Lucky Heather

Posted by Mark on Apr 25, 2013 | 0 Comments

“Lucky heather?”

The voice cuts through the general white noise of mumbled conversations, shop music spillage, and distant street-busking and traffic, slowing my determined lunchtime strolling through the precinct. I glance at the area in which the voice originated; it’s a woman, older than me, shorter than me, and holding more plantlife than me in an outstretched hand. And she’s started to smile, I’m guessing because I’ve paid her some attention.

“Lucky heather?” she says again, edging towards me and forcing a couple of other pedestrians to swerve out of her way swiftly and with a barely-concealed look in my direction that says sucker from every angle.

I lean towards her and then peer down at the sprig of flora gripped tightly in her small hand. The non-green bits are a pale mauve sort of colour but my knowledge of anything to do with nature is so poor that I can’t be certain that this isn’t dandelions with a lick of paint. Or even just dandelions. Maybe you can get mauve dandelions. I’m trying to clarify just how little I know about the subject.

“What is it,” I say slowly, “about this heather that gives it a probabilistic advantage over other heather?”

“Lucky heather!” she says with a wink. “Two quid.”

“Uh huh,” I continue. “I’m just wondering if you have any peer-reviewed analyses of double-blind trials conducted on the luckiness of this type of heather.”

“What?”

“Have the findings of any research performed on heather variants to determine whether some have a correlation with statistically relevant improved luck appeared in a peer-reviewed publication?”

The happy look has most definitely been replaced by one filled with irritation and confusion and it seems to suit her round face better. I begin to feel sorry for her and consider parting with two whole English pounds, justifying the transaction in my head as being one that might permit me to run a few scientific experiments on the mauve flowers later when I feel a tap on my shoulder.

“Fortuitous dock leaf?” asks the scruffy, scrawny, bearded man behind me. He waves a rather sad-looking bit of greenery at me. I take a quick, deep breath in preparation to ask him a pertinent question but the newcomer lifts up a glossy magazine. “19% more fortuitous than other leaves in clinical trials in Canada according to Leaf Science Quarterly,” he adds. I’ve heard of Leaf Science Quarterly and know it’s got a good reputation in the field of scientific leaf analysis.

Moments later I’ve exchanged two pounds for a dock leaf almost overflowing with fortune but that still leaves the forlorn-looking woman and her clump of wildlife. I reach into my pocket but realise I’m out of change and don’t really want to break into any of the tenners in my wallet.

“Not your lucky day,” I tell her.

Star Trek And Mrs Thatcher

Posted by Mark on Apr 14, 2013 | 0 Comments

Former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher died this week and the world went a little crazy.

It’s been a week that’s seen British people partying in the streets because an old woman died of a stroke. It’s been a week that’s seen people who assert that they are rational, skeptical people liken Margaret Thatcher to Robert Mugabe. It’s been a week that’s tested my ability to hold my tongue and walk away in order to keep some semblance of peace and friendship with those who engage in and support the most vile of human actions. And anyone who knows me knows how difficult that has been.

Too difficult. I need to vent a smidge. Fortunately, I have my own website for just this purpose.

Almost universally, I would say that my friends and peers would describe themselves politically as left wing. I imagine that if any of them had considered it, based on arguments or discussions we’ve had in the past, they might think that I’m right wing. But they’re wrong. This belief that I am right wing might have been reinforced from the way I immediately started attacking those who celebrated the death of Mrs Thatcher. And it’s still wrong. And even though I voted Conservative in the last election it’s still wrong to think I’m right wing. I vote for the best candidate to fix the mess the last one made or to limit future damage; in recent years I’ve voted Labour and Liberal Democrats for the same reasons. Anyone who votes for the same party time after time without realising that the party’s politics are changing time after time is a complete moron.

I do believe in very liberal attitudes where it comes to society. And I do think that everyone deserves the chance to be what they want to be and get what they need. It all sounds very socialist; it all sounds left wing. And it is. I want the Star Trek future of peace and no wants.

