Comments

otherdude

Science

Immaculate Conception, or Fishy Hook-Up In the Shark Tank?

By Posted on 1.22.2008 2 Comments
The second shark-reproduction mystery in as many months (read about the May virgin shark birth here) has surfaced at a U.S. aquarium—this time, at the Virginia Aquarium and Marine Science Center. According to an Associated Press report, the aquariums veterinarian Bob George observed that there might have been "hanky-panky in the shark tank. During an autopsy of a deceased female blacktip reef shark named Tidbit, George found a 10-inch-long shark pup poised for birth. But with no male blacktips listed on the aquariums roster, George was clueless as to the baby-daddy's identity. DNA samples of both Tidbit and her fetus were sent to one of the co-authors of last month's purported parthenogenesis occurrence in Omaha, NE. Researchers hope to learn whether the pup was a rare hybrid of two similar species (an event never before seen in captive sharks), or another instance of asexual reproduction. Genetic tests will reveal how the chromosomes line up, but until then, George has his eye on one of Tidbits tankmates—a sandbar shark. Apparently, this species is known for jawing it up with the ladies and then high-tailing it to the nearest sandbar when its time to assume a more proactive parental role. —Dave Prochnow

6.23.2009 at 11:28am - Comment by otherdude

FYI: An immaculate conception implies birth without original sin. This is different from a virgin birth.
Science

Car-Powered Supermarket Check Outs

By Dan Smith Posted on 6.15.2009 32 Comments
A supermarket in the UK is using a novel way of harnessing energy from their customers. Embedding their parking lot with weight-sensitive plates, cars impart kinetic energy as they pass through, which is then collected and used to power their cash registers. When a car drives by, plates are depressed and the motion is passed along hydraulics to a generator, which produces 30kw of energy an hour. If one parking lot can power cash registers, imagine packing roads with this technology and how much energy can be recollected from all the world’s drivers?

6.18.2009 at 11:55am - Comment by otherdude

Oh, and I watched that video. I don't believe the claim that it "consumes no additional fuel"-- maybe only a little more fuel, but no more whatsoever!? I'd have to see the math to believe it.
Science

Car-Powered Supermarket Check Outs

By Dan Smith Posted on 6.15.2009 32 Comments
A supermarket in the UK is using a novel way of harnessing energy from their customers. Embedding their parking lot with weight-sensitive plates, cars impart kinetic energy as they pass through, which is then collected and used to power their cash registers. When a car drives by, plates are depressed and the motion is passed along hydraulics to a generator, which produces 30kw of energy an hour. If one parking lot can power cash registers, imagine packing roads with this technology and how much energy can be recollected from all the world’s drivers?

6.18.2009 at 11:50am - Comment by otherdude

Then, as speed bumps, these plates are not based on the normal compression of the road, and do require extra energy expenditure on the part of the automobile to climb and depress. However, given that it is a speed bump, which is intended to promote slow driving, it fills a double role of energy sapping (from the cars) and slowing people down in the parking lot. Not bad. I wouldn't be equipping the road with them, though.
Science

Car-Powered Supermarket Check Outs

By Dan Smith Posted on 6.15.2009 32 Comments
A supermarket in the UK is using a novel way of harnessing energy from their customers. Embedding their parking lot with weight-sensitive plates, cars impart kinetic energy as they pass through, which is then collected and used to power their cash registers. When a car drives by, plates are depressed and the motion is passed along hydraulics to a generator, which produces 30kw of energy an hour. If one parking lot can power cash registers, imagine packing roads with this technology and how much energy can be recollected from all the world’s drivers?

6.16.2009 at 08:39am - Comment by otherdude

@bdhoro87 Please explain HOW it racaptures energy normally lost, as you say. From the diagram, in balloon number 2, the plates are pushed down by the weight of the vehicle. This means that the weight of the vehicle has to move over a distance to transmit energy (E=Force*distance), The vehicle either tries to climb the hump, forcing it down, thus using energy, or it would roll on to a level plate, which is forced down, and then has to climb back up on to its previous level, using the energy. Both cases rely on the car supplying energy for the plates, and more than would be required to roll over level ground. If the blue humps in the picture are below some large plate, then the only way I could see it not costing the drivers any more enrgy than driving on asphalt is if the plate as a whole is attached to the ground on all sides, the motion of the blue humps is due to flexure of the top plate, and the flexure of the top plate is less than or equal to the flexure of an asphalt road. Don't call everyone else crazy just because they are skeptics. Take the time to explain how you think it works, and then maybe they'll understand where you're coming from.
Science

The Essential Guide to Stem Cells

By Elizabeth Svoboda Posted on 6.1.2009 20 Comments
For more than a decade, researchers have touted stem cells as the most promising advance in medicine since antibiotics. And this winter, when President Obama lifted the Bush administration's ban on federal funding for embryonic-stem-cell research, talking heads buzzed that his decision could bring scientists that much closer to cures — not just treatments — for conditions like heart failure, spinal-cord injuries and Alzheimer's disease. Biologists around the world toasted their new prospects with champagne. "Lifting the ban will free us up to use additional cell lines," says Jack Kessler, director of the Feinberg Neuroscience Institute at Northwestern University. "It's very important for science."

