Monthly Archives: March 2008

Apparently “These laser beams are now so powerful they can shine up to five kilometres.” Well, no, actually. They are “so powerful” that they can shine for infinity. As can the least powerful laser, if there’s nothing in the way. … Continue reading →

(It is Friday in horologically advanced regions of the world) I’ve just seen this paper abstract, posted on another forum. The speed of sound was measured in solutions of sucrose (0-70 wt/vol%), glycerol (0-30 wt/vol%) and orange juice (0-40 solids … Continue reading →

I know, I know, I said I wouldn’t enter this debate. But Steve Matheson gets it so right I feel that I would be remiss if I didn’t link there . His last point is so well made that I’m … Continue reading →

Why is most of the literature so damnably boring? What is it that makes us get as far as “The cardiac isoform has an additional N-terminal domain that is postulated to provide a greater level of . . . zzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ”? … Continue reading →

From an email this morning: Yesterday we found a white-tailed spider on level 6 and a female red-back spider on level 2. It is possible these spiders are seeking refuge from the redevelopment outside. Both these spiders can give nasty … Continue reading →

On the way to Redfern Station this evening I caught a snippet of conversation that went something like this: “Yes, they’ve been over-Westernized—” and my first thought was “What did you do, leave it in primary antibody too long?” I … Continue reading →

When something unusual happens, perhaps like for example (completely at random) one’s weblog post at NN getting 20 comments, an ordinary person might say, or think, “Cool! Lots of traffic!”. A scientist, on the other hand, is more likely to … Continue reading →

bq. A small group of thoughtful people could change the world. Indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has. — Margaret Mead Having, in the last three days, edited a manuscript when I should have only been checking for tyops … Continue reading →

I should like to point m’learned colleagues, who if they don’t know about it damn well should, at http://lablit.com/ . It is a small, but important battle in the war on ignorance. And I am not entirely disinterested: I’ll just … Continue reading →

If you haven’t seen any of the discussions about ‘double-blind’ peer review then you’re probably living under a rock (and not reading this, anyway). I happen to disagree with the philosophy that says that the methods of doing research should … Continue reading →