This Week In Science (9/29/13). Cancer: http://www.the-scientism/?articles.view/ articleNo/37661/title/Different-Cancers- -Same-Mutations/ Whispering: http://ww
x
Click to expand

This Week In Science (9/29/13)

This Week In Science (9/29/13). Cancer: http://www.the-scientism/?articles.view/ articleNo/37661/title/Different-Cancers- -Same-Mutations/ Whispering: http://ww

Cancer: http://www.the-scientism/?articles.view/ articleNo/37661/title/Different-Cancers- -Same-Mutations/
Whispering: http://www.the-scientism/?articles.view/ articleNo/37698/title/Behavior-Brief/
New form of matter: www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-09/hu-sli092513.php
Climate change: www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24292615
Mars: You need to login to view this link
Oxygen: You need to login to view this link
Jaw & backbone: www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2013/09/26/3856025.htm
Solar panels: www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130923204214.htm

an Sept 2013
A study found that discoveries Scientists discovered a
different cancers can new form of matter We Certain that
arise from the same whispering in new I humans are the dominant
genetic mutations, humor, privnotes, Cause of cho ,
Ne usearch 5 ests
The Curiosity rover D:.. gen : E[? _ Researchers _ A new seer panel
in Earth 700 million years "tihihi,", , , t,), broke the angered record
Martian sell. earlier than was “W” attila WI a fer sufficiency
previously thought. jaw and backbone
...
  • Recommend tagsx
+1197
Views: 64511
Favorited: 136
Submitted: 09/30/2013
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to alexsinco Subscribe to fucking-science submit to reddit

Comments(285):

[ 285 comments ]
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#21 - chaosnazo (09/30/2013) [-]
Just how many times are we going to discover water on Mars?
#25 to #21 - alyssryuzaki (09/30/2013) [-]
Until we finally get it out, I guess.
#57 to #21 - anon (09/30/2013) [-]
At least, like, two times, man
#60 to #21 - anon (09/30/2013) [-]
we knew water existed on Mars but we never knew it had a lot of water. just a sample of soil has 2% of water, thats all around Mars. we only just knew then it had i think glaciers on it.
#181 to #21 - anon (09/30/2013) [-]
once
User avatar #277 to #21 - dubslao (10/01/2013) [-]
as many times as we cure cancer and HIV in small children
User avatar #98 to #21 - playerpants (09/30/2013) [-]
did any one else read this in Kermit's voice?
#195 to #21 - anon (09/30/2013) [-]
But it's in the soil this time!
The SOIL!
We can grow corn there now!
#23 to #21 - wishanonscouldpost (09/30/2013) [-]
Its different. Having water in the soil means there's a ******* of it on mars, not just some at the ice caps.
#32 to #21 - zomgroflmao (09/30/2013) [-]
idk probably when some dumb **** stops using my mars as a coaster.
User avatar #36 to #21 - fjisforfgts (09/30/2013) [-]
The same amount of times we cure cancer/HIV
User avatar #27 to #21 - gildemoono (09/30/2013) [-]
This just in: User chaosnazo confirms existence of water on mars.
#238 to #27 - koltan (10/01/2013) [-]
This is the first week of science I've seen that they haven't found a cure for HIV/AIDS.
#24 - anon (09/30/2013) [-]
95% certain... so you're telling me there's a chance
#15 - apaulcolypse (09/30/2013) [-]
Thank you for the solar panel source!
Been working on a research project dealing with solar energy.
#88 - Minnesota (09/30/2013) [-]
"Photonic molecules," however, behave less like traditional lasers and more like something you might find in science fiction – the light saber.
"Photonic molecules," however, behave less like traditional lasers and more like something you might find in science fiction – the light saber.
User avatar #144 to #88 - marshfellow (09/30/2013) [-]
and the guy who came up with this example is called "LUKIN"!
you know light sabers and Luke.. coincidence?
User avatar #99 - asimplepotato (09/30/2013) [-]
What's the matter?
#197 to #99 - twelveleven (09/30/2013) [-]
Oh, nothing really. It's just that my cancer I got from the water on Mars broke the world record for efficiency. Thanks for asking though.
#1 - thebacondroid (09/30/2013) [-]
I've seen this this 4 times in the past five minutes browsing newest uploads
I've seen this this 4 times in the past five minutes browsing newest uploads
User avatar #2 to #1 - alexsinco (09/30/2013) [-]
well mines the first in ******* Science, so IDGAF its for the channel
User avatar #3 to #1 - alexsinco (09/30/2013) [-]
and i took the time to put the sources in mine
User avatar #4 to #3 - Mortuus (09/30/2013) [-]
I agree. You deserve more thumbs for citing the sources.
User avatar #126 to #4 - warioteam (09/30/2013) [-]
its too bad its not on the front page
User avatar #132 to #126 - Mortuus (09/30/2013) [-]
Have you ever seen a "This Week In Science" post not get to the front page?
User avatar #133 to #132 - warioteam (09/30/2013) [-]
i was jus jokin mane
User avatar #134 to #133 - Mortuus (09/30/2013) [-]
I wasn't the asshole who thumbed you down.
User avatar #136 to #134 - warioteam (09/30/2013) [-]
i didnt notice, ur internet tone was 2spoopy
#22 to #3 - thebeerdude (09/30/2013) [-]
I can see why people love these, but it's not like you make these, so i wouldn't be taking credit, man. All the sources are given at the IFLS site on facebook, so instead of just saving the picture, you also ctrl+v their sources which is nice