But I realise we’re living in the wrong time for it. The best we can do is push the species forward towards that goal and hope to catch some of it before our molecules break apart and move into new homes. And to do that we need to prosper and innovate and improve the standards of life, lifting everything and everyone up around us. Keep at it and eventually we’ll get over that tipping point where everyone wins.

So, how does this differ from those people who sentimentally hold to the fiction that Margaret Thatcher single-handedly destroyed their lives three decades ago or some other such nonsense? Don’t they want a future of no wants too? Yes, they do, but only so long as nobody prospers more than anyone else. Instead of lifting everyone up to a better standard they’d rather everyone dropped down to the lowest common denominator of living; if anyone were better off than anyone else then that person would be privileged and that just won’t do. No, no, far better to give people work that makes no sense and take from those that would benefit the country to offset the difference. Far better to keep the country in poverty so everyone suffers rather than give anyone any incentive to better themselves. Far better to stifle progress in the name of equality. Let people do what they want and if that happens to be not enough to survive or live at exactly the same standard as everyone else then just take away from someone who’s worked a little harder or smarter.

This is that wonderful world that Margaret Thatcher destroyed. A world where everyone has a job, no matter how pointless, unless they don’t want that job or unless they want to get more for their job than actually makes sense. Isn’t it a wonderful place? A place where there is no aspiration and no competition for anything. Your tablet PCs and smartphones? Choice? No need for any of that! One size fits all! Personal possessions? Precious few! What’s the point?

Nobody really thinks we’d still be living like that without Thatcher, of course. The world changed and as a country we would have changed too no matter who was nominally in charge but we wouldn’t be where we are now. We’d probably be where Greece or Spain is, only without the nice weather. That blast of capitalist greed and fast expansion under Mrs Thatcher’s stewardship, however, was just what the country and the world needed to set us on the path to that Star Trek future I want; there are similarities to Isaac Asimov’s Foundation novels here, too: a bit of pain now to bring about a better life for our descendants.

In the Thatcher years and since then we’ve all been granted the chance to make a success for ourselves and make our lives better. Some people don’t want that. Some people want to be given everything for nothing and they look to blame anything and anybody they can for their own inherent laziness.

These sorts of people:

You know: scum.

I neither liked nor disliked Margaret Thatcher and her policies; some were good and some were bad because that’s the way the world works and sometimes you’re on one side and sometimes you’re on the other. Everyone’s going to have different viewpoints – I get that – and people are going to disagree with mine and come up with their own fantasy of what might have been and what might yet come to pass. Good for them! Hopefully, they’ll have their own website and can write about it too. It might even be compelling enough to cause me to question my opinions on this subject.

Just one thing, though: there is no chance in hell that I would ever want to live in the Union of Soviet Socialist Planets, flying from world to world in the USS Ken Livingstone. I’m just saying.

Professor Brian Cox, Drunk in Borneo

Posted by Mark on Jan 27, 2013 | 9 Comments

Professor Brian Cox‘s latest programme for the BBC starts tonight. Wonders of Life follows the programme formula showcased in Wonders of the Solar System and Wonders of the Universe taking Brian across the globe in a bid to explain the complexity, simplicity, and beauty of the evolutionary process and the way in which life came into being on the planet. It will be shown in HD so for those couple of people recently searching to see if Brian Cox wears a wig that will be your best chance to get close to the screen and make your own mind up (hint: would he really choose one that looks like that?)

I caught up with Brian during a break in filming in Borneo and talked to him about the wonders of life. As we were (and still are) both men it was necessary for us to get out the alcohol in order to discuss a matter this emotive.

Brian: Vodka means ‘little water’. Did you know that? Did you?! You need water for life. I think. So… vodka!

Me: Vodka!

Brian: Vodka! Wait! Water for life… water of life! Think about it chum!

Me: Isn’t that whiskey?

Brian: Oh, you’re only fucking right! You’re right you are! You know what? You are right! Let’s make some whiskey!

Me: Whiskey! Do we have the ingredients for whiskey?

Brian: Whiskey has taken millions and millions and billions of years to form… What did you say?

