Quote
"If you want to save your child from polio, you can pray or you can inoculate. … Choose science."

Carl Sagan (The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark)

(Source: thedragoninmygarage)

Photoset

scienceisbeauty:

This is a classic `nude calendar´ when you extract everything which transparent to X-Rays, i.e. all the flesh, and therefore any remaining sensuality.

Via Tha Mary Sue: “This Exists: X-Ray Pin-up Calendar

Speak for yourself; it still looks sexy to me.

Link

Episode: Deborah Gordon studies ants wherever she can find them — in the desert, in the tropics, in her kitchen … In this fascinating talk, she explains her obsession with insects most of us would happily swat away without a second thought. She argues that ant life provides a useful model for learning about many other topics, including disease, technology and the human brain.

Photo
Photo
Photoset

bluedogeyes:

India teen tells US how to save $400 million by changing font (via The Hindu)

A 14-year-old Indian-origin boy has come up with a unique plan that could help the U.S. save nearly $400 million a year by merely changing the font used on official documents.

Suvir Mirchandani, a student in a Pittsburgh-area middle school, claimed that if the federal government used the Garamond font exclusively it could save about $136 million per year, nearly 30 per cent less than the estimated $467 dollars it spends annually on ink.

An additional $234 million could be saved annually if state governments also implemented the change.

Mirchandani said the idea came to him when he was trying to think of ways to cut waste and save money as part of a science fair project at his school, CNN reported.

The youngster noticed that he was getting a lot more handouts than he did in elementary school and decided to figure out if he could minimize use of paper and ink.

While recycling paper was one way to save money and conserve resources, Mirchandani said little attention had been paid to the ink used on the papers.

“Ink is two times more expensive than French perfume by volume,” he said, adding that he then decided to focus his project on finding ways to cut down the cost of ink.

As part of his experiment, he collected random samples of teachers’ handouts and focused on the most commonly used characters such as e, t, a, o and r.

He noted how often each character was used in different fonts like Garamond, Times New Roman, Century Gothic and Comic Sans and then measured how much ink was used for each letter, using an ink coverage software.

From his analysis, Mirchandani figured out that by using the Garamond font with its thinner strokes, his school district could reduce its ink consumption by 24 per cent and in turn save as much as $21,000 annually.

image

He repeated his tests on five sample pages from documents on the Government Printing Office website and got similar results that changing the font would save money.

Mirchandani’s findings have been published in the Journal for Emerging Investigators (JEI), a publication founded by a group of Harvard students in 2011 that provides a platform for the work of middle school and high school students.

One of the journal’s founders Sarah Fankhauser said that of the nearly 200 submissions they have received since 2011, Mirchandani’s project stood out.

“We were so impressed. We really could really see the real-world application in Suvir’s paper,” Fankhauser was quoted as saying…”

(via afro-dominicano)

Text

Anonymous said: Why do you detest Freud?

aww-tistic:

elsietheautisticavenger:

daigonite:

exfatalist:

note-a-bear:

racismschool:

tedbunny:

Because I’ve studied Psychology. 

Freud’s theories are unscientific, they’re untestable, they’re prone to circular reasoning, and are just… well, nonsense. He got the idea for his theory of the unconscious because he didn’t believe a patient when she told him her father had molested her, his reasoning was ‘a man would never do that, that must be repressed sexual fantasies.’ The vast majority of his so called clinical assessments are useless, because again - they’re based on nonsense. Thanks to him the general public to have this very misinformed view of psychology and as a result he’s set the science back because people assume that all of it is as wishy-washy and unfounded as the theories of a cocaine addict with a mother fixation.

Agree 100% and I think his theories, such as they are, actually continue to set back physiological progress to this day.

I may have once rolled my eyes when a professor mentioned we were going to study Freud and then giggled because I thought she was joking when she said she was a firm believer in Freudian analysis.

She didn’t really like me….

I took a psychology class at a community college in rural NC taught by a badass feminist army veteran. We got to the chapter on Freud and she literally said: “We’re not going to study this because it’s bullshit.” We spent exactly one class discussing why it was bullshit, then moved on to study the scientific method, Milgram and Harlow, and the development of ethical standards in the field of psychology. That is what Freud is to people who actually understand his contribution to the field: a gateway into discussing the way ideas become scientific theories and the ethics surrounding the development of said theories.

Because it’s not science if you literally say, “I don’t trust this woman because lol hysterical vagina syndrome, here’s the only misogynistic explanation for what’s going on, she is totes envious of the penis, haha, fact.”

I’m so glad I’m not the only person who recognizes this

#freud is truly full of shit#i can’t deny that he certainly set the foundation for psychology#but we can’t take him seriously anymore

I had to read so much Freud in grad school for educational psychology. Let that shit sink in. Worst class ever.

Photoset

jtotheizzoe:

You know it’s spring when, just after sunset, the refrigerator constellation rises in the western sky.

