Science Team

19 Jul 19
RAHUL GUPTA

As one grow up in career, one need to change how they work. This happens because priorities changes and so does expectations. I remember, two things which really fascinated me as a beginner were – financial modeling and crafting presentations. I love financial modeling as it helps you tell a story through numbers. Building one […]

19 Jul 19
New Soccer Coach Problems

This was the biggest hurdle for me getting into the college game. To understand this, though, I need to explain a little bit about my background in soccer. I played soccer at a Division III school for about a year and a half before I withdrew from that school because of concussion issues. I was […]

19 Jul 19
Book Basset

The sun isn’t even fully up yet and I learned an important life lesson. Don’t mess with your bees first thing in the morning. I really hated this lesson. In what turned out to be a 10 minute ordeal, the lesson I learned, “Don’t mess with your bees first thing in the morning”, I learned […]

19 Jul 19
Intern, graduate jobs

Company: PartnerRe
Location: Zürich, ZH

19 Jul 19
US Issues

By MIT – Re-Blogged From Eureka Alert Method for collecting two electrons from each photon could break through theoretical solar-cell efficiency limit CAMBRIDGE, MA — In any conventional silicon-based solar cell, there is an absolute limit on overall efficiency, based partly on the fact that each photon of light can only knock loose a single […]

19 Jul 19
P.M. News

The Federal Government has inaugurated an Administrative Audit Panel to review the proprietorship, academic affairs, governance, financial and physical development in the African University of Science and Technology (AUST).

