swansont

No, at least for any journal with which I have experience. You have a research grant, typically, from some source (could be government, industry, or private foundation or even individuals, depending on what you are doing). Journals are usually funded through subscriptions only, and not a very large subscription base, so they defray publication setup costs and administrative costs (or so I've always understood) by charging the authors a fee.

Another take on the topic And more

But these other sources radiate at other wavelengths, too. While they may account for the presence of some microwaves, they do not account for the microwaves being at 2.7 K, nor are they consistent with the lack of other background at the other wavelengths.

You mean for systolic and diastolic? That would seem fine.

I acquired a neck/shoulder problem from non-ergonomic equipment combined with less than perfect posture when I wrote my thesis (which would be 11 years ago). I had to get a fair amount of treatment when I was a postdoc, and it still flares up occasionally. The tedium was really the single-mindedness of it all — you had no other problems on which to work when you got stuck with the equivalent of writer's block. I agree pretty much with CharonY — the bulk of the write-up isn't/can't be done until you have finished the research. And one difficulty of writing papers is trying to be concise. At least in a thesis you have the ability to take the extra space if you need it, add in extra diagrams if they are helpful, etc. Many journals (with which I am familiar, at least) have page limits.

Probably. Tap water usually has impurities that would act as nucleation sites and would tend to prevent supercooling from happening.

The quote from the article mentions sexual dimorphism (not by name, though). What it doesn't do is quantify if that accounts for all of the difference in brain mass.

You don't appear to be asking for either one. You appear to be asking for people who agree with you. If Titor were real, then there really should be no mistakes. It's recent history, not future prediction for him. So a blatantly wrong item quashes the whole thing, like the US being in a civil war in 2005, starting with unrest around the 2004 elections and "a Waco type event every month" in '05. And no Olympics after 2004. There's no point in discussing things that are close to being right, when there is stuff that's wrong.

The freezing point does not, IIRC, vary much with pressure, so it should be possible to form ice at the slightly raised pressure you'd have in the container, which might break. All this is moot if there's an air bubble that could contract.

Carbonated drinks are a different breed, and can be subject to the following scenario: You have dissolved gas, which gives you some freezing point depression, which for beer is already lower because of the alcohol. When you pop the top and the CO2 comes out of solution, the freezing point rises, and now the temperature is below freezing, so the beer (or soda pop) freezes. (You may have supercooled it too, and the bubbles contribute by giving you nucleation sites, but that's not necessary)

[sarcasm]Oooh. Strife in the middle east. Nobody could have seen that coming, unless he was from the future.[/sarcasm]

Upon further review, I have to question some of the "reporting" that Mims did. He said it was a 45-minute lecture, with questions after, and yet he quotes only a few minutes of it. So how can he be sure the "vigorous applause" was for the ebola comment and not for the other 40 minutes of the lecture? Mims does admit "After a dramatic pause, Pianka returned to politics and environmentalism. But he revisited his call for mass death when he reflected on the oil situation." So it seems Pianka was discussing the politics and environmentalism of overpopulation, and only touched on his "solution." Obviously Pianka has some radical thoughts and I don't defend them, but perhaps he is resorting to an extreme view to get the point across that the human population on earth, and the growth trends, are unsustainable when compared to the resources we consume. Sometimes you have to shock people in order to get them to think about, and remember, things. Perhaps Pianka has a screw loose and really believes in his solution, but that doesn't mean the underlying problem doesn't exist. A problem is with the individuals who focus on the shock and don't see the broader picture; obviously the message is lost on them.

It was probably supercooled, and the disturbance allowed to freeze. Once a nucleation site was provided, the freezing propagated from there.

According to this fructose and glucose are the constituents of sucrose.

That doesn't seem to be the way that Milken is using it.

How do you describe the magnetic moment of a stationary point particle, such as the electron? There would also be geometric issues, like configurations where a torque is exerted, that cannot be explained solely by the electrostatic interaction.

Note that most soda pop is sweetened with fructose (fruit sugar, in the form of high-fructose corn syrup) and not dextrose (table sugar). I recall reading that fructose doesn't trigger the same "I'm full" response as dextrose, as well as not being metabolized in quite the same way, and this is thought by some to be one reason for the obesity epidemic.