Livers are rationed for transplant by geographic region. Who knew?
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/20...ia/TbfleFMkaYqUzW11TSpl7I/story.html#comments
In 1981, the Louisiana Legislature passed a law that forbade public schools to teach evolution without also instructing students on “creation science.” The Creationism Act was challenged in court for breaching the constitutional wall between church and state, in a case that reached the Supreme Court in 1986. For seven justices, the decision involved a simple constitutional question. They saw the law as an effort to force religious belief into the science curriculum, and they struck it down.
Justice Antonin Scalia dissented. He saw the case as a question about certainty: What can we really know for sure? Pointing to “ample uncontradicted testimony that ‘creation science’ is a body of scientific knowledge, rather than revealed belief,” he chided his colleagues for treating the evidence for evolution as “conclusive.”
Scalia’s opinion, joined only by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, drew a pained response from the Harvard biologist Stephen Jay Gould. “I regret to say that Justice Scalia does not understand the subject matter of evolutionary biology,” Gould wrote in a natural-history journal. “We are not blessed with absolute certainty about any fact of nature, but evolution is as well confirmed as anything we know.” Scalia, a conservative Catholic, defined evolution, like the creation story in Genesis, as a means to discover “the origin of life.” But scientists don’t try to reach that ultimate answer, Gould wrote. “We know that we can’t, and we do not even consider such a question as part of science.”
The whole article is about a man who himself is now dead, yet science is what died and not the dissenter of science?
Considering the man who is dead is going to be the standard for Supreme Court Appointments in this country for the next 78 years. Yes, science is dead.The whole article is about a man who himself is now dead, yet science is what died and not the dissenter of science?
Your handwringing is reaching new heights.
http://gizmodo.com/new-cancer-therapy-shows-promise-in-treating-aggressive-1790594198
One step closer to the moon.
Won't the moon just keep receding? Our progress is great, but it seems asymptotic -- we'll never hit 100 with cancer because cancer is by definition a set of stuff we haven't cured yet?
Or is there a true goalline that can, in principle, be crossed?
Is the cancer definition that broad? I thought cancer cells were at least partially a defined entity?
I thought cancer cells were just cells that start reproducing wildly. So it's like trying to cure "falling": no matter how many guardrails you put up, people will still fall off stuff. Likewise, cells will still overclock sometimes, but we can do a really good job of continuing to identify and rectify situations in which they do, thus making it more and more rare.
http://gizmodo.com/astronomers-pinpointed-the-location-of-multiple-weird-r-1790760275
Kep, this is a much better article. It gives way more background and why they're excited to find the source.
Maybe we can use this.
Trump likes NASA and space and hates the Chinese, and he's a dingbat. This seems like a perfect storm to create another big push for the US space program. He's also a "dur, bizniss is the Guardians of the Galaxy, like ME, dur" type, so we can get privatization off the ground.
Maybe our monkey territoriality and violence can be used for good for once.