19 Jul 19
The Scottish Sun
THE Apollo project gave us the astonishing spectacle of a blue marble rising over the sterile surface of the moon. Of course, the moon was already known to be uninhabitable. But being shown something in high-resolution colour photography makes a stronger impression than being told it by the experts. July 20, 2019 marks the 50th anniversary since humans first set foot on the Moon Our planet appeared in the photos as a small, vulnerable object amid surroundings utterly inimical to life. They showed, in a way that no scientific report could, the importance of keeping the Earth habitable, boosting the environmental movement. But the moon landings affected many people in precisely the opposite way. No other public project has been such a spectacular success. The aim was so simple and concrete that everyone could immediately grasp it. US astronaut Buzz Aldrin pictured walking on the surface of the Moon during the 1969 Apollo 11 mission Kennedy’s commitment to “landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the Earth” was made before the US had even put a man into orbit. Yet it was achieved just eight years later – barely half the time it takes nowadays to build a new railway across London. “Top that,” the Americans can easily say. Fifty years on, no one has. The trouble with spectacular successes is that they breed complacency. The moon landings reinforced the belief that technology will always be able to solve our problems. Everyone knows the saying, “If we can put a man on the moon, surely we can…” All we need is the will to do it. And a lot of money, of course. But not as much as you might think: the entire Apollo programme, over 12 years, cost about £120 billion in today’s money. That’s how much the US spends on its military in 11 weeks (and Britain in three years). If technology can do that, what can it not do? This faith in technology has given us a false sense of security. Every day we hear urgent warnings about antibiotic resistance, soil depletion, deforestation, loss of biodiversity and of course climate change. These imminent catastrophes are the result of our own behaviour. The obvious solution is to change that behaviour: to stop abusing antibiotics, destroying tropical forests, burning fossil fuels, and so on. Yet we don’t. Part of the reason we don’t is the expectation that technology will save us. If we can put a man on the moon, surely we can develop new antibiotics, replenish the soil and restore the tropical forests. We can stop climate change by building machines to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. (And anyway, we can build walls to keep out the rising seas.) All we need is better politicians. This sense of security is unwarranted. Technology cannot do everything. Once an ecosystem has been completely destroyed or a species has gone extinct, nothing can bring it back. No new Apollo programme will ever enable us to raise the dead after they have turned to dust. Some things are simply impossible – not for lack of money or technical know-how, but because of the laws of nature. Political obstacles And just as our sense of security overestimates the power of technology, it underestimates the political obstacles. It’s not just that large public science projects are out of fashion. The moon landings had the advantage of drawing on national pride: they served to demonstrate the superiority of the US over other countries – the Soviet Union in particular. Combating antibiotic resistance, deforestation, and climate change, by contrast, requires all countries to work together. And these projects are unlike the moon landings in being essentially altruistic: one country’s expenditure benefits all inhabitants of the planet equally, whether or not they have contributed themselves. The selfish can get a free ride. A further obstacle is that solving problems we have created for ourselves is not the sort of thing that easily inspires greatness. No one likes cleaning up after the party. It was easy to excite people about the first moon landing because it was such a great spectacle. We could watch it on TV in real time, from blast-off to splashdown. Like a good mini-series, it lasted just eight days. Averting catastrophe is not like that – especially when the problem cannot be shown in a simple stunning image. Saving the planet doesn’t make compelling TV. There is no dramatic start or end point. And if the mission succeeds, the result will be only more of the same: the absence of catastrophe. What could be more boring? In democratic societies at least, addressing global problems will always be a hard sell. That’s why Kennedy’s contemporary heirs have done so little. The success of the moon landings is no reason to expect technology to save us from ourselves. I fear it will make catastrophe more likely. Technology can help, but we need to know its limits. We’d be better off forgetting about rocketry and remembering the image of our planet as a tiny oasis in an inhospitable universe. This article was originally written for The Conversation by Eric Olson, Professor of Philosophy at the University of Sheffield. [bc_video video_id=”6060183847001″ account_id=”5067014667001″ player_id=”default” embed=”in-page” padding_top=”56%” autoplay=”” min_width=”0px” max_width=”640px” width=”100%” height=”100%” caption=”Hilarious Nasa Moon landing footage reveals Apollo astronauts falling over again and again in lunar gravity”] [article-rail-section title=”MOST READ IN SCIENCE” posts_category=”6341″ posts_number=”6″ query_type=”popular” /] Yesterday Nasa revealed stunning new panorama photos from Apollo missions to celebrate the 50th anniversary of humans landing on the Moon. The Apollo 11 astronauts also had to cope with no toilet, and resorted to using bags taped to their bums. Sadly, some people still thing the whole event we faked – we bust the most popular Apollo 11 Moon landing myths. And here’s why some people still think the Moon landings were faked 50 years later – and the man who started the ‘hoax’ theory. Do you think the Apollo 11 moon landing was a good or bad idea? Let us know in the comments! We pay for your stories! Do you have a story for The Sun Online news team? Email us at tips@the-sun.co.uk or call 0207 782 4368 . We pay for videos too. Click here to upload yours. [iframe src=”%3Ciframe%20src%3D%22https%3A%2F%2Fcounter.theconversation.com%2Fcontent%2F120249%2Fcount.gif%3Fdistributor%3Drepublish-lightbox-advanced%22%20width%3D%221%22%20height%3D%221%22%3E%3C%2Fiframe%3E%0A” /]
19 Jul 19
The Irish Sun
