Someone has written a book about how introducing rainbow trout to its non-native rivers around the world has (allegedly) been an ecological disaster.
I am not entirely convinced; they taste good, look nice, and don’t muddy the water.
Someone has written a book about how introducing rainbow trout to its non-native rivers around the world has (allegedly) been an ecological disaster.
I am not entirely convinced; they taste good, look nice, and don’t muddy the water.
Julia Gillard is undecided as to whether she will have a Twitter account. Please don’t.
This is just about the silliest thing I have heard a Christian lobby argue:
The pornography industry and the Christian conservative lobby have united in opposition to a proposal to create a new domain name catering specifically for pornography on the internet….
Australian Christian Lobby spokesman Lyle Shelton says the group opposes the new domain because it sees it as further legitimising the pornography industry.
"Anything which further mainstreams and legitimises the porn trade is obviously not a healthy thing for children," he said.
"It is not a healthy thing for the wider society because it just continues to take us down this path where profiting off naked young women continues to gather acceptance in our society and of course we are seeing the pornification of culture seeping into our everyday lives."
Further legitimising the porn industry! I would have thought having porn sites spread across all possible domains gives it an ease of access which should be much more of a concern for them than any alleged “legitimacy” rounding it up into one domain would create. In fact, the porn industry agrees with this lobby but for entirely the opposite reason: it doesn’t what an internet porn “ghetto” created, because people might be able to avoid it easier.
The porn industry also fears that conservative politicians, especially in the US, will seek to force all current porn into the new domain.
Well, I fail to see what the problem with that would be, apart from porn producers facing loss of revenue because it would make voluntarily filtering access to it much, much easier. In fact, now that I think of it, surely a lot of their revenue comes from people paying for access to the “quality” material, and how much of that goes on at work or in any place other than a guy’s house, late at night? In other words, maybe the feared loss of revenue is greatly exaggerated. And besides which, is there some reason I should be concerned that this industry might lose money?
I don’t see it should at all be a significant concern that different governments could have different standards for what they would want in .xxx. Surely it would be a major improvement even if only explicit sex was required to go there. I don’t see street protests going on about why XXX Adult bookshop material is not allowed into the front of the local newsagent. If a country tries to force too much into .xxx, its a matter for renewed debate about censorship and classification, and this is often a topic of some debate for movies and other material, for example. That it may become a debate in relation to internet content, big deal.
It’s not about preventing access to porn to any adult who wants it; its about making it much easier to prevent access to it in places it undoubted should not be, such as workplaces and the kid’s bedroom.
As for loss of value in existing .com porn address, whereby people could argue that they have lost an asset overnight, couldn’t that be partially addressed by having the .com name become a simple referral page to the new .xxx address for the same enterprise? Those who want to get to formerly .com material can still find it, just by one more click.
Unless there is some vital technical aspect to this I am missing, round it up, I say.
The German grid now gets more than 16 percent of its electricity from these sources, and the government has raised its target for 2020 from 20 percent to 30 percent. The country avoided pumping about 74 million metric tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere in 2009. The German environment ministry also touts a side benefit: nearly 300,000 new jobs in clean power.But on the other hand, some say:
..the German policy is a government boondoggle. "It's not surprising that if you throw enough money at a certain technology, people will use it," says Severin Borenstein, codirector of the Energy Institute at UC Berkeley's Haas School of Business. Yes, the incentives triggered a frenzy of renewable-power installations, but at "very high prices," says Henry Lee, director of the Environment and Natural Resources Program at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government. The spending on photovoltaics has been especially cost-inefficient in terms of producing power, Lee adds, because "Germany is the cloudiest country in Europe." Despite the weather, Germany now accounts for half the world's 20 gigawatts of installed solar capacity. "What that gets you," says Lee, "is high prices for electricity, locked in for 20 years, from technology that will be out of date within three years." Concludes Borenstein: "That's a failure of public policy."I do find it particularly odd that cloudy old (northern) Europe is the part of the world really going for solar. I remain sceptical of the wisdom of the program, although I presume it would all make more sense in places like the top half of Australia.
Ceramic Fuel Cells claims its Blue Gen unit is much more efficient than the current power grid where up to 80 per cent of the energy can be lost in transmission and it says the unit produces two thirds less carbon dioxide emissions than coal fired generators.Interestingly, the Greens think fuel cells should get feed in tariffs, and Senator Nick Xenophon points out that if the government is going to not pay feed in tariff for energy from natural gas, why do they pay renewable energy money on heat pump hot water systems, which run on electricity from coal? Fair point, and it certainly seems true that no single party has all the answers to sensible clean energy policy in Australia.
