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

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
...
+1197
Views: 64544 Submitted: 09/30/2013
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (285)
[ 285 comments ]
Anonymous comments allowed.
104 comments displayed.
#1 - thebacondroid
Reply +74
(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
#2 to #1 - alexsinco [OP]
Reply 0
(09/30/2013) [-]
well mines the first in ******* Science, so IDGAF its for the channel
#3 to #1 - alexsinco [OP]
Reply +275
(09/30/2013) [-]
and i took the time to put the sources in mine
#4 to #3 - Mortuus
Reply +5
(09/30/2013) [-]
I agree. You deserve more thumbs for citing the sources.
#126 to #4 - warioteam
Reply 0
(09/30/2013) [-]
its too bad its not on the front page
#132 to #126 - Mortuus
Reply 0
(09/30/2013) [-]
Have you ever seen a "This Week In Science" post not get to the front page?
#133 to #132 - warioteam
Reply +2
(09/30/2013) [-]
i was jus jokin mane
#134 to #133 - Mortuus
Reply +2
(09/30/2013) [-]
I wasn't the asshole who thumbed you down.
#136 to #134 - warioteam
Reply +2
(09/30/2013) [-]
i didnt notice, ur internet tone was 2spoopy
#22 to #3 - thebeerdude
Reply +1
(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
Reply +1
(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
Reply 0
(09/30/2013) [-]
The Credible Hulk approves.
#160 to #3 - lelouchlamperouge
Reply 0
(09/30/2013) [-]
thumbed you up for putting in the work!
#138 to #3 - BIGSEXYISBACKAGAIN
Reply 0
(09/30/2013) [-]
In the business world we call that differentiation.
#12 to #3 - kampi ONLINE
Reply 0
(09/30/2013) [-]
#5 to #3 - itemexchange
Reply 0
(09/30/2013) [-]
where do these come from
i always see htese but who makes them
#9 to #5 - asswithglass
Reply 0
(09/30/2013) [-]
They come from facebook page "I ******* love science". Here's the source: www.facebook.com/IFeakingLoveScience
#53 to #3 - keeptrolling
Reply -1
(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
#56 to #53 - toosexyforyou
Reply +3
(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.
#39 - assjaw
Reply +106
(09/30/2013) [-]
This week in religion
#102 to #39 - poppoppopwatchinmo
Reply -8
(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.
#113 to #102 - uzbekistan
Reply +3
(09/30/2013) [-]
Someone was molested by their pastor.
#152 to #113 - poppoppopwatchinmo
Reply +1
(09/30/2013) [-]
That doesn't even make sense. If a pastor molested me, wouldn't that make me against religion, if anything?
#164 to #152 - uzbekistan
Reply -1
(09/30/2013) [-]
Well it would make an explanation for that discomfort in your rectum. Either that or Daddy didn't hug you enough.
#254 to #164 - garymotherfinoak
Reply 0
(10/01/2013) [-]
r00d
#111 to #102 - fizzor
Reply +3
(09/30/2013) [-]
That wall of text radiates so much anger my phone is starting to overheat.
#105 to #102 - wyattgc
Reply +1
(09/30/2013) [-]
#150 to #105 - poppoppopwatchinmo
Reply +1
(09/30/2013) [-]
I already answered that in my first comment.
#255 to #102 - garymotherfinoak
Reply -1
(10/01/2013) [-]
it does get annoying, but you're a bit too mad about it.
#115 to #102 - stiltsformidgets
Reply -4
(09/30/2013) [-]
Most people say 'false' instead of 'untrue'
but you're different aren't ya?
#148 to #115 - poppoppopwatchinmo
Reply 0
(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.
#154 to #148 - stiltsformidgets
Reply -2
(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
Reply 0
(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"?
#158 to #157 - stiltsformidgets
Reply 0
(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
Reply 0
(09/30/2013) [-]
I'm not the one spouting baseless and incredibly ignorant insults about religion.
#166 to #162 - stiltsformidgets
Reply 0
(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
Reply 0
(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.
#218 to #39 - lolzordz
Reply 0
(09/30/2013) [-]
depends what you call religion
#215 to #39 - guythatagrees
Reply +2
(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.
#232 to #39 - racistwaffle
Reply +2
(10/01/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#281 to #232 - bagofshit
Reply +1
(10/01/2013) [-]
why the **** this is a GIF?
#264 to #39 - trojanmannn
Reply +2
(10/01/2013) [-]
very original
#77 to #39 - wyattgc
Reply +3
(09/30/2013) [-]
Should look more like this.
#271 to #39 - coolcalx
Reply +3
(10/01/2013) [-]
>implying science is anti-religion
>implying religion is anti-science
>implying you aren't completely retarded.
#251 to #39 - garymotherfinoak
Reply +4
(10/01/2013) [-]
le edgy
#239 to #39 - rokkarokkaali ONLINE
Reply +6
(10/01/2013) [-]
This week in funnyjunk:
The same ******* comment again
#123 to #39 - rockamekishiko ONLINE
Reply +9
(09/30/2013) [-]
Religion doesn't try to discover/analyse/explain anything. It's a spiritual thing.