THE Apollo project gave us the astonishing spectacle of a blue marble rising over the sterile surface of the moon. Of course, the moon was already known to be uninhabitable. But being shown something in high-resolution colour photography makes a stronger impression than being told it by the experts. July 20, 2019 marks the 50th anniversary since humans first set foot on the Moon Our planet appeared in the photos as a small, vulnerable object amid surroundings utterly inimical to life. They showed, in a way that no scientific report could, the importance of keeping the Earth habitable, boosting the environmental movement. But the moon landings affected many people in precisely the opposite way. No other public project has been such a spectacular success. The aim was so simple and concrete that everyone could immediately grasp it. US astronaut Buzz Aldrin pictured walking on the surface of the Moon during the 1969 Apollo 11 mission Kennedy’s commitment to “landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the Earth” was made before the US had even put a man into orbit. Yet it was achieved just eight years later – barely half the time it takes nowadays to build a new railway across London. “Top that,” the Americans can easily say. Fifty years on, no one has. The trouble with spectacular successes is that they breed complacency. The moon landings reinforced the belief that technology will always be able to solve our problems. Everyone knows the saying, “If we can put a man on the moon, surely we can…” All we need is the will to do it. And a lot of money, of course. But not as much as you might think: the entire Apollo programme, over 12 years, cost about £120 billion in today’s money. That’s how much the US spends on its military in 11 weeks (and Britain in three years). If technology can do that, what can it not do? This faith in technology has given us a false sense of security. Every day we hear urgent warnings about antibiotic resistance, soil depletion, deforestation, loss of biodiversity and of course climate change. These imminent catastrophes are the result of our own behaviour. The obvious solution is to change that behaviour: to stop abusing antibiotics, destroying tropical forests, burning fossil fuels, and so on. Yet we don’t. Part of the reason we don’t is the expectation that technology will save us. If we can put a man on the moon, surely we can develop new antibiotics, replenish the soil and restore the tropical forests. We can stop climate change by building machines to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. (And anyway, we can build walls to keep out the rising seas.) All we need is better politicians. This sense of security is unwarranted. Technology cannot do everything. Once an ecosystem has been completely destroyed or a species has gone extinct, nothing can bring it back. No new Apollo programme will ever enable us to raise the dead after they have turned to dust. Some things are simply impossible – not for lack of money or technical know-how, but because of the laws of nature. Political obstacles And just as our sense of security overestimates the power of technology, it underestimates the political obstacles. It’s not just that large public science projects are out of fashion. The moon landings had the advantage of drawing on national pride: they served to demonstrate the superiority of the US over other countries – the Soviet Union in particular. Combating antibiotic resistance, deforestation, and climate change, by contrast, requires all countries to work together. And these projects are unlike the moon landings in being essentially altruistic: one country’s expenditure benefits all inhabitants of the planet equally, whether or not they have contributed themselves. The selfish can get a free ride. A further obstacle is that solving problems we have created for ourselves is not the sort of thing that easily inspires greatness. No one likes cleaning up after the party. It was easy to excite people about the first moon landing because it was such a great spectacle. We could watch it on TV in real time, from blast-off to splashdown. Like a good mini-series, it lasted just eight days. Averting catastrophe is not like that – especially when the problem cannot be shown in a simple stunning image. Saving the planet doesn’t make compelling TV. There is no dramatic start or end point. And if the mission succeeds, the result will be only more of the same: the absence of catastrophe. What could be more boring? In democratic societies at least, addressing global problems will always be a hard sell. That’s why Kennedy’s contemporary heirs have done so little. The success of the moon landings is no reason to expect technology to save us from ourselves. I fear it will make catastrophe more likely. Technology can help, but we need to know its limits. We’d be better off forgetting about rocketry and remembering the image of our planet as a tiny oasis in an inhospitable universe. This article was originally written for The Conversation by Eric Olson, Professor of Philosophy at the University of Sheffield. [bc_video video_id=”6060183847001″ account_id=”5067014667001″ player_id=”default” embed=”in-page” padding_top=”56%” autoplay=”” min_width=”0px” max_width=”640px” width=”100%” height=”100%” caption=”Hilarious Nasa Moon landing footage reveals Apollo astronauts falling over again and again in lunar gravity”] [article-rail-section title=”MOST READ IN SCIENCE” posts_category=”5603″ posts_number=”6″ query_type=”popular” /] Yesterday Nasa revealed stunning new panorama photos from Apollo missions to celebrate the 50th anniversary of humans landing on the Moon. The Apollo 11 astronauts also had to cope with no toilet, and resorted to using bags taped to their bums. Sadly, some people still thing the whole event we faked – we bust the most popular Apollo 11 Moon landing myths. And here’s why some people still think the Moon landings were faked 50 years later – and the man who started the ‘hoax’ theory. Do you think the Apollo 11 moon landing was a good or bad idea? Let us know in the comments! We pay for your stories! Do you have a story for The Sun Online news team? Email us at tips@the-sun.co.uk or call 0207 782 4368 . We pay for videos too. Click here to upload yours. [iframe src=”%3Ciframe%20src%3D%22https%3A%2F%2Fcounter.theconversation.com%2Fcontent%2F120249%2Fcount.gif%3Fdistributor%3Drepublish-lightbox-advanced%22%20width%3D%221%22%20height%3D%221%22%3E%3C%2Fiframe%3E%0A” /]
19 Jul 19
The Sun
