Science!

Cheers for your reaction, Natalie and those are great images! :)
Only, it hasn't been sorted out yet. Loosey suggested merging. If that's too much trouble we can go for option 2 (but that might be more confusing).
 
You asking a question about it certainly left open a solution (and it gave hope for a solution, doing justice to both topics).
 
Yeah, because it seemed like there might be a consensus, but I'm pretty sure that's unimportant now. Mixing the threads would involve pruning one to make sure they flow. People can just go read the other thread if they're interested - the world, interestingly enough, will not end.
 
Here's a fun one to watch:



The discovery here is that humans are not the only species able to keep a beat and dance. It's previously been known that some species of birds can 'dance' but this has been attributed to their ability to mimic sound. A sea lion can't sing so that's why this is being taken as more conclusive evidence that dancing isn't a uniquely human capability, animals just might not be able to indulge in such frivolities. There are some issues with the study that are noticeable just by watching the video...Ronan was trained to react to a beat using a metronome and while she was subsequently able to pick up the beat in pop songs she might merely be repeating the metronome motion she was trained in tolerably well and as she keeps getting rewarded for it by food, she keeps doing it whenever they give her the cue that a song is coming. Obviously, the experiment would have to be repeated on other sea lions, but its not clear that they're not just proficient mimics. I also wonder what would happen if they played her some classical music where the beat is often more subtle. Still, it's fun to watch. :)
 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22013700

Just when you thought maybe that we had invented loads of cool stuff it turns out that we've totally overlooked the power of breath. Plain and simple breath could be more useful than urine or blood in terms of both sampling (non-invasive), determining the individual (breathprint) and diagnosing disease according to this article. Pretty cool eh?
 

Interesting

NASA will likely get $100 million next year to jump-start an audacious program to drag an asteroid into orbit around the moon for research and exploration purposes, U.S. Senator Bill Nelson says.
The $100 million will probably be part of President Barack Obama's federal budget request for 2014, which is expected to be released next week, Nelson (D-FL) said. The money is intended to get the ball rolling on the asteroid-retrieval project, which also aims to send astronauts out to the captured space rock in 2021.

"This is part of what will be a much broader program," Nelson said Friday (April 5), during a visit to Orlando. "The plan combines the science of mining an asteroid, along with developing ways to deflect one, along with providing a place to develop ways we can go to Mars."
Click to expand...

 
Thanks Perun. Other words I think are problematic in everyday speech are "sustainable", "evolution" and "conservation". And I agree with the conclusion that they come to about science education...it can be expanded to education in general. However, this is exactly the kind of thing that I imagine gives non-academics a headache; researchers, scientists and academics whining about how 'words are not used properly' while there are real problems that need to be addressed here and now.
 
With all due respect guys, why should the scientific definition of these words take precedence? :innocent:
 
Think of it as more of a guide to what scientists actually mean when they use words like "hypothesis".
 
Natalie said:
However, this is exactly the kind of thing that I imagine gives non-academics a headache; researchers, scientists and academics whining about how 'words are not used properly' while there are real problems that need to be addressed here and now.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I am especially interested in what people are doing with their knowledge, scientific or not.

Shadow said:
Think of it as more of a guide to what scientists actually mean when they use words like "hypothesis".
Click to expand...
Just realized this article is on a site called Scientific American. So a guide for who?
Who knows this is a guide for scientists, so that they can understand and explain it better to people.
 
As a language tutor I am very anal about the usage of words and their "correct" use. However I also understand language is a living, breathing thing that changes with time. No one seems to care with the current usage of the word, "Gay," for instance. Where's that on the list? It definitely goes back to education. If there is a silver lining whatsoever in Star Wars Episode I it has to be when Quigon tells Jar Jar, "Just because you can speak doesn't mean you're inteligent."
 
Stem cell research is opening up the way for new teeth "grown" from an unlikely source - human urine.
Chinese researchers describe how stem cells derived from urine could be used to generate solid organs and tissues, including teeth. Their study is published this week in the open-access journal Cell Regeneration. The researchers hope the technique might one day help provide new, tailor-made teeth for dental patients.
Previous stem cell research has shown how cells can be generated from urine. It is also known that cells discarded with urea can become induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) that can then generate many different cell types, including neurons and heart muscle cells.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/264079.php
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top