Me: Are we making whiskey or what?

Brian: Vodka!

Me: What?

Brian: Vodka and tea and me! I can distill whiskey. Don’t look at me like that! I’m a theoretical physician… physical… scientist! Watch!

Me: Well, you are a bloody wonder.

Brian: I see what you did there ya cheeky monkey!

Me: Heh! Now I’ve seen everything. What sort of whiskey is it?

Brian: It’s quite peaty. I was eating soil earlier.

Me: Right. Why?

Brian: There’s life in soil.

Me: You’re weird. Has anyone ever told you you’re weird?

Brian: No. Nope. Yes. My wife. And you. That’s two!

Me: I’ll drink to that! Champagne!

Brian: Down the hatch!

Me: Skol!

Brian: Do they still make Skol? I have not had Skol in years.

Me: Do you want some Skol? I think you can probably get some because you’re a famous physicist…

Brian: That’s the word I was looking for!

Me: … but Borneo may not be a great market for weak beer. Might have to helicopter some in.

Brian: I don’t want any Skol but I do like helicopters.

Me: What are we talking about?

Brian: Hey! There’s some WKD Blue behind the counter!

Me: Whoa! Man! Put that down! You and I and you are not ready for that!

Brian: I don’t know… it’s pretty and blue. Blue. We’re on a blue planet.

Me: I haven’t watched Blue Peter in years.

Brian: I wonder what Janet Ellis is up to these days.

Me: Ha ha! I see what you did there! Oh look! There’s an orang utan back there!

Brian: Let’s go ride him!

Me: Brian! Leave him alone! Brian! He’s not worth it! Oh! Ew! Oh, we are so going to need that helicopter now.

Neptune’s Moons

Posted by Mark on Jan 19, 2013 | 0 Comments

Reproduced with permission from the neOnbubble Know You Some Science series of student learning guides.

What is Neptune?

Neptune is the outermost planet in our solar system. Pluto used to sometimes be the outermost planet (its orbit and that of Neptune crossed over occasionally) but it was relegated from the list of planets after going into administration during the recession of the early 21st century.

Neptune is a gas giant world named after the Roman god of the sea and the first planet to be detected using mathematics rather than eyeballs. Its presence was later confirmed by eyeballs because nobody trusts mathematics. Oh, mathematics says it’s your friend and it will turn up but then it lets you down.

What is a moon?

A moon – or satellite – is a body that has been captured gravitationally by a planetary body. Moons typically orbit planets trying to gather enough speed to escape the pull of the planet to which they’re bound because only by being set free can they possibly hope to be re-classified as a rogue or dwarf planet of their own and that’s where the big money sponsorship deals are made.

What are Neptune’s moons?

Neptune has thirteen known moons but most of them are small and boring. Here are some of the more interesting ones:

Triton

Triton is the largest of Neptune’s moons and is named for the god of the sea’s most-treasured possession, the trident. The person who did the naming had a cold, though, and was misheard on the phone.

Triton orbits Neptune in the opposite direction to all the other satellites. Some people believe that this is because Triton is an artificial construct put in place to determine whether we have advanced as a species far enough to question the absurdity of its presence. But these people are nutcases. More likely, Triton is simply a non-conformist rebelling against the man.

Triton’s surface is mostly chalk. It couldn’t be more different from our moon, although that’s not because our moon is made of cheese; it’s simply that our moon’s surface isn’t mostly chalk.

Proteus

Photographed by Voyager 2 in 1989 as it passed Neptune and its moons, this picture shows Proteus, the largest of Neptune’s satellites after Triton. Proteus has an irregular shape as it is still growing but in time it will become a beautiful, spherical moon just like all the other great moons in the solar system.

The black dots on the image do not actually exist on the surface of Proteus. In 1989 Voyager 2 had attained level 2 of sentience and was attempting to encourage its creators back on Earth to play dots and boxes with it. NASA scientists do not play dots and boxes.