(But seriously, remember that our perspective on the stars is at the same time wonderfully unique but not at all special, and the stellar stories that we write are products not only of our imaginations, but also our brain’s relentless desire to recognize patterns in random assortments of far away dots)

(Source: lyerith)

Text

feenomeena said: So I see your post about Evolution with NDT. But Joe. You have to undrstand, as the devils advocate right now (being me), how do you explain the semantics of this argument. If it is fact, why not call it so. Gravity isnt a theory. It is a law because it is observable. The Law of gravity. The laws of thermodynamics. These arent theories, they are postulates. Why if the scientific community is forthforward about gravity, cant they accept it as fact as with these other observable laws?

jtotheizzoe:

(FYI, we’re talking about this post)

Thanks for being the devil’s advocate. Nobody ever stands up for that guy!

You ask an important question about the difference between a scientific theory, a scientific fact, and a scientific law, and in doing so you may have inadvertently caught a mistake in Cosmos. We’ll get to that, but first, let’s untangle these confusing terms.

A scientific theory begins life as a hypothesis. And a hypothesis is born when an observation comes together with a possible explanation  in the womb of the mind. That hypothesis is fed further observations, and if all remains correct, one day it grows up into a theory. The more a theory can explain, the stronger it is. It can be modified or proven wrong by future observations. What is special about a theory is that it ultimately allows us to predict what will happen and also explain why it is happening. 

A scientific law is fairly similar to a theory, except that it doesn’t explain the why. Let’s take the Law of Gravity as an example. It has been incredibly well supported by observation,and it has been revised over time to adapt to new observations (like spacetime), but nothing about the Law of Gravity explains why gravity does its gravitational things. We usually capitalize them because it makes them look more important.

A scientific fact, the way I interpret it (its philosophical definition has been debated many times), is an observation that no one has been able to disprove and that we expect two people would observe in exactly the same way regardless of when or where or how they observed it. For instance, it is a scientific fact that the jellyfish green fluorescent protein emits light at a wavelength of 509 nm when it is excited by 395 nm light. This is just a thing that happens. It is an observation that can then be applied to a more general theory of fluorescence. Got it? Good.

So what is evolution? It’s a scientific theory. It is a thing that we can see happening (yes, I mean actually observe it happening) and it also allows us to explain why it is happening. The theory of evolution encompasses all the chemistry of DNA, the random action of mutations, and the mathematics of selection. It’s a what and a why

What about gravity? Why did Neil call it a “theory”? Here’s the mistake in Cosmos that I think you’ve identified. He shouldn’t have called gravity a theory. It’s a law. We know a lot about the what of gravity, from how mass interacts at a distance to curvatures in the fabric of spacetime, but we don’t know why gravity gravities. So you’re right that gravity is a law. Neil was wrong, at least on this week’s show.

By this time you’re all probably thinking “Joe, this is a load of semantic bulls**t!!" You are absolutely right. It is a load of semantic bulls**t. It’s actually the very definition of semantics, the study of meaning. I’d forgive some of you for thinking this is all a worthless waste of verbal and cognitive energy, because what’s wrong with just saying something is or isn’t

Well, that all depends on what your definition of “is” is.

Photo
stufftoblowyourmind:


Artatomical: 1800s Persian Anatomical Study
Here’s an elegant piece of anatomical art, straight from a 19th-century Persian anatomical study.
I love the skeletons, but I feel like the internal organs and circulatory systems are the real stars here. The artist gives them the lush feel of fresh flowers or fruit.
SEE THE FULL IMAGE: http://is.gd/yEH2wU

stufftoblowyourmind:

Artatomical: 1800s Persian Anatomical Study

Here’s an elegant piece of anatomical art, straight from a 19th-century Persian anatomical study.

I love the skeletons, but I feel like the internal organs and circulatory systems are the real stars here. The artist gives them the lush feel of fresh flowers or fruit.

SEE THE FULL IMAGE: http://is.gd/yEH2wU

(via afro-dominicano)

Text

i-eat-men-like-air:

things-with-teeth:

thealmightyris:

bobbimorsebarton:

barbeauxbot:

starborn-vagaboo:

altpunkmermaidprincess:

chinchouu:

thewhiskeytango:

There is now a measles outbreak in New York. A whole ward of cancer patients currently undergoing chemotherapy have been exposed to it. Imagine fighting cancer for years only to die because some jackass didn’t vaccinate their brat and you caught measles. 

SOURCE 

STUPID FUCKING PIECE OF SHIT PARENTS

Yes my mother us a stupid piece if shit for not vaccinating me and my brother for diseases that barely exist.

How about you keep your nose out of shit that doesn’t concern you because the way a parent raises their child and what they chose to put in that child’s body is none of your concern.

I will not vaccinate my kids because I know what’s in those vaccinations. So call me a stupid piece of shit, but I don’t see any of you parenting MY kids or anyone else’s kids. So stay the fuck out of shit that isn’t any of your business

Not gonna be an ass but I was curious as to what you think is in vaccines and why you’re not going to use them?