6.2.2009 at 09:17am - Comment by otherdude

"Although adult stem cells are promising, the need to avoid controversy can't drive things — the field needs all the research options it can get." It's not the need to avoid controversy that should drive things, but ethics should *always* steer research. When ethics are not condsidered, when pure scientific investigation is given the guiding hand, we get cruel projects like the forced sterilization of the eugenics projects in the United States in the first half of the 1900's. So ethics should always drive things, and if in a path of research there is a chance at all of doing harm or comprimising ethics, it should be avoided. (Google "eugenics in the united states" to see what I mean by a case when science did not examine the ethics.) Some may say, "What about the ethics of saving lives?" Let me pose another question to that. Imagine a large metal box with two doors. There is a person locked inside, and that person will probably die of starvation and dehydration if you don't open the door sometime soon. The door on the left you know you can open and let the person out, but the door on the right may have a tripwire that sends a radio signal to another room where the occupants will be gassed to death. So you know that the door on the left can cause no more harm, and the one on the right could cause more. Which do you open? The answer is clear. Take the door on the left. Save the person and don't risk the chance of harming anyone else. This is the scenario of adult stem cells versus embryonic stem cells.
Science

Curing Disease or Playing God: Obama and McCain on Genetics Research

By Stuart Fox Posted on 10.14.2008 12 Comments
Question 7: Genetics Research
The extraordinary development of genetics over the last 20 years has resulted in both a wealth of new technologies and a wide range of ethical concerns relating to that technology. Like most scientific research, a great deal of genetics research is either run by the government directly or funded by the federal government in some fashion. As a result, the next president will struggle with genetics-related decisions that would have been unimaginable to his predecessor. Let's look at the candidates' history of genetics legislation.

10.14.2008 at 10:17am - Comment by otherdude

All of you who say that religion should not be in any scientific discussion are correct-- religion should not be included, but ethics should. For any research, an open debate must be held to determine whether there is an ethical problem involved in conducting that research. Let's take the case of stem cell research, notably embryonic, not adult, where the issue is that a significant portion of the population believes the destruction of an embryo is the destruction of a human life. So, when the government takes a stance that it will not fund embryonic stem cell research, but will fund other promising avenues, it is not being unreasonable. In other words, they have funded non-controversial research and taken the less-risky stance: while the debate is not finished as to when human life begins, the government will not fund work that has the possibility of destroying human life. So, no, religion should not be in the scientific discourse or we would be regressing to Galileo's days, but ethics should always be a primary concern of the government. When we stop making ethics a concern, we allow our government to commit unethical practices for only a *possible* future benefit(e.g. eugenics in the US see- http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/021500-02.htm).
Science

Curing Disease or Playing God: Obama and McCain on Genetics Research

By Stuart Fox Posted on 10.14.2008 12 Comments
Question 7: Genetics Research
The extraordinary development of genetics over the last 20 years has resulted in both a wealth of new technologies and a wide range of ethical concerns relating to that technology. Like most scientific research, a great deal of genetics research is either run by the government directly or funded by the federal government in some fashion. As a result, the next president will struggle with genetics-related decisions that would have been unimaginable to his predecessor. Let's look at the candidates' history of genetics legislation.

10.14.2008 at 09:31am - Comment by otherdude

All of you who say that religion should not be in any scientific discussion are correct-- religion should not be included, but ethics should. For any research, an open debate must be held to determine whether there is an ethical problem involved in conducting that research. Let's take the case of stem cell research, notably embryonic, not adult, where the issue is that a significant portion of the population believes the destruction of an embryo is the destruction of a human life. So, when the government takes a stance that it will not fund embryonic stem cell research, but will fund other promising avenues, it is not being unreasonable. In other words, they have funded non-controversial research and taken the less-risky stance: while the debate is not finished as to when human life begins, the government will not fund work that has the possibility of destroying human life. So, no, religion should not be in the scientific discourse or we would be regressing to Galileo's days, but ethics should always be a primary concern of the government. When we stop making ethics a concern, we allow our government to commit unethical practices for only a *possible* future benefit(e.g. eugenics in the US see- http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/021500-02.htm).