Your video, Scientific American Makes First Presidential Endorsement, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Yes...and yes. The Mary story was story after story of faith healings and visions portrayed as if they were certainly real, with no science involved and no other explanations given. I had skipped that story because I don't care about religion, but went back just now and read most of it. Yuck.

The magazine is not the same. This months issue's articles....
1)the photo ARK
2) The crossing-is death an event or more of a progression
3)where death doesn't mean goodbye
4)urban parks, when you're there, civilization can feel very far away
5)Ghost Lands-The Out Of Eden Walk passes through nations haunted by their history: Armenia and Turkey
Page 4 is a big "Why I went looking for spiritual answers" 'article' hyping "Story of God" with Morgan Freeman, which has other full page ads in the same issue.
So every story has some religious connotation except the 'urban park' story, which may or may not, I haven't read it yet.
It does still have some good photography, but also a lot of bland and boring photography, and that ratio is moving in the wrong direction.
I think I won't be renewing. I'll get Popular Science or Scientific American again instead.

Interestingly with my global journal access through academia, not anywhere is the article I linked shown as peer reviewed media accessible through the common university publications...must just be a nature journal thing to want to rort people for money no matter what their affiliation.

At first glance, I read this article to mean that the area is a sink in so far as it contains a large quantity of methane, and its 'consumption' or 'uptake' rates are shown in negative values...indicating a release of the gas.

In checking peer reviewed articles through my academic channels, I come across many that are saying pretty much the same deal, heres a tl;dr from just one of them;

"Permafrost covers 20% of the earth's land surface.
One third to one half of permafrost, a rich source of methane, is now within 1.0° C to 1.5° C of thawing.
At predicted rates of thaw, by 2100 permafrost will boost methane released into the atmosphere 20% to 40% beyond what would be produced by all other natural and man-made sources.
Methane in the atmosphere has 25 times the heating power of carbon dioxide.
As a result, the earth's mean annual temperature could rise by an additional 0.32° C, further upsetting weather patterns and sea level."

Source: Methane: A MENACE SURFACES. By: Anthony, Katey Walter, Scientific American, 00368733, Dec2009, Vol. 301, Issue 6

I can claim to know far more than you seem to because I went to college and graduated with a degree in science, have a NASA geologist uncle, and read numerous scientific publications monthly, and because I didn't get my science training from Wikipedia, the worst place to try to learn something because it can be changed by those with an agenda and no knowledge.

Uniformitarianism as described is NOT the cornerstone of geology, that's ridiculous. Geologic forces are not uniform...erosion, for one, happens at it's own rate each time depending on uncountable factors. Differing geologic forces act in concert on differing geologic features to change the rate at which features are made/changed. That means that there is NO uniformitarianism as described...except to a quite small extent in the lab where ALL other things are equal. That's probably why they never mentioned it in any of the numerous geology classes I took, nor from my uncle, nor in Science, nat. geo., Scientific American, etc..
I imagine you know about it because you have been told it can be used as a tool to try to debunk geology, and as an anti-science guy you grabbed onto it without understanding.
Once again, there are certain processes that happen at certain rates, like the decay of radioactive materials down to their bases, usually lead. That is not the same as saying all features are created at the same rate, which you suggest uniformitarianism claims. EDIT: apparently that IS what uniformitarianism claims, and why it was discarded as a hypothesis in the early 1800's, it was wrong in it's basic assumptions.
None of it has a thing to do with a landslide, which is what the video describes. Not a whit.
I would guess you believe the earth is about 6000 years old, right?

EDIT: I hope I can be forgiven for not knowing every discredited theory from the late 1700's.

Hmm... now you've made me curious too. I have found a few interesting pages, but nothing specifically about frog vision apart from mentions that it's sensitive.

• How Stuff Works has a How frogs work article.
  
• The Whole Frog Project provides a virtual frog for high school biology students, based on MRI data, mechanical sectioning, and some software to allow visualising of the anatomical structures of the intact animal.
  
• The UW Sea grant site has a frogs page with resources for kids + teachers that has an origami frog (among other things).
  

I'm not quite as sure about the single photon claim. I found a Physicsworld.com article from September 2012 talking about using a single rod cell from a frog eye being used as an extremely sensitive detector which is able to detect a single photon, but according to the original Usenet Physics FAQ (I cite an updated version hosted at math.ucr.edu) human retinas can also respond to a single photon, but have a neural filter to block the signal unless 5 to 9 photons arrive within less than 100 ms.