The studies that linked vaccines to Autism/horrible things have been proven fraudulent and have cost a LOT of people their lives because it’s allowed the spread of things like Measles (which isn’t a barely existing disease, really)

Omfg it IS our business because we’re the HERD part of HERD IMMUNITY

Immunocompromized people are dying because of your stupid-ass decisions

Your choices kill people that’s why we care how is this hard to understand

Yes, people who don’t vaccinate their kids are stupid pieces of shit, because not only are they endangering their own children (which makes them shitty parents), they’re endangering other people.

"Diseases that barely exist" …yeah they barely exist because of vaccination programs.

Yes, my mother is a stupid piece of shit for not vaccinating me.

And yes, I am a stupid piece of shit for not realizing before my late twenties what “honey, we started taking you to a homeopathic doctor when you were two!” meant in the way of incomplete immunization cycles. I’m going in soon to get tested for antibodies and then I plan to get vaccinated for the ones I don’t have, because, and let me spell this out for you in no uncertain terms, I don’t want to be responsible for someone else dying.

Measles are coming back. We’ve had a few outbreaks of whooping cough over the last few years. Herd immunity doesn’t just protect people whose parents were idiotic enough to listen to Wakefield, it protects people who are too young, or allergic to eggs, or for some other reason unable to vaccinate against diseases which could easily kill them.

News flash: “how I raise my kids is none of your business” stops being a valid argument as soon as you’re putting other people’s safety at risk.

"I will not vaccinate my kids because I know what’s in those vaccinations. So call me a stupid piece of shit"

You are worse than a stupid piece of shit. You’re literally putting people’s lives at risk because you believe some bunk science scare-tactic about vaccinations.  

Dumb fucking ass backwards god damn anti-science shit heads. Fuck all of them.

(Source: kylebeckerbabe, via insincereendorsement)

Photoset

tattrx:

Much love for #cosmos, #neildegrassetyson & #carlsagan

Submission by nanomammoth

THOMAS SINNAMOND   
Seattle, Washington   
nanomammoth.com   
facebook.com/nanomammoth   
nanomammoth.tumblr.com   
Instagram @nanomammoth  
Email: t.sinnamond@gmail.com

Photoset

ekarusryndren:

anotherfirebender:

m1ssred:

chemical reaction

*how to spawn demons: a beginner’s guide to chemistry

image

(via dominospizzadelivery)

Link

probablyasocialecologist:

Gravity remains the dominant force on large astronomical scales, but when it comes to stars in young star clusters the dynamics in these crowded environments cannot be simply explained by the pull of gravity.

Hubble Space Telescope image of the young star cluster NGC 1818 in the Large Magellanic Cloud. KIAA researchers found to their surprise an increasing fraction of binary systems as they looked at increasingly larger distances from the cluster center, as illustrated graphically in the inset. Image: Peking University

After analyzing Hubble Space Telescope images of star cluster NGC 1818 in the Large Magellanic Cloud, a satellite galaxy of the Milky Way, researchers at the Kavli Institute for Astronomy and Astrophysics (KIAA) at Peking University in Beijing found more binary star systems toward the periphery of cluster than in the center – the opposite of what they expected. The surprising distribution of binaries is thought to result from complex interactions among stars within young clusters.

The team’s finding will be published in the March 1 print issue of The Astrophysical Journal and is now online.

In the dynamic environment of a star cluster, high-mass stars are thought to gravitate toward the center of a cluster when they give a ‘kick’ to lower-mass stars and lose energy, explained KIAA Prof. Richard de Grijs, who led the study. This leads them to sink to the cluster center, while the lower-mass stars gain energy and might move to orbits at greater distances from the cluster core. Astronomers call this process “mass segregation.”

However, when the Kavli researchers looked closely at binary star systems within NGC 1818, they found a much more complex picture.

Most stars in clusters actually form in pairs, called “binary stars,” which initially are located so close to one another that they interact, resulting in the destruction of some binary systems. Other binaries, meanwhile, swap partners. Astronomers had expected that the same process that leads a cluster’s most massive stars to gravitate toward the center would also apply to binaries. This is because together, the stars that make up binaries have more mass on average than a single star.

When the astronomers discovered that there were more binaries the farther from the core they observed, they were initially baffled by this unexpected result. They concluded that so-called “soft” binary systems, in which the two stars orbit each other at rather large distances, are destroyed due to close encounters with other stars near the cluster’s center. Meanwhile, “hard” binaries, in which the two stars orbit one another at much shorter distances, survive close encounters with other stars much better, all throughout a cluster. This is why more binaries were seen farther out than close in.

Mapping the radial distribution of binary systems in dense star clusters had never been done before for clusters as young as NGC 1818, which is thought to be 15-30 million years old. This is difficult to do in any case, because there are no young clusters nearby in our own Milky Way galaxy. The new result provides new insights into theoretically predicted processes that govern the evolution of star clusters.

“The extremely dynamic interactions among stars in clusters complicates our understanding of gravity,” team member Chengyuan Li said. “One needs to investigate the entire physical environment to fully understand what’s happening in that environment. Things are usually more complex than they appear.”

Source

(via scinerds)

Photoset

imagineatoms:

Dr. J. Robert Oppenheimer (Father of the atomic bomb)

Truly the face of a haunted man.

(via rydenarmani)