This is quite a surprising finding, I reckon:
Mothers who drink alcohol while they are pregnant may be damaging the fertility of their future sons, according to new research to be presented at the 26th annual meeting of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology in Rome today (Tuesday 29 June). Doctors in Denmark found that if mothers had drunk 4.5 or more drinks a week while pregnant, then the sperm concentration of their sons, measured about 20 years later, was a third lower in comparison to men who were not exposed to alcohol while in the womb.
The researcher is happy to be cautious about this study, though:
However, because this is an observational study we cannot say for certain that the alcohol causes the lower sperm concentrations. It is possible that drinking alcohol during pregnancy has a harmful effect on the foetal semen-producing tissue in the testes – and thereby on semen quality in later life – but our study is the first of its kind, and more research within this area is needed before any causal link can be established or safe drinking limits proposed.
But, if it turns out to be true, it might be the (or at least part of the) answer to the question of why semen quality seems to have been on the decline globally in recent years:
"If further research shows that maternal alcohol consumption is a cause of reduced semen concentration in male offspring, then we are a bit closer to an explanation of why semen quality may have decreased during the last decades and why it differs between populations. If exposure to alcohol in foetal life causes poor semen quality in adult life, we would expect that populations with many pregnant women drinking, possibly heavily, in pregnancy would have lower fertility in comparison with populations of where pregnant women do not drink."
I'm not entirely sure I would enjoy drinking a pint of beetroot juice, but this must be good news for any farmer that particularly enjoys growing this vegetable.A study in the US journal Hypertension found that blood pressure was reduced within 24 hours in people who drank beetroot juice or took nitrate tablets.
The higher the blood pressure, the greater the impact of the nitrates.
This research suggests there is hope of using a more "natural" approach to bring down blood pressure. Nitrates are found in a number of vegetables.
A previous study found that drinking a pint of beetroot juice lowered blood pressure significantly in people with normal blood pressure.
Bettina Arndt (who, incidentally, has been married twice herself) comes out with a rather conservative take on the question of the role model effect of Julia Gillard being in a de facto relationship. I agree with all of it. Some extracts:
It's fine for Gillard - a 48-year-old woman - to live with her bloke. Yet as a popular role model for women, her lifestyle choice may influence other women into making big mistakes about their lives.
Cohabitation produces two groups of losers among women and children. Most women want to have children - Gillard is an exception - and some miss out after wasting their primary reproductive years in a succession of live-in relationships which look hopeful but go nowhere, leaving them childless and partnerless as they hit 40….
While the de facto lifestyle leads some women to miss out on having children, others are taking the risk of becoming parents despite these unstable relationships. A growing proportion of children is now born to de facto couples - up from less than 3 per cent in 1975 to 12 per cent in 2000, according to data from the Household Income and Labour Dynamics Survey.
It is often assumed these children will provide the glue to keep de facto relationships together, but sadly this is not so. David de Vaus, a sociology professor from La Trobe University, found cohabiting couples who have children are more like to break up than married parents, increasing their risk of the negative impacts of family breakdown.
She then makes this good point:
Yes, I used to like that about John Howard. We all knew Paul Keating was personally conservative on the matter of gay marriage, for example, but he was politically constrained from saying it out loud. No such problem for John Howard.Politicians today rarely question social trends, even when all the evidence is they are having negative social consequences. John Howard was the rare exception, when he went into bat for a child's rights to a father in the debate over single mothers and IVF.
As for Julia: I think it is fair to say that very few people would take her relationship status as a reason for not voting for her. However, it should be no shock, and a matter of social benefit, if she did marry her partner now or soon after winning an election. I mean, she would be simply following a pattern that many others have, and I don’t see that it should be seen as a betrayal of feminist principles. The fact that it would annoy some feminists is just an added benefit as far as I am concerned.
Graham Richardson writes scathingly of K Rudd, the former PM now ordered to take a rest by Dr Julia*:
YOU didn't need a poll to know this tax was going down like a shower of the proverbial. Everybody from Julia Gillard down told Kevin Rudd the resource super profits tax was killing him and the government. But he wouldn't listen. He never listened. This genius actually believed he was the font of all wisdom.
No one moved against Rudd merely because he treated colleagues with total disdain. But it ensured that when the challenge came, success could be achieved at record pace. The margin, had a ballot occurred, would have been embarrassingly large. Faction leaders didn't make caucus members hate Rudd; no, that was all Kevin's own work.
Hate, by the way, was the right description. From lowly backbenchers to cabinet ministers, I have never come across such loathing towards a leader before, let alone a leader who achieved the biggest swing to Labor since World War II at the 2007 election.
* I wish someone would tell him to take a break from twittering, too. All normal people over 50 should have the appropriately disdainful attitude to that silly use of the internet, but I’ll take it as a sign of vanity that Kevin doesn’t stop.