But thumbed anyway, cus.. science rules y'know.
#10 to #3 - asswithglass (09/30/2013) [-]
Yup. And you done good. I really don't understand people who repost this from original facebook page, but don't give the sources. I mean, the sources come to every "I ******* love science" post on FB, so why not copy them - that literally takes a few clicks.
#186 to #3 - brenton (09/30/2013) [-]
The Credible Hulk approves.
User avatar #160 to #3 - lelouchlamperouge (09/30/2013) [-]
thumbed you up for putting in the work!
User avatar #138 to #3 - BIGSEXYISBACKAGAIN (09/30/2013) [-]
In the business world we call that differentiation.
#53 to #3 - keeptrolling (09/30/2013) [-]
No you don't, you rip it off a facebook page called "I ******* Love Science" hence the initials in the top left corner, and they put up all the sources

www.facebook.com/IFeakingLoveScience
User avatar #56 to #53 - toosexyforyou (09/30/2013) [-]
Everyone else who posted it to funnyjunk took it from that facebook page and didn't post the sources. This guy did the same but he posted sources hence he should get more thumbs than them. You can't blame someone for posting something that was originall posted on another site, that's why we're here, ******* , so we don't have to go through all other sites rummaging for **** , it all ends up here eventually.
User avatar #5 to #3 - itemexchange (09/30/2013) [-]
where do these come from
i always see htese but who makes them
User avatar #9 to #5 - asswithglass (09/30/2013) [-]
They come from facebook page "I ******* love science". Here's the source: www.facebook.com/IFeakingLoveScience
User avatar #247 - dakotakp (10/01/2013) [-]
If all this important **** is happening, why do I hear about it on Funnyjunk??
User avatar #268 to #247 - durkadurka (10/01/2013) [-]
That's because 90% of what's in these "this week in science" posts isn't nearly as much of a breakthrough as it pretends.
User avatar #273 to #247 - dementedllama (10/01/2013) [-]
Because a lot of it is still unproven speculation.