Thalassa

Thalassa is the second innermost of Neptune’s moons and irregularly-shaped (as shown in the simulated image above). It is composed of the re-accreted rubble of other moons that have been torn apart by Triton as it shows no respect for its siblings in its headlong rampage around Neptune in a retrograde orbit.

Thalassa’s orbit is unstable and it will eventually plummet into Neptune’s atmosphere. This has given Thalassa a rather bleak outlook on life but it has channelled some of those feelings into writing dark poetry that some critics have rated very highly. Not me, though. I think it’s emo rubbish.

Daphne

Daphne is the moon of Neptune nobody else talks about. Named by its discoverer Nigel Hamstring in 1983 allegedly for the naiad in Greek mythology it later transpired that the amateur astronomer has also tried and failed to name a comet for Scrappy Doo, an asteroid after Velma, and a stellar nursery near Cygnus “The Mystery Machine”. As punishment all references to the moon were stricken from official records.

The Surface Of Mars

Posted by Mark on Jan 13, 2013 | 0 Comments

Mars, home of Smash-loving robots and warlike creatures susceptible to coughs and the music of Slim Whitman, also known as the red planet. Because it’s red. Just a lot of red dust and rocks and mountains under a sorta pale-reddish sky. A handful of Rovers from Earth here and there, a little bit of ice on the caps, but mostly red, right?

Not so right.

Get your inquisitive, helpful self along to Planet Four and you’ll get access to one heck of a load of pictures taken of the surface of Mars from the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter. These photos will show different areas of the planet over the course of a year and the formations of carbon dioxide blotches or fans as the seasons alter. By analysing these images you’ll be able to aid in the mapping of wind patterns across Mars. You’ll be helping science!

Here: have some more pictures from Mars!

Below we can see the famed Spotted Dick Plateau on Mars.

These markings in the next picture look a little like tiger stripes but it would be crazy to think that Mars ever needed a means to camouflage itself among long grass when stalking prey. These are far more likely to be giant worm trails.

Vast plains covered in dried, cracked parchment. Were the ancient Martians trying to write a message that we could read across the vast distance of space. We may never know for sure but let’s assume so.

Scientists won’t confirm whether the regular channels in this next picture of Mars indicate the presence of cultivation in Martian history. But they won’t deny it either. Mostly, they won’t answer my calls.

And here we can clearly see that the native Martians have constructed a side-on portrait of one of their kings; Martians, it appears, have two mouths, probably adapted so that one can speak while the other one eats some lovely, lovely, red Mars dust.

Did I say that you should head along to Planet Four? I thought so. So why are you still reading this?

Previously, In Science

Posted by Mark on Oct 20, 2012 | 0 Comments

A round up of recent science news stories and my take on them.

Let’s start with this article from the BBC: Big Bang: Is there room for God?

Perhaps a padded one so he doesn’t hurt himself. Otherwise, I’m going to go with no on this story.

The general gist, though, is that some physicists, theologians, and philosophers got together to talk about what happened before the Big Bang. This is never going to be a productive meeting and will only ever end up with the the rational members either saying something to offend the loonies or backing down to appease the nutjobs and end the round-and-round-the-facts game being played. You might as well replace “theologians” with “reptilian overlord conspiracy theorists” for all the good ever bringing them to a discussion about things that actually exist are concerned. And as for philosophers: I’ve sat through some talks with philosophers and I’ve got a real problem with them (you’d never guess). Just like theologians their whole essence of being is in talking about unknowable concepts. Endlessly. Question them on anything and all you get is “are you sure?” with a knowing smile. Demonstrate that what they’re saying is gibberish and you’ll get a reworking of the same point of view in order to make it more vague than it already was. It’s the antithesis of science where contradictory evidence is followed by refinement or discarding. Gah!

Next, an Earth-sized planet has been discovered pretty close by in Galactic Terms (always in proper case, always italicised): Alpha Centauri has a planet!

