi Zhang of China, and Gareth Jones of the University of Bristol, UK, for scientifically documenting fellatio in fruit bats.
Management: Alessandro Pluchino, Andrea Rapisarda, and Cesare Garofalo of the University of Catania, Italy, for demonstrating mathematically that organizations would become more efficient if they promoted people at random.
Economics: The executives and directors of Goldman Sachs, AIG, Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch, and Magnetar for creating and promoting new ways to invest money — ways that maximize financial gain and minimize financial risk for the world economy, or for a portion thereof.
Management: Alessandro Pluchino, Andrea Rapisarda, and Cesare Garofalo of the University of Catania, Italy, for demonstrating mathematically that organizations would become more efficient if they promoted people at random.
Economics: The executives and directors of Goldman Sachs, AIG, Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch, and Magnetar for creating and promoting new ways to invest money — ways that maximize financial gain and minimize financial risk for the world economy, or for a portion thereof.
Brilliant work.
#66
Re: WikiInteresting - Give us some links!
Thinking about scientification of the general population:
Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_o..._for_evolution
There simply are some questions science cannot answer in a conclusive manner and even when evidence comes to light people are often slow to accept the implications. Think about this in the context of evolution:
...Almost 60 years after that last discovery and only 48% of people think evolution by natural selection can fully explain the origin of species .
I would like to say that it’s shocking or staggering but actually it’s just really sad and worrying. How can people make rational decisions about issues like the ethics of genetic modification if they don’t even really understand the basic mechanisms through which genes are modified through evolution or viruses or bacteria?
Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_o..._for_evolution
There simply are some questions science cannot answer in a conclusive manner and even when evidence comes to light people are often slow to accept the implications. Think about this in the context of evolution:
- You might have thought when man domesticated dogs and sheep (around 30,000 BC) and subsequently created new breeds people might have realized that the origin of species wasn’t entirely gods work.
- You might have though when man first started farming at the time of the agricultural revolution (5-8000 years BC) and started breeding plants that the origin of species wasn’t entirely gods work.
- You might have thought when Gregor Mendel started his hybridization experiments that suggested the role of genetics people might have realized that the origin of species wasn’t entirely gods work.
- You might have thought that when Charles Darwin published his works people might have realized that the origin of species probably wasn’t gods work.
- In 1928 when Fredrick Griffith discovered transformation, coupled with the 1944 work of Avery, McLeod and McCarty and subsequent work that really catapulted our understanding of modern molecular genetics and people might have understood that the origin of species probably wasn’t gods work.
- With Watson and Cricks work published in early 1953 that really allowed scientists to, for the first time, examine how the whole system of genetic expression worked. You might have thought that the case for evolution by natural selection was now well enough understood to cast out myths about the origin of species being gods work.
...Almost 60 years after that last discovery and only 48% of people think evolution by natural selection can fully explain the origin of species .
I would like to say that it’s shocking or staggering but actually it’s just really sad and worrying. How can people make rational decisions about issues like the ethics of genetic modification if they don’t even really understand the basic mechanisms through which genes are modified through evolution or viruses or bacteria?
#67
Re: WikiInteresting - Give us some links!
The two can be mutually exclusive but it shouldn't matter anyway, should it? You judge and accept an idea on it's merit, rather than try and reconcile it with a previous belief (and what if it causes a paradox? Would you simply reject a new idea because it conflicts with previous beliefs?).
#68
Re: WikiInteresting - Give us some links!
So? There isn't any transferred tenants from one to the other, evolution can be tested using a hypothesis or series of hypothesis. Abiogenesis is still the subject of some conjecture (Read: We have some ideas but supporting evidence is thin on the ground).
The two can be mutually exclusive but it shouldn't matter anyway, should it? You judge and accept an idea on it's merit, rather than try and reconcile it with a previous belief (and what if it causes a paradox? Would you simply reject a new idea because it conflicts with previous beliefs?).
The two can be mutually exclusive but it shouldn't matter anyway, should it? You judge and accept an idea on it's merit, rather than try and reconcile it with a previous belief (and what if it causes a paradox? Would you simply reject a new idea because it conflicts with previous beliefs?).
#69
Re: WikiInteresting - Give us some links!
Ha! The quantum-mechanical "Schrödinger's cat" paradox, the Bible doesn't have an answer for that does it?
#70
Re: WikiInteresting - Give us some links!
"And verily Noah did putteth the cat in a box, and the cat was rather annoyed and did smite Noah with sharpened claw when released. And lo, the people rejoiced." Genesis, Chapter 5, Verse 62
#72
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 227
Re: WikiInteresting - Give us some links!
The settlement is known as "The Lost Colony," and the fate of the colonists is still unknown.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roanoke_Colony
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roanoke_Colony
#73
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 227
Re: WikiInteresting - Give us some links!
An ion thruster is a form of electric propulsion used for spacecraft propulsion that creates thrust by accelerating ions. Ion thrusters are categorized by how they accelerate the ions, using either electrostatic or electromagnetic force. Electrostatic ion thrusters use the Coulomb force and accelerate the ions in the direction of the electric field. Electromagnetic ion thrusters use the Lorentz force to accelerate the ions. The term "ion thruster" by itself usually denotes the electrostatic or gridded ion thrusters.