and because government shutdown, debt ceiling, politician-fags, etc. No one cares about scientific research or technological development unless it's in their latest smart phone.
#17 - ochsderp (09/30/2013) [-]
This is one of the few without "We've almost cured AIDS" related stuff in it.
#118 - alecope (09/30/2013) [-]
the IPCC forgot to tell you the Earth hasn't warmed in over 17 years and NASA has found carbon dioxide actually cools the planet.
User avatar #170 to #118 - cdsams (09/30/2013) [-]
Why I down voted.
#39 - assjaw (09/30/2013) [-]
This week in religion
User avatar #218 to #39 - lolzordz (09/30/2013) [-]
depends what you call religion
#102 to #39 - poppoppopwatchinmo (09/30/2013) [-]
This ******* **** is seriously getting thumbed up again? People like you need to get it through your thick skulls that you can't ******* compare religion and science. Science works toward a goal. It TRIES to accomplish things. Religion is just...there. It's not trying to DO anything. It's just ******* there. What the **** do you think it's supposed to accomplish that it hasn't already??? Do you ******* expect it to prove/disprove the existence of God? Nope, that's still science's job. How hard of a concept is it to ******* understand? Every time I see this idiotic comment by morons like you, I rage so ******* hard. You are probably also one of those people who think that religious people completely refute science, which is 150% UNTRUE. You are probably one of those people who think that anyone who has a faith is a complete dumb ass, which is, again 150% UNTRUE. Finally, you are probably one of those fat, neckbearded, fedora wearing anti-theists from Reddit that brings a bad name to atheism. I don't give a **** if you were just joking, it was a terrible joke anyway that is on every one of these ******* posts. And before you ask, yes, I am legitimately ******* mad right now.
User avatar #111 to #102 - fizzor (09/30/2013) [-]
That wall of text radiates so much anger my phone is starting to overheat.
User avatar #113 to #102 - uzbekistan (09/30/2013) [-]
Someone was molested by their pastor.
#152 to #113 - poppoppopwatchinmo (09/30/2013) [-]
That doesn't even make sense. If a pastor molested me, wouldn't that make me against religion, if anything?
User avatar #164 to #152 - uzbekistan (09/30/2013) [-]
Well it would make an explanation for that discomfort in your rectum. Either that or Daddy didn't hug you enough.
#150 to #105 - poppoppopwatchinmo (09/30/2013) [-]
I already answered that in my first comment.
User avatar #255 to #102 - garymotherfinoak (10/01/2013) [-]
it does get annoying, but you're a bit too mad about it.
User avatar #115 to #102 - stiltsformidgets (09/30/2013) [-]
Most people say 'false' instead of 'untrue'
but you're different aren't ya?
#148 to #115 - poppoppopwatchinmo (09/30/2013) [-]
I type a ******* paragraph and that's all you notice? Must have the attention span of a squirrel, but that's typical for people like you.
User avatar #154 to #148 - stiltsformidgets (09/30/2013) [-]
Between the repetitive babble about how the comment upsets and your repressed childhood emotions, your grammar is the only thing i found interesting.
#157 to #154 - poppoppopwatchinmo (09/30/2013) [-]
Well, first of all, that doesn't concern grammar, it concerns my choice of words.
Second, that paragraph has impeccable grammar.
And when was I ever ranting about my "repressed childhood emotions"?
User avatar #158 to #157 - stiltsformidgets (09/30/2013) [-]
Wow, i bet you're fun at parties.
Do you really want an internet fight that bad?
You're in no place to call people neckbeards, mister.
#162 to #158 - poppoppopwatchinmo (09/30/2013) [-]
I'm not the one spouting baseless and incredibly ignorant insults about religion.
User avatar #166 to #162 - stiltsformidgets (09/30/2013) [-]
No-one's insulting religion, they're just jokes.
Religion is made fun of just like everything else
You could've just posted a funny comment making fun of atheists instead of menstruating all over the thread
#167 to #166 - poppoppopwatchinmo (09/30/2013) [-]
I realize religion is made fun of. I'm fine with it...IF it's in good taste. The "joke" above doesn't even make any sense and is a completely unfair comparison because religion's purpose isn't to accomplish things, while science's purpose is.
Whatever, just look at rockamekishiko's comment if you can't stand the butthurt in mine. It says exactly the same thing.
#77 to #39 - wyattgc (09/30/2013) [-]
Should look more like this.
User avatar #271 to #39 - coolcalx (10/01/2013) [-]
>implying science is anti-religion
>implying religion is anti-science
>implying you aren't completely retarded.
#215 to #39 - guythatagrees (09/30/2013) [-]
I may be the guythatagrees, but I disagree with this. If you look at this post with some objectivity, it's rather sensationalized. Consider the "new form of matter", the article is about considering the perspective of light being a type of matter, not just a wave. That is an idea that is not new. Now, to address the thought that there are no new developments in religion? Well, millions of dollars have been donated to charities through religious organizations, but you see we don't publish articles, and that's also less "euphoric" to the independently thinking Fedora'd Gentlemen that thumb these posts up. Anyway, I know this post will be ignored and receive negative thumbs because **** religion right? I needed to vent, that's all. Thank you if anyone did read it.