THE Apollo project gave us the astonishing spectacle of a blue marble rising over the sterile surface of the moon. Of course, the moon was already known to be uninhabitable. But being shown something in high-resolution colour photography makes a stronger impression than being told it by the experts. July 20, 2019 marks the 50th anniversary since humans first set foot on the Moon Our planet appeared in the photos as a small, vulnerable object amid surroundings utterly inimical to life. They showed, in a way that no scientific report could, the importance of keeping the Earth habitable, boosting the environmental movement. But the moon landings affected many people in precisely the opposite way. No other public project has been such a spectacular success. The aim was so simple and concrete that everyone could immediately grasp it. US astronaut Buzz Aldrin pictured walking on the surface of the Moon during the 1969 Apollo 11 mission Kennedy’s commitment to “landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the Earth” was made before the US had even put a man into orbit. Yet it was achieved just eight years later – barely half the time it takes nowadays to build a new railway across London. “Top that,” the Americans can easily say. Fifty years on, no one has. The trouble with spectacular successes is that they breed complacency. The moon landings reinforced the belief that technology will always be able to solve our problems. Everyone knows the saying, “If we can put a man on the moon, surely we can…” All we need is the will to do it. And a lot of money, of course. But not as much as you might think: the entire Apollo programme, over 12 years, cost about £120 billion in today’s money. That’s how much the US spends on its military in 11 weeks (and Britain in three years). If technology can do that, what can it not do? This faith in technology has given us a false sense of security. Every day we hear urgent warnings about antibiotic resistance, soil depletion, deforestation, loss of biodiversity and of course climate change. These imminent catastrophes are the result of our own behaviour. The obvious solution is to change that behaviour: to stop abusing antibiotics, destroying tropical forests, burning fossil fuels, and so on. Yet we don’t. Part of the reason we don’t is the expectation that technology will save us. If we can put a man on the moon, surely we can develop new antibiotics, replenish the soil and restore the tropical forests. We can stop climate change by building machines to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. (And anyway, we can build walls to keep out the rising seas.) All we need is better politicians. This sense of security is unwarranted. Technology cannot do everything. Once an ecosystem has been completely destroyed or a species has gone extinct, nothing can bring it back. No new Apollo programme will ever enable us to raise the dead after they have turned to dust. Some things are simply impossible – not for lack of money or technical know-how, but because of the laws of nature. Political obstacles And just as our sense of security overestimates the power of technology, it underestimates the political obstacles. It’s not just that large public science projects are out of fashion. The moon landings had the advantage of drawing on national pride: they served to demonstrate the superiority of the US over other countries – the Soviet Union in particular. Combating antibiotic resistance, deforestation, and climate change, by contrast, requires all countries to work together. And these projects are unlike the moon landings in being essentially altruistic: one country’s expenditure benefits all inhabitants of the planet equally, whether or not they have contributed themselves. The selfish can get a free ride. A further obstacle is that solving problems we have created for ourselves is not the sort of thing that easily inspires greatness. No one likes cleaning up after the party. It was easy to excite people about the first moon landing because it was such a great spectacle. We could watch it on TV in real time, from blast-off to splashdown. Like a good mini-series, it lasted just eight days. Averting catastrophe is not like that – especially when the problem cannot be shown in a simple stunning image. Saving the planet doesn’t make compelling TV. There is no dramatic start or end point. And if the mission succeeds, the result will be only more of the same: the absence of catastrophe. What could be more boring? In democratic societies at least, addressing global problems will always be a hard sell. That’s why Kennedy’s contemporary heirs have done so little. The success of the moon landings is no reason to expect technology to save us from ourselves. I fear it will make catastrophe more likely. Technology can help, but we need to know its limits. We’d be better off forgetting about rocketry and remembering the image of our planet as a tiny oasis in an inhospitable universe. This article was originally written for The Conversation by Eric Olson, Professor of Philosophy at the University of Sheffield. [bc_video video_id=”6060183847001″ account_id=”5067014667001″ player_id=”default” embed=”in-page” padding_top=”56%” autoplay=”” min_width=”0px” max_width=”640px” width=”100%” height=”100%” caption=”Hilarious Nasa Moon landing footage reveals Apollo astronauts falling over again and again in lunar gravity”] [article-rail-section title=”MOST READ IN SCIENCE” posts_category=”10773″ posts_number=”6″ query_type=”popular” /] Yesterday Nasa revealed stunning new panorama photos from Apollo missions to celebrate the 50th anniversary of humans landing on the Moon. The Apollo 11 astronauts also had to cope with no toilet, and resorted to using bags taped to their bums. Sadly, some people still thing the whole event we faked – we bust the most popular Apollo 11 Moon landing myths. And here’s why some people still think the Moon landings were faked 50 years later – and the man who started the ‘hoax’ theory. Do you think the Apollo 11 moon landing was a good or bad idea? Let us know in the comments! We pay for your stories! Do you have a story for The Sun Online news team? Email us at tips@the-sun.co.uk or call 0207 782 4368 . We pay for videos too. Click here to upload yours. [iframe src=”%3Ciframe%20src%3D%22https%3A%2F%2Fcounter.theconversation.com%2Fcontent%2F120249%2Fcount.gif%3Fdistributor%3Drepublish-lightbox-advanced%22%20width%3D%221%22%20height%3D%221%22%3E%3C%2Fiframe%3E%0A” /]
19 Jul 19
ManagerJS

Remember that awesome interview with Dan Crews? Here’s the transcript. Listen, download, and share it! 2019-07-12 s1e2 manager interview Dan Crews part 1.mp3 transcript powered by Sonix—the best audio to text transcription service 2019-07-12 s1e2 manager interview Dan Crews part 1.mp3 was automatically transcribed by Sonix with the latest audio-to-text algorithms. This transcript may contain […]

19 Jul 19
Simple Programmer

When it comes to product development, is code the first thing that’s done? When are the features defined and the risks evaluated? What about deployment, should it be planned before the software is finished or after? These and other similar questions reveal the complexity of the processes involved in product development. The better your comprehension […]