Due to their relatively high power needs, given the specific power of power supplies, and the requirement of an environment void of other ionized particles, ion thrust propulsion is currently only practical in space.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_thruster
Ion thrusters sound like 'jibber-jabber' to me which leads nicely into.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._T
Due to their relatively high power needs, given the specific power of power supplies, and the requirement of an environment void of other ionized particles, ion thrust propulsion is currently only practical in space.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_thruster
Ion thrusters sound like 'jibber-jabber' to me which leads nicely into.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._T
Last edited by WakeUp; Jul 27th 2011 at 10:09 am.
#74
Re: WikiInteresting - Give us some links!
Does Costa Rica cross your mind much? Maybe it should :
Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Costa_Rica
Costa Rica, which means "Rich Coast", constitutionally abolished its army permanently in 1949. It is the only Latin American country included in the list of the world's 22 older democracies. Costa Rica has consistently been among the top Latin American countries in the Human Development Index, ranked 62nd in the world in 2010, and is cited by the UNDP as one of the countries that have attained much higher human development than other countries at the same income levels. The country is ranked third in the world, and first among the Americas, in terms of the 2010 Environmental Performance Index.
In 2007, the Costa Rican government announced plans for Costa Rica to become the first carbon-neutral country by 2021.
In 2007, the Costa Rican government announced plans for Costa Rica to become the first carbon-neutral country by 2021.
#75
Re: WikiInteresting - Give us some links!
...Portugal, which in 2001 became the first European country to officially abolish all criminal penalties for personal possession of drugs, including marijuana, cocaine, heroin and methamphetamine.
At the recommendation of a national commission charged with addressing Portugal's drug problem, jail time was replaced with the offer of therapy.
At the time, critics in the poor, socially conservative and largely Catholic nation said decriminalizing drug possession would open the country to "drug tourists" and exacerbate Portugal's drug problem; the country had some of the highest levels of hard-drug use in Europe. But the recently released results of a report commissioned by the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, suggest otherwise.
The paper, published by Cato in April, found that in the five years after personal possession was decriminalized, illegal drug use among teens in Portugal declined and rates of new HIV infections caused by sharing of dirty needles dropped, while the number of people seeking treatment for drug addiction more than doubled.
"Judging by every metric, decriminalization in Portugal has been a resounding success," says Glenn Greenwald, an attorney, author and fluent Portuguese speaker, who conducted the research. "It has enabled the Portuguese government to manage and control the drug problem far better than virtually every other Western country does."
Compared to the European Union and the U.S., Portugal's drug use numbers are impressive. Following decriminalization, Portugal had the lowest rate of lifetime marijuana use in people over 15 in the E.U.: 10%. The most comparable figure in America is in people over 12: 39.8%. Proportionally, more Americans have used cocaine than Portuguese have used marijuana.
The Cato paper reports that between 2001 and 2006 in Portugal, rates of lifetime use of any illegal drug among seventh through ninth graders fell from 14.1% to 10.6%; drug use in older teens also declined. Lifetime heroin use among 16-to-18-year-olds fell from 2.5% to 1.8% (although there was a slight increase in marijuana use in that age group). New HIV infections in drug users fell by 17% between 1999 and 2003, and deaths related to heroin and similar drugs were cut by more than half. In addition, the number of people on methadone and buprenorphine treatment for drug addiction rose to 14,877 from 6,040, after decriminalization, and money saved on enforcement allowed for increased funding of drug-free treatment as well.
At the recommendation of a national commission charged with addressing Portugal's drug problem, jail time was replaced with the offer of therapy.
At the time, critics in the poor, socially conservative and largely Catholic nation said decriminalizing drug possession would open the country to "drug tourists" and exacerbate Portugal's drug problem; the country had some of the highest levels of hard-drug use in Europe. But the recently released results of a report commissioned by the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, suggest otherwise.
The paper, published by Cato in April, found that in the five years after personal possession was decriminalized, illegal drug use among teens in Portugal declined and rates of new HIV infections caused by sharing of dirty needles dropped, while the number of people seeking treatment for drug addiction more than doubled.
"Judging by every metric, decriminalization in Portugal has been a resounding success," says Glenn Greenwald, an attorney, author and fluent Portuguese speaker, who conducted the research. "It has enabled the Portuguese government to manage and control the drug problem far better than virtually every other Western country does."
Compared to the European Union and the U.S., Portugal's drug use numbers are impressive. Following decriminalization, Portugal had the lowest rate of lifetime marijuana use in people over 15 in the E.U.: 10%. The most comparable figure in America is in people over 12: 39.8%. Proportionally, more Americans have used cocaine than Portuguese have used marijuana.
The Cato paper reports that between 2001 and 2006 in Portugal, rates of lifetime use of any illegal drug among seventh through ninth graders fell from 14.1% to 10.6%; drug use in older teens also declined. Lifetime heroin use among 16-to-18-year-olds fell from 2.5% to 1.8% (although there was a slight increase in marijuana use in that age group). New HIV infections in drug users fell by 17% between 1999 and 2003, and deaths related to heroin and similar drugs were cut by more than half. In addition, the number of people on methadone and buprenorphine treatment for drug addiction rose to 14,877 from 6,040, after decriminalization, and money saved on enforcement allowed for increased funding of drug-free treatment as well.
Drugs are still bad in other counties though...mmm'kay?