TL;DR: These posts are sensationalized and should be viewed objectively. There are good things that happen through religion weekly, but not as exciting as the things in this post.

TL;DR, "TL;DR": I disagree.
User avatar #281 to #232 - bagofshit (10/01/2013) [-]
why the **** this is a GIF?
User avatar #264 to #39 - trojanmannn (10/01/2013) [-]
very original
#123 to #39 - rockamekishiko (09/30/2013) [-]
Religion doesn't try to discover/analyse/explain anything. It's a spiritual thing.
User avatar #251 to #39 - garymotherfinoak (10/01/2013) [-]
le edgy
User avatar #79 to #39 - swagloon (09/30/2013) [-]
oh this again.
User avatar #239 to #39 - rokkarokkaali (10/01/2013) [-]
This week in funnyjunk:
The same ******* comment again
User avatar #40 to #39 - sasyboncho (09/30/2013) [-]
Pope took a **** .
User avatar #127 to #40 - brettyht (09/30/2013) [-]
And then called it the Westboro Baptist Church
#139 to #40 - anon (09/30/2013) [-]
In the woods?
User avatar #285 to #40 - andyslayer (10/01/2013) [-]
in his golden toilet with gold infused water with gold toilet paper made with the tears of orphans and genocide victims. With gold and holy **** .
User avatar #249 to #40 - lesrin (10/01/2013) [-]
a very holy ****
User avatar #221 to #40 - fffffffuuuuuuuuuuu (09/30/2013) [-]
Pope did a poop
User avatar #92 to #40 - rmoran (09/30/2013) [-]
Actually..
User avatar #93 to #92 - sasyboncho (09/30/2013) [-]
That was almost 2 months ago you ****** .
User avatar #209 - roxasbaby ONLINE (09/30/2013) [-]
"We are 95% positive humans are responsible for Global Warming. Its either us or those damn dolphins"
User avatar #205 - lokischosen (09/30/2013) [-]
If I learned anything from Doctor Who it's that I REALLY don't want the rover bringing that water back to earth....
User avatar #212 to #205 - newsuperyoshi (09/30/2013) [-]
What I learned is if I see a blue box like the tardus, make a run to the inside of it.
#112 - anon (09/30/2013) [-]
the new matter is basically a light saber
[big][big]
#101 - pwnmissilereborn **User deleted account** (09/30/2013) [-]
Honestly the IPCC has lost all credibility from my part since some of their scientists admitted they released fake data to pressure governments to take action against global warming.
User avatar #173 to #101 - bigmanfifty (09/30/2013) [-]
link?
#198 to #179 - bigmanfifty (09/30/2013) [-]
soooo, no real news sources then...   
   
Just some conspiracy nuts and some political propoganda
soooo, no real news sources then...

Just some conspiracy nuts and some political propoganda
#211 to #198 - pwnmissilereborn **User deleted account** (09/30/2013) [-]
Here's the source the first link referred Sorry as I should have posted this one in the first place.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html

Non verified data is fake data, and if releasing that doesn't count as political propaganda, I don't know what does.
#283 - anon (10/01/2013) [-]
95% positive... although they excluded all the studies and info that contradicted the outcome they wanted... don't let the facts get in the way of a good hoax !
#29 - UnoSkullmanx (09/30/2013) [-]
The IPCC is a government body, so take what they say with a grain of salt. Furthermore they're connected with the UN, so just for that they're probably wrong. I maintain that climate change is a natural process that has occurred many times throughout Earth's history (take the Medieval Warm Period, google it).
User avatar #120 to #29 - metalmind (09/30/2013) [-]
That is sadly unbased in reality.
The rise in Carbon in the atmosphere has never been so large in such a small amount of time in the earths history.
Periodical changes happen over millenia.
Significant changes happen over a few million or dozen million years.
But what is happening now is that in less than 200 years the amount of carbon in the atmosphere almost doubled and has now passed 400 ppm.
And the prognosticated rise of the ocean levels is about 3 feet, and if we stoped emmiting carbon and methane completely right now, it would still be about 1 feet.
Don't care? You should.
Either because it will destroy the environment and destabilize many costal cities,
or because 1/3 of the worlds population live less than 6 feet above the sea.
And think of the humanitarian crysis that will ensue, or at least the gigantic waves of immigrants. Or the rise in prices.
Whatever you care about, it will be effected.
And if yo live in Europe: Many parts of Europe will soon be reached by certain kinds of insects that can transmit tropical diseases, as the by now just "slight" temeratue increase has already made it possible for them to survive further north.