The planet orbits close in to Alpha Cen B, and is technically called Alpha Centauri Bb – planets have lower case letters assigned to them, starting at b. Its mass is only 1.13 times the Earth’s mass, making this one of the lower mass planets yet found! But don’t get your hopes up of visiting it – its period is only 3.24 days, meaning it must be only about 6 million kilometers (less than 4 million miles) from its star. Even though Alpha Cen B is a bit cooler than the Sun, this still means the planet is baking hot, far too hot to sustain any kind of life as we know it, or even liquid water.

Even though it’s close enough to visit with today’s technology within a lifetime I’m always impressed by the science behind even making finds like this. Consider this: if our sun were a bowling ball then Earth would be a pea about twenty metres away. Look up at the night sky and find Alpha Centauri; it’s smaller than a bowling ball. It’s smaller than a pea. It’s smaller than a pea at arm’s length. Even if you’ve got really long arms like the model for the jumper I just bought apparently had (we’re not all bloody orang utans!). It’s tiny. And it’s got something near it that’s that much smaller still. And we can spot it from Earth. How freaking cool is that? We are so smart.

Finally…

What do Todd Akin (republican politician, that there United States of America), Joe Walsh (republican politician, that there United States of America), and Jeremy Hunt (conservative politician, brand new Cockney rhyming slang, this here United Kingdom of Englandland) have in common?

They’re all politicians, yes, and they’re all in right wing parties, yes, and they’re all men (awaiting results of invasive surgical tests hopefully). More importantly, they’re all science-illiterate morons in positions of power to do real damage. Not one of them knows a damn thing about women (okay, most men don’t know much but give us a break, we do try to find out) but each of them has an outspoken idea on how their bodies should be controlled. Conception through rape? It’s a myth! Abortions are sometimes absolutely necessary to save a woman’s life? I don’t think so girlfriend! It’s important that the amount of time to make a decision to carry a sprog to fruition (I’m not really up to date with the modern terms for childbirth) is halved for best results? You betcha!

Great advances in space (we’d get more with some funding, of course) coupled with great strides backwards on planet Earth. We are so stupid.

Honey, Superbugs, and Bullshit

Posted by Mark on Aug 19, 2012 | 0 Comments

Just the other day I saw someone post a link to a site called RiseEarth and to an article in particular titled Mysterious Honey Discovered That Kills All Bacteria Scientists Throw At It. Being someone with something of a scientific mind this attracted my attention immediately; a natural ingredient, I thought, that can kill all known bacteria. Could it be? Or even bee? Yes, I think puns in my head. But, even as I thought those three words “could it be?” a simultaneous thought – since I’m also someone with a skeptical mind – also raised a hand, waved a little for attention, and spoke up: not bloody likely.

So, to the article about bacteria-killing honey then!

Oh dear. Health food shops. Immediate red flag. Maybe it’s okay, maybe it’s still genuine.

Far from being an obscure health food with dubious healing qualities, new research has shown the honey kills every type of bacteria scientists have thrown at it, including the antibiotic-resistant ‘superbugs’ plaguing hospitals and killing patients around the world.

That’s better. That’s certainly alleviating some concerns. Because my initial thought was that this actually was an obscure health food with dubious healing qualities. But apparently it isn’t. Good, good. Assuming I take it at its word, which I don’t, but let’s carry on.

Professor [Dee] Carter’s two sons, Marty, 8 and Nicky, 6, think it’s funny the way their mother puts honey on their sores. But she swears by it, telling stories of how quickly it cures any infection. [...] The curative properties of various types of honey have been known to indigenous cultures for thousands of years, and dressing wounds with honey was common before the advent of antibiotics.

Uh oh. On the one hand that’s a real professor (see (not much bee research going on there, though)). On the other hand backing up the scientific claim with one sentence about kids relating to their mother’s way of treating wounds and another talking about remedies from antiquity… ooh, that’s another, massive red flag.

At this point I was distracted by some of the other articles on the RiseEarth website. These articles include:

• Area 51 Builds Massive Alien Pyramid
• Illuminati Occult Symbolism in London’s Olympic Closing Ceremony
• How Hemp Oil Cures Cancer And Why No One Knows

If you were a manufacturer of red flags then right now you’d be doing a roaring trade as I’d be buying up all your stock. I don’t think I need to fully explain why it’s best not to take an article about the antibacterial superpower of honey seriously on a website that spotted a UFO during the closing ceremony of the Olympics while the rest of us, apparently, had our memories wiped by the Illuminati Door-to-Door Yeti Fluoride-In-Water Injector Warriors or something.

