Science

[The Gaffer]

It is astonishing how poorly-understood some of these basic statistics are. I would say we have pretty much no idea what proportion of people are homosexual, bisexual or whatever. Principally, because, as GW says, you have major issues around what you measure: behaviour, self-identification, etc.

IIRC, the oft-quoted 10% came from Kinsey's very early research and is probably an over-estimate because of very broad inclusion criteria. The 1% reported in this census data feels nearer to the actual truth.

I agree with T and GW, however, there is likely to be a significant amount of reporting bias. When I think about people that I know, for every two "out" gays I could probably name one "in", and that might range from one-time dabblers to full-on "cures".

Even 1% is quite a lot of punters though.

[Jonathan]

It's always good to go to the source. The actual study is found here: Measuring Sexual Identity: An Evaluation Report

[brownjenkins]

I've always thought of bisexuality as the norm, where culture teaches us to become hetero, homo or remain bi. I think if you take any given time factor into account, a large percentage are asexual as well.

[inked]

Another scientific conundrum ...
http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE6B52OE20101206

Somehow, I'm thinking it's more likely the dead cattle thrown overboard rather than a Zionist plot, but, hey, if they find a shark with a laser finder on its head, I'd consider Dr. Evil.

What do you think?

[Pitchike12]

Originally Posted by inked

Another scientific conundrum ...
http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE6B52OE20101206

Somehow, I'm thinking it's more likely the dead cattle thrown overboard rather than a Zionist plot, but, hey, if they find a shark with a laser finder on its head, I'd consider Dr. Evil.

What do you think?

I think it's nice.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by inked

Somehow, I'm thinking it's more likely the dead cattle thrown overboard rather than a Zionist plot, but, hey, if they find a shark with a laser finder on its head, I'd consider Dr. Evil.

What do you think?

I'm getting strong Jaws-vibes from the articles around this incident, with the officials nearly falling over themselves saying that all is well, no danger anymore, the shark is dead etc...

With a picture of a dead shark that may or may not be the actual culprit. Finding out what species of shark attacked (the picture was of a young great white) is not un-important in finding out why the attack happened.

Still, Zionist plot is rather neat as explanations go. Might use it next time I don't get to work on time. "Sorry boss, I haven't overslept, it was a Zionist ploy..."

[Rían]

Originally Posted by inked

Another scientific conundrum ...
http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE6B52OE20101206

Somehow, I'm thinking it's more likely the dead cattle thrown overboard rather than a Zionist plot, but, hey, if they find a shark with a laser finder on its head, I'd consider Dr. Evil.

What do you think?

I love this part - "Water sports centres said business had dried up"

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Still, Zionist plot is rather neat as explanations go.

At least they're covering all the possibilities.

[Tessar]

Originally Posted by inked

if they find a shark with a laser finder on its head, I'd consider Dr. Evil.

What do you think?

Ummm, I think you clearly never watched the very educational and informative show, "Sharktopus," which was... to quote the show's self-review... "Spectaculawesome," and, "Incredimazing." A shark with a laser is ridiculous, because why would you do that when you could just combine a shark with an octopus?



That is a crazy article though... I've never understood why anyone would be willing to swim in water that they know has a shark in it. Like Wakulla Springs, where my family had a reunion once.... there was a "dividing line," but honest to God there was a freaking river that people were swimming in that had alligators in it. I think it's probably just hungry sharks...

[The Gaffer]

I've swum in water that had a shark in it. Only a wee reef shark though. I would have taken it, even without my doc martens on.

This is what it would take to stop me from getting my snorkel on:



Yes that's bears with assault rifles riding on sharks riding on unicorns.

[Tessar]

O_o

Never mind science, that picture alone deserves its own discussion thread.

AWESOME.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

I've swum in water that had a shark in it. Only a wee reef shark though. I would have taken it, even without my doc martens on.

This is what it would take to stop me from getting my snorkel on:



Yes that's bears with assault rifles riding on sharks riding on unicorns.

The shark must be a virgin.

What about the bear? Is it a chain effect? Do you have to be a virgin to ride a virgin riding a unicorn?

O.o

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Tessar

That is a crazy article though... I've never understood why anyone would be willing to swim in water that they know has a shark in it. Like Wakulla Springs, where my family had a reunion once.... there was a "dividing line," but honest to God there was a freaking river that people were swimming in that had alligators in it. I think it's probably just hungry sharks...

Depending on the shark species, I'd happily swim with sharks even without barriers. Alligators, not so much.

Now bears with assault rifles riding on sharks riding on unicorns, that's a whole different game!

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

The shark must be a virgin.

What about the bear? Is it a chain effect? Do you have to be a virgin to ride a virgin riding a unicorn?

O.o

Hmmm, not sure, must look it up in the Marquis de Sade's handbook. The bear looks like he might be firing blanks though. Does that count?

[inked]

AAaacchhh! The joys of "greenery"!
http://news.scotsman.com/news/39Gree...nch.6672024.jp

'Green' Scotland relying on French nuclear power
Published Date: 27 December 2010
By Jane Bradley
Environment correspondent
"SCOTLAND'S wind farms are unable to cope with the freezing weather conditions – grinding to a halt at a time when electricity demand is at a peak, forcing the country to rely on power generated by French nuclear plants. "

Apparently French nuclear power is ok. (aside from inked)

"Output from major wind farms fell to as low as 2.5 per cent of their potential generation capacity during the cold snap as power demand rose to close to the highest level yet recorded, new figures have revealed.

Meteorologists say extremely cold temperatures can occur only when there is little or no wind and icy pockets of air are trapped close to the ground, prompting accusations from anti- wind-farm campaigners that wind power cannot be relied on to meet Scotland's electricity needs in the depths of winter.

The data, charted on the Balancing Mechanism Reporting System website, which the National Grid uses to monitor UK power generation, also revealed that at times when wind energy was at its lowest, back-up power had to be piped in from France, where the majority of electricity is nuclear-generated.

The Scottish Government is opposed to nuclear power, insisting no nuclear plants will be built in Scotland once Hunterston B in Ayrshire and Torness in East Lothian are decommissioned, in 2016 and 2023 respectively."

(like oil rigs other than off America and "not in our backyard" energy sources)


Now, where's the science in all this, inked wonders.

[Earniel]

Right, because nuclear power neverevernever had any drawbacks or hidden defects when the technology was being developed.

However, it pays to have back-up systems and no over-reliance on one energy source. But I'd say that was already obvious way before renewable energy became an issue.

[inked]

2010 in review in NATURE:

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/1012.../4681014a.html

"2010: The year in which …

A round-up of the top science news stories of the past 12 months.

Adam Mann"

[Valandil]

Saw this article about a simulated flight to Mars. Thought it was interesting:

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news...rbit?gt1=43001

[Grey_Wolf]

I have been pondering the problem of getting rid of carbon-dioxide by separating the Carbon and Oxygen atoms through exposing them to intense light ie laser. Now the greatest obstacle to this cd fission method would be the excessive amount of energy that would be required to start the process.

Now the normal process is that plants takes in carbon-dioxide and emits oxygen during the day and the other way around during the night.

The daily process is governed by sunlight as we all now.

The question on my mind now is this: Is it possible to intensify the emission of oxygen from plants by exposing them to more intense light?

Glad to hear your views.

[Earniel]

I haven't read any studies about it, but my gut instinct would be that any possible oxygen gain from that process would be minimal and that for most plant species a prolonged exposure to intense light can be harmful.

One might also first have to study the different components of sunlight and their effect on plants. Sunlight is made up of different radiations, one can't mimick sunlight with the usual standard lamps.