Hmm. Kant keeps making an appearance in stuff I read lately. Here he is again, in the context of new science about how rat brains get spatial cognition. Cool.
A somewhat interesting article appeared in The Age recently about the Australian aborigines mythological bunyip. I don’t recall reading this specific theory before:
Australian Museum naturalist George Bennett was first to suggest formally (in 1871) that the bunyip might be an indigenous cultural memory of extinct Australian megafauna, passed down through oral tradition. By 1991, the authors of Vertebrate Palaeontology of Australasia were postulating that, "When confronted with the remains of some of the now extinct Australian marsupials, Aborigines would often identify them as the bunyip."
And in 1998, geologist Greg McNamara told Australian Geo-graphic magazine his theory that the remembered bunyip was actually a prehistoric turtle, Meiolania prisca, "a most impressive beast" up to two metres long with a metre-long, bony club tail and curved 25-centimetre horns.
Howden reveals that Crowe had been originally ‘‘earmarked’’ to play the title role in Shakespeare in Love (1998), but then had problems with the script and decided not to be involved. Which is any actor’s prerogative, of course. But then Crowe continues: ‘‘I was f---ing right about that movie too. It was a 100 per cent f---ing home run, except the central character of William Shakespeare was not a f---ing writer ... He was some prissy pretty boy. What the f---? That’s so disrespectful.’’LOL, as they say.
Quite a surprise here as to how the sun may affect electronics to a much greater degree than previously realised:
Relatively minor space storms now appear to be behind a range of mysterious mishaps - railway signals malfunctioning in Archangel province in north-western Russia, for example, between 2000 and 2005. A study led by Eugenia Eroshenko of the Pushkov Institute of Terrestrial Magnetism, Ionosphere and Radio Wave Propagation in Troitsk, Russia, examined episodes when signals turned red for minutes or even hours though the track ahead was clear, then spontaneously reverted to green.
Eroshenko's team found that 16 malfunctions of this sort observed between 2000 and 2005 coincided with space storms (Advances in Space Research, DOI: 10.1016/j.asr.2010.05.017). "We were surprised by such a clear correlation," Eroshenko says…
As for transformers:
Intense power surges due to big space storms can heat transformers enough within minutes to damage the insulation needed to prevent short circuits, which can cause them to explode.
More recently, there are signs that transformers can be destroyed by smaller currents over a period of hours or more. A long-lasting 2003 space storm delivered only relatively low-intensity currents to the South African power grid, but damaged several transformers anyway, notes US-based storm analysis consultant John Kappenman.
The results are preliminary, but appear in the Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry (sounds legit):
Applying magnets to the brains of Alzheimer's disease sufferers helps them understand what is said to them. The finding by Italian scientsts, who conducted a randomised controlled trial of the treatment, suggests that magnets may alter "cortical activity" in the brain, readjusting unhealthy patterns caused by disease or damage. The study was small, involving just 10 patients, and the results are preliminary.
Surprising, but it's not as if it was just a matter of putting magnets in a headband:
For the latest study, Maria Costelli and colleagues applied repetitive TMS – a rapid succession of magnetic pulses – to the prefrontal lobes of the Alzheimer's patients for 25 minutes at a time. Half the patients received daily doses five days a week for four weeks and half received a dummy treatment for two weeks followed by two weeks of TMS. Tests showed that those who had the full course of TMS had significantly higher scores on comprehension of what was said to them – up from 66 per cent to 77 per cent. The improvement was still evident eight weeks after treatment. The authors say the technique did not affect other language abilities or other cognitive functions, including memory, which suggests that it is "specific to the language domain of the brain when applied to the prefrontal lobes".
Clare's acid trips, which she recorded in her papers now at the Library of Congress, were of the garden variety. She sorts mosaic glass by her swimming pool. She entertains herself looking through a kaleidoscope. During a March 11, 1959, trip, Richard Nixon telephoned Clare at her Phoenix home. An active Republican who served in Congress and as an ambassador, Clare declined to speak to Nixon. How history might have changed if she had shared a little acid with him!It could have been a stranger conversation than the one Nixon had with Elvis.
MORE than 35 years after Prince Charles opened Australia's biggest optical telescope - a joint venture between our two nations to explore the southern skies - we are bidding goodbye to the Brits.
From next month, the Anglo-Australian Observatory near the NSW town of Coonabarabran will become the Australian Astronomical Observatory.
Its director, Matthew Colless, said the decades of collaboration with Britain had led to many big discoveries about the universe, including a measurement of the matter it contains.
But 100 per cent ownership of the observatory's four-metre telescope, which is still ranked highly in the world, would open up new opportunities for research in the coming decade.
I’ve been there once in the late 1980’s, and I recall it as having a pretty good visitor centre. Somewhere in a drawer I probably have a photo, but here’s one from the web.