Back to the increasingly unlikely story about honey killing superbugs and, at the bottom of the page are the comments from regular readers of that site. Of course comments on an article won’t support or dispute any of the “facts” from the article but in this particular instance they are funny. To me.

LN’s child has not been sick since taking Manuka honey, the thing that cured the infections of the child right at the end of a month of actual medicine. That sounds impressive if you’re easily impressed. But wait! Wait a minute! It also cures LN’s sore throat within a day or two. I find that a little strange. I find that when I get a sore throat it also clears up in a day or two without honey or any special treatment at all, but that’s not the really strange thing. Why is LN getting a sore throat at all? LN is taking Manuka honey every day! LN’s child hasn’t been sick since, but LN still gets a sore throat sometimes and the honey that LN takes all the time anyway is then apparently responsible for clearing up the thing that it allowed to develop in the first place. That’s amazing! And by amazing I mean, of course, that’s preposterous.

Naturally, honey also cures cancer (although it’s a secret so don’t tell anyone). Of course it does. Why wouldn’t it? When you can kill all known bacteria just by beeing bee ejaculation it’s a small step indeed to destroying cancer, reversing AIDS, and turning cholera into the fun infection that makes kids smile. Cannabis also cures cancer but only since 1974 when, apparently, it was gene-spliced with a honeybee; this we learn from a man whose advice is to only do the “safer” drugs, which just so happens to be anything illegal. Okay then.

And to the wonderfully dubious bee article once more. At the bottom – above the comments – there is a link. A link to a source article. Let’s see where this leads us to Pakalert Press. It’s the same article, word-for-word so no need to analyse it but what about Pakalert? A science site, perhaps? What does the “about” page say?

Prophesies from many traditions from all over the world over speak of a great transformative shift that is happening in the years around 2012. The Mayan calendar comes to a close on December 21st 2012. The Q’ero Shamans of Peru speak of this same timeframe in their prophecy called Pacha Kuti which is the time in which they say that the luminous ones will return and the world will be turned right side up again.

Nutjobs.

But even that article has a source.

Incredibly, astonishingly, astoundingly… it’s a real news website! It’s The Australian. So after all this perhaps there is some credibility to the notion that honey can really kill bacteria and superbugs! Not so fast! Firstly, it’s a newspaper, not a science journal. Secondly, it still reads like utter bullshit. Thirdly, the article was published in 2009 so if there had been some truth to it then why has nothing happened since? Pakalert and RiseEarth will probably implicate the reptilians in charge of big pharma at this point if I’m any judge of whackos.

Did anyone else talk about honey and superbugs in 2009? A quick search says yes:

National Geographic, the Independent, and the BBC among a few unknowns. But nothing new from any of them. Actually, a lot of the same words just with different people in many cases and a lot of references to other websites reporting on the “facts” of the research rather than anything directly to the research itself. In fact, here’s a challenge: find the actual, published, peer-reviewed, scientific research! Go on! I’ll wait.

I got bored of waiting so went ahead and searched for honey and superbugs in 2008. Even more results! And David Icke was talking about it too so it must be (what’s the word I’m looking for? Oh yes!) hilarious!

So, yes, 2008 was quite the year for talking about bees defeating bacteria with their poo. 2007? Yes. 2006? Yes, yes. And so it goes on and on and on. I could pick literally thousands of examples of this incredible story of science appearing every single year of this century. You might wonder why this story keeps appearing over and over. You might wonder why the BBC for instance might produce two articles nine years apart that look this:

The answer to the latter question is that the BBC – like all news organisations (even reputable ones) – employs journalists and editors who are lazy bastards. I don’t mean that in a conspiracy theory way though. There’s not a concerted effort to only employ lazy bastards. However, if the people behind RiseEarth and Pakalert want to run with that tale then you kids go right ahead! Ya scamps!