And the UN are impartial.

And the IPCC isn't the only one prognosticating it, it's more like the barometer of what scientists predict will happen.

I mean even the climate scientist hired by the coke brothers, who don't give a **** about the environment has come out and confirmed that it is happening, and that it is man made.
That was the guy hired to be against it.
(By the way: only 38 out of tens of thousands of climate scientists in the industrialized world disbelief human caused climate change.)
#214 to #29 - tsaotermaster (09/30/2013) [-]
Please. Watch the Inconvenient Truth before you spew out bullcrap.
#266 to #29 - popkornking (10/01/2013) [-]
I've heard this argument so many times, just because it has changed in the past doesn't mean the change now isn't more drastic, look at this graph (source:earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page3.php), we may be in a warm period, but this warm period is ******* j-curving higher than anything we've seen for a while. Now give me a reason for this that doesn't include the cliche "we can't trust government, etc.." please, this whole eco-phase the world is going through has done nothing for the government except provide campaigning tools and decrease gas sales.
User avatar #37 to #29 - Harkonnen (09/30/2013) [-]
You dumb-ass mother ******
#46 to #29 - thegamegestapo (09/30/2013) [-]
>Conclusion drawn by a highly respected organisations of trained scientists, each an expert in his or her own field, based on years of scientific research and analysis   
>Nah bro, I read this article on Wikipedia...
>Conclusion drawn by a highly respected organisations of trained scientists, each an expert in his or her own field, based on years of scientific research and analysis
>Nah bro, I read this article on Wikipedia...
#48 to #46 - UnoSkullmanx (09/30/2013) [-]
Government scientists*

I distrust anything government related on principle. I could be wrong, bro; unlike you I don't assume that I know everything, but I'm extremely skeptical that global warming is manmade.
User avatar #49 to #48 - skeptical (09/30/2013) [-]
No matter how hard you try none of you will ever be me
So stop it
User avatar #51 to #48 - thegamegestapo (09/30/2013) [-]
>"I don't assume that I know everything"

Claims to be better informed than actual experts.

You do realise climate change is bad for governments. It costs them money, drives up oil prices, decreases popularity, and reduces market confidence.

If you're a troll then well done, my jimmies are rustled.
User avatar #194 to #51 - skypatrol (09/30/2013) [-]
Actually, it is good for governments. The U.S. Government stopped caring about funds awhile ago.
Climate change allows them to slowly dissolve what little is left of private enterprise, and regulate everything more thoroughly. It only decreases popularity in certain areas. It increases popularity in green technology, which isn't efficient enough, as of yet. This gets politicians re-elected.
The PEOPLE hate climate change, because it costs them money, drives up oil prices, etc.
#52 to #51 - UnoSkullmanx (09/30/2013) [-]
Again, I never claimed to know more than a government scientist (though the amount that he knows is suspect), I just said that based on what I know, I'm skeptical (not the user, the concept). Could be wrong, we'll just have to wait and see. If it turns out you are trolling, then it works out better for me because you're hurting the man made climate change faction by doing so which furthers my agenda
User avatar #85 to #52 - gammajk ONLINE (09/30/2013) [-]
No, you aren't "skeptical", you just deny everything that is clearly evident because you don't trust the government for asinine reasons. Literally all the research done on global warming is readily available, that's how science works. You can check ANY concerns you have using any amount of scientific data and analysis. Real skeptics actually make an attempt to find the truth. You don't.
User avatar #55 to #52 - thegamegestapo (09/30/2013) [-]
*Scientists, plural.

The evidence in favour of humanity being the primary cause of climate change is overwhelming, the evidence against is negligible. Denying it after the numerous independent studies conducted is on par with denying evolution in terms of sheer ignorance.

