Ethics doesn't even come into the argument until we know whether it will actually work, and work without any negative consequences.

There are just too many variables in nature to test something like this completely in a lab.

*ban
EdVinci Innovation Labs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miuF0QdsvMU

Science "works" when scientists bother to actually try to replicate claims, no matter how bizarre they may be. And as this video and my comment shows, that's not happening in a number of scientific fields. Which is really, really bad for human knowledge and society in general, as billions of dollars and countless work-hours get wasted since researchers base future research on what turn out to be unreliable past claims.

The "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" flies in the face of everything the scientific method espouses. Evidence is evidence. It is not supposed to matter who finds the evidence. Someone who is famous in the field should not be given more benefit of the doubt than someone who is not, yet that is exactly what happened in Shectman's case. He was removed from his lab and an actual expert in the field, Linus Pauling, verbally abused him for literally decades.

That's not how science is supposed to work at all. If someone finds evidence of something that contradicts current theory, you're supposed to look at their methodology for flaws. If you can't find any flaws, then the scientific method demands you attempt to replicate the experiment to validate it. You're not supposed to dismiss evidence out of hand because the person who found it isn't a leading expert in the field. In Shectman's case, other labs replicated his results and the "experts" still wouldn't budge... to this day in fact Pauling refuses to admit he was wrong.

Conversely, there are too many papers out there now with shoddy methodology that shouldn't even be published, yet because the author is a name in the field they somehow make it into top-tier journals and get cited constantly despite the dubious nature of the research. Again, that's not how science is supposed to work.

"Spurious bullshit," as you called it, is not being weeded out. Rather it is being foisted on others as "fact" because Dr. XYZ who is renowned in the field did the experiment and no one looked closely enough at it or bothered to try to replicate it. The spurious bullshit should be getting weeded out by actual scientific testing (like the studies in the video that were found to be unreliable) and not by mob mentality.

That thing about "best friend"? I have been saying that EXACT THING for years.

And not just about who pays for a date. It is for all aspects of the relationship. If I wouldn't put up with certain crap from a friend, why would I from a fella?

Side note -- never have I been in an abusive relationship. I wonder why that is?

But I know I am wired differently.

Long before feminism was a big important concept to me, I went on my first date with a young man I didn't know well.

I was 13 years old, in 1967. We went to a matinee at the local movie theater. Fifty cents a ticket.

I remember standing behind him in line, as he awkwardly paid, and I awkwardly didn't know what to do or say.

And my main thought was -- I have a job. I can afford my own ticket. (I cleaned test tubes in the junior high science lab. I still have sense memories of moldy agar in a petri dish.)

I never got over that. I still feel that way. Go ahead and treat me to something special that you can afford. Next time, it'll be my turn to pick the activity and I'll pick something I can afford.

I was lousy at dating. But I was clear about the basic equality necessary in order to respectful to both of us.

11 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

This video has been declared a duplicate by the original submitter; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof declared by eric3579.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Graffiti-Research-Lab-The-Movie

Probably, but there are all kinds of clear coating. They could develop one with minimal reflective properties and minimal absorptive properties, but you're right, even then it would decrease the effectiveness, but maybe not so much that it would lose it's usefulness.

I think in most applications, the nano fibers are encased in resins or other chemicals that cause them to clump together, making them much safer (note that I don't say "making them safe").
In pure powder form, yeah, they're a bit scary to have something that can float in air that can also burst cell walls. I always used a facemask and gloves when I was in his "lab", and even so I'm sure I was contaminated. Now I wish I had worn a full anti-contamination suit.

I still remember when I downloaded qtestx86 for Linux and playing it in a college's computer lab's computer with no sound card on LAN. It was on a Sunday night too. It was SO rad.

It doesn't matter if you or the lab assistant go back first after the first crossing, though - the line "you, as the quickest, run back with the Lantern" doesn't make sense.

Your video, Big Yellow Lab Meets Tiny Baby Bunny, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 4 Badge!

*ban
Words Worth English Language Lab
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CiOzDjeRW_Q

There was a meth lab on the 6th floor.

Just sayin.

If you ever need to give a dog a pill, just stuff the pill into a spoonful of peanut butter. We did it for 14 years with our lab.