References

Julie Schnapf, "How Photoreceptors Respond to Light", Scientific American, April 1987

S. Hecht, S. Schlaer and M.H. Pirenne, "Energy, Quanta and vision." Journal of the Optical Society of America, 38, 196-208 (1942)

D.A. Baylor, T.D. Lamb, K.W. Yau, "Response of retinal rods to single photons." Journal of Physiology, Lond. 288, 613-634 (1979)

A great article in Scientific American makes a pretty good case that you should avoid prostate exams in almost all cases. Ricky is both mean and dangerous to be associated with.

Most of the article is about the PSA blood test, but it provides some amazing general statistics: "to save one life from prostate cancer, about 1,400 men would have to be screened, leading 48 men to undergo treatment. So 47 men would be treated unnecessarily - many of whom would suffer fairly serious side effects - so that one man's death from prostate cancer could be prevented."

I found links to the Scientific American article "Science of Juggling" at Professor Arthur Lewbel's tribute to Claude Shannon. I didn't check the quicktime movie linked there, but suspect it cuts off at the same point as this yt embed.

Googling around for that article also led to Juggling by Design by Ivars Peterson.>> ^Mammaltron:

...don't leave me in suspense, what about the mathematical analysis of juggling?

I'm not familiar with Lester Brown's proposed solutions, but his diagnoses pretty clearly lay things out concerning food and water and globalization.

I have an old book that is a collection of the old column "The Amateur Scientist" from Scientific Americans in the fifties and sixties. One article is "A Homemade Atom Smasher" which is a particle accelerator made using a Van de Graaff static electricity generator. The book also has "A Homemade X-Ray Machine".

Ah, the good old days.

>> ^Enzoblue:

Thing I learned in recent issue of Scientific American, 60% of a baby's energy resources are used by their brain. It's why they sleep a lot and don't move much, neurons are greedy early on.
solution: cut off their heads.

Thing I learned in recent issue of Scientific American, 60% of a baby's energy resources are used by their brain. It's why they sleep a lot and don't move much, neurons are greedy early on.

>> ^wraith:

That was my point. Fluids are incompressible.
Unfortunately, those bad analogies seem to stick in the minds of the physics lay-person. Just think of the mother of bad analogies: Schroedinger's Cat. The particle may be in a undecided state between "life" or "death", yet the cat certainly isn't. It's either alive and very pissed or dead as a doornail.
When explaining science, avoid analogies whenever possible or clearly mark them as such and point out their deficiencies.


I think explaining qubits does a better job for first time quantum beginners. It also makes them see the potential for awesome. BUT, it is hard to explain--plainly. I blame my college professors and books. Scientific American has an awesome article for the "lay"-man for qubits.

I get blank stares with entanglement.

This preacher is trying to reach your addled brain because evolution has made a monkey out of you

Here's one, and remember it only takes one to disprove the entire theory:

The Geologist

Complete skeleton found Carboniferous Macoupin County, Illinois

Here's another one

Scientific American

Human skeleton in Silurian rock Franklin County Missouri

There have been quite a few tools and inscriptions and bones found in all the layers, even down to the cambrian.

Here's a hammer: http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/hammer/hammer.htm

Sorry but you can't just dismiss polystrate fossils. There are quite a few going through supposed millions of years of strata.

We've been told that stalactites and fossils take millions of years to form..it just proves what i am saying:

http://creation.com/stalactites-do-not-take-millions-of-years

Here's a fossil hat:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i3/fossil_hat.asp

Now go run off to talkorigins to try to find a refutation

>> ^Yogi:

How do you not put Alan Alda in the Tags?!


Or Scientific American Frontiers for that matter. That show was great.

The guy in this vid probably isn't Jearl Walker.

From www.straightdope.com


As a classroom demo of the Leidenfrost effect, former Scientific American columnist Jearl Walker dips his bare hand in water and then plunges it momentarily into a vat of molten lead, 700 degrees Fahrenheit. Says Jearl, who's even done this on Johnny Carson, "there is no classroom demonstration so riveting as one in which the teacher may die."

See it here!

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.channel&channelID=358705179