Based on current estimates we have sixty years to "wait and see" before we start causing irreversible damage. In the fight against pollution you're on pollution's side.

Please don't reproduce.
User avatar #58 to #55 - nervaaurelius (09/30/2013) [-]
You need to login to view this link

Most scientists on the subject already agree that climate change is happening and around the same percentage agree it's man made. It's not even a hot debate anymore. It's almost like intelligent design to biologists. At this point it's pretty much a political discussion. If humanity becomes devastated due to our inability to do anything about our affect on the environment then I say we deserve it cause we were to ignorant to stop our own downfall.
#59 to #58 - thegamegestapo (09/30/2013) [-]
Kind of sucks though, huh?    
   
Here's hoping we pull our head out of our ass in time.
Kind of sucks though, huh?

Here's hoping we pull our head out of our ass in time.
#253 to #58 - teenytinyspider (10/01/2013) [-]
WE ARE doing **** about it, but the alternatives are either still in development or are too expensive for most people to afford. Many first world nations have made great strives to reduce carbon emissions and pollutions from their factories. In fact, right now, China is the most pollutant country in the world, but they barely give a **** about themselves.

I think some of the pollution was caused by the industrial age and up towards maybe the 80's, and this is just a theory, because back in those times, they didn't give a **** about what they were emitting and what they dumped into rivers and streams and into the ground.
#13 - waratsea (09/30/2013) [-]
We need to stay the **** away from Mars now that we have found water, cause we know how that **** went down when The Doctor was there.
#26 to #13 - danilawleit (09/30/2013) [-]
NASA's FW someone drinks it
NASA's FW someone drinks it
User avatar #14 to #13 - waratsea (09/30/2013) [-]
**** , that was supposed to be a GIF
User avatar #178 to #14 - deathchain (09/30/2013) [-]
I've been here so long I still knew what it was even though the octopus is hardly on the screen.
0
#73 to #14 - articulate has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #156 - littlenish (09/30/2013) [-]
Pretty sure the climate change is naturally occuring, especially since there have been multiple Ice Ages in the history of the Earth
#171 to #156 - paranoidzoid (09/30/2013) [-]
yes the earth goes through various cycles of warm and cold but its actually suppose to be getting colder not warmer
User avatar #184 to #156 - missrainbowdash (09/30/2013) [-]
are you denying that a gas like CO2 could have any greenhouse effect?
User avatar #213 to #156 - avatarsarefornoobs (09/30/2013) [-]
its widely considered to be a joint effect. our planet is in a natural warming cycle but popular (or maybe not so popular) belief is that CO2 emissions have atleast some effect on accelerating the warming process
#163 to #156 - mraye (09/30/2013) [-]
Yes, but the current amount of carbon in the earth's atmosphere is more than double the amount that there has ever been before.
User avatar #199 to #163 - theaceofthespade (09/30/2013) [-]
That makes no sense. It would have to just magically double for that to be the case...
#291 to #199 - mraye (10/01/2013) [-]
Right... what I meant was the last Ice Age had a high enough amount of carbon in the air to be of note. The amount of carbon now, is twice that amount.
User avatar #180 to #163 - mylazy (09/30/2013) [-]
Ironically carbon isn't that strong of a greenhouse gas. The only reason it has an effect is the sheer amount of it put in the atmosphere as compared to most other greenhouse gases.
#130 - tomtomvdp (09/30/2013) [-]
"the IPCC it's 95% certain" what does that even means !?

what is the 5% left of not being certain ! . Why do they have to put a percentage in everything to make it look more legit.
User avatar #141 to #130 - carefreedude (09/30/2013) [-]
If you were to work with the same people I do, then you would understand that no matter how certain you are of something, there is always margin for error.
User avatar #175 to #141 - tomtomvdp (09/30/2013) [-]
I understand that , i go by the same motto . Science in general applies to that . But we both know that , this isn't the case.
#177 to #130 - pawrestler (09/30/2013) [-]
95% confidence is considered the engineering standard for something to be true. it is impossible to say anything with 100% certainty in the science world, so if you can prove a hypothesis to 95% confidence, it is accepted as true.
[ 285 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)