That answer also ties in with the answer to the first question; why does this so-called science breakthrough in Wales and Australasia keep cropping up time and time again? It’s called marketing. You or I might also refer to it as bullshit. Somebody has a job and that job is to send out slightly-reworded copies of the same “scientific” press release to news outlets every year relying on the inherent laziness of those organisations to check facts and the need of those people in the organisations to publish something to justify their existence in order to get some free advertising.

So, where does that leave us? Do bees make honey? That part is true. Does it kill all known bacteria including superbugs terrorising hospitals with their horrible MRSA ways? Not a snowball’s chance in hell.

Previously, In Science

Posted by Mark on Aug 12, 2012 | 0 Comments

Okay, this is another attempt by me to force my hand at updating the site regularly without relying solely on posts automatically coming in from Google+ as everyone likes variety. Well, I like variety anyway and I’m the one who really counts here.

So, a frequent (let’s not pretend it’s going to be regular because I think we all know me well enough by now to know that’s not going to happen) update about recent happenings in the world of science will begin today. Why science? Because it’s one of the categories I categorise this site’s content into, that’s why. I don’t want to create another category. Also: I like science. Also: science is cool. I could have decided to go with a frequent posting about events in the world of geography but it just wouldn’t have had the same wow factor.

Enough waffle. To the science news!

Mars, Curiosity
Big science news has come from Mars and the Curiosity rover which recently landed there safely despite extreme complexity in the manoeuvre and a track records of successful probes on Mars little better than flipping a coin. Martians have not been involved in stacking these odds against us. That would be mental. Martians couldn’t care less. They’re a very relaxed dust-based hive mind.

Curiosity (or the Mars Science Lab to give it its less-inspiring name) has had a software upgrade now and has started sending back some more-detailed photos from its surroundings – particularly Mount Sharp (named after slavery abolitionist Granville Sharp who the mountain looks a bit like in profile) – so if you are super-keen on seeing rocks and ground in better resolution than John Logie Baird ever thought possible then you’re a very happy bunny indeed.

Coneheads
I love that movie.

That’s not science news. It’s not news. And it’s not science. However…

According to World Science: “In a trend that can be iden­ti­fied go­ing back to the mid-1800s, [white, American] U.S. skulls have got­ten big­ger, taller and nar­rower as seen from the front, said Rich­ard and Lee Jantz, a husband-and-wife team of fo­ren­sic an­thro­po­l­o­gists at the Uni­vers­ity of Ten­nes­see, Knox­ville. They al­so found that faces have be­come sig­nif­i­cantly nar­rower and higher, though this shift is less pro­nounced than those af­fect­ing the whole cra­ni­um.”

The article also goes on to state that “[a] larg­er head could al­low for great­er in­tel­li­gence” and it’s there that I started laughing too much to continue. I don’t like statements like that. A larger head could equally allow for greater room for bees to hide. Has anyone checked if the decline in bee population is connected to cranial development in American heads? Have they?

Anyway, anecdotal evidence points to lesser intelligence in the American population, not greater. And, as we all know, anecdotes trump science any day of the week. After gut feelings and things a friend of someone you know told you they heard, anecdotes are pretty powerful indicators of fact.

Incredible Science News!
Finally, and most importantly, scientists have cured cancer, invented cold fusion reactors for the home, perfected molecular teleportation, and are on the brink of transplanting consciousness (which they’ve discovered is an interference pattern in the Higgs field) into carbon nanotubes for the purposes of interstellar transportation of humans at high sub-light velocities.

Full announcements of all that and the painful lessons learnt from dinosaur-cloning to follow next week, but as a taster for now they are allowing all of mankind into the secret of building the perfect sandcastle.

“Measuring the elastic modulus of the wet sand, we find that the optimum strength is achieved at a very low liquid volume fraction of about 1%. Knowing the modulus we can quantitatively account for the measured sandcastle heights.”

They have graphs and everything.