#79 to #39 - swagloon
Reply +15
(09/30/2013) [-]
oh this again.
#40 to #39 - sasyboncho
Reply +199
(09/30/2013) [-]
Pope took a ****.
#67 to #40 - articulate
Reply +29
(09/30/2013) [-]
#127 to #40 - brettyht
Reply +2
(09/30/2013) [-]
And then called it the Westboro Baptist Church
#249 to #40 - lesrin
Reply 0
(10/01/2013) [-]
a very holy ****
#221 to #40 - fffffffuuuuuuuuuuu
Reply 0
(09/30/2013) [-]
Pope did a poop
#139 to #40 - anon
Reply 0
(09/30/2013) [-]
In the woods?
#114 to #40 - yisumad ONLINE
Reply 0
(09/30/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#285 to #40 - andyslayer
Reply -1
(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 ****.
#92 to #40 - rmoran
Reply -4
(09/30/2013) [-]
Actually..
#93 to #92 - sasyboncho
Reply +1
(09/30/2013) [-]
That was almost 2 months ago you ******.
#21 - chaosnazo
Reply +150
(09/30/2013) [-]
Just how many times are we going to discover water on Mars?
#277 to #21 - dubslao
Reply -2
(10/01/2013) [-]
as many times as we cure cancer and HIV in small children
#25 to #21 - alyssryuzaki
Reply 0
(09/30/2013) [-]
Until we finally get it out, I guess.
#57 to #21 - anon
Reply 0
(09/30/2013) [-]
At least, like, two times, man
#60 to #21 - anon
Reply 0
(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
Reply 0
(09/30/2013) [-]
once
#195 to #21 - anon
Reply 0
(09/30/2013) [-]
But it's in the soil this time!
The SOIL!
We can grow corn there now!
#98 to #21 - playerpants
Reply +1
(09/30/2013) [-]
did any one else read this in Kermit's voice?
#23 to #21 - wishanonscouldpost
Reply +6
(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.
#36 to #21 - fjisforfgts
Reply +12
(09/30/2013) [-]
The same amount of times we cure cancer/HIV
#32 to #21 - zomgroflmao
Reply +13
(09/30/2013) [-]
idk probably when some dumb **** stops using my mars as a coaster.
#90 to #32 - guanyu
Reply +2
(09/30/2013) [-]
#91 to #90 - zomgroflmao
Reply +2
(09/30/2013) [-]
#27 to #21 - gildemoono
Reply +22
(09/30/2013) [-]
This just in: User chaosnazo confirms existence of water on mars.
#238 to #27 - koltan
Reply 0
(10/01/2013) [-]
This is the first week of science I've seen that they haven't found a cure for HIV/AIDS.
#29 - UnoSkullmanx
Reply +9
(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).
#37 to #29 - Harkonnen
Reply 0
(09/30/2013) [-]
You dumb-ass mother ******
#120 to #29 - metalmind
Reply 0
(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
Reply 0
(09/30/2013) [-]
Please. Watch the Inconvenient Truth before you spew out bullcrap.
#266 to #29 - popkornking
Reply 0
(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.
#46 to #29 - thegamegestapo
Reply +7
(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
Reply -2
(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.
#49 to #48 - skeptical
Reply +23
(09/30/2013) [-]
No matter how hard you try none of you will ever be me
So stop it
#51 to #48 - thegamegestapo
Reply +6
(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.
#194 to #51 - skypatrol
Reply +1
(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
Reply -4
(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
#55 to #52 - thegamegestapo
Reply +5
(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.
#58 to #55 - nervaaurelius
Reply +3
(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.
#253 to #58 - teenytinyspider
Reply 0
(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.
#59 to #58 - thegamegestapo
Reply 0
(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.
#85 to #52 - gammajk
Reply +3
(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.
#15 - apaulcolypse
Reply +17
(09/30/2013) [-]
Thank you for the solar panel source!
Been working on a research project dealing with solar energy.
#13 - waratsea
Reply +6
(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.
#145 to #13 - peanutmonkey
Reply 0
(09/30/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#26 to #13 - danilawleit
Reply +2
(09/30/2013) [-]
NASA's FW someone drinks it
NASA's FW someone drinks it
#14 to #13 - waratsea
Reply +15
(09/30/2013) [-]
****, that was supposed to be a GIF
#178 to #14 - deathchain
Reply 0
(09/30/2013) [-]
I've been here so long I still knew what it was even though the octopus is hardly on the screen.
#73 to #14 - articulate
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#118 - alecope
Reply +12
(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.
#170 to #118 - cdsams ONLINE
Reply 0
(09/30/2013) [-]
Why I down voted.
#88 - Minnesota ONLINE
Reply +12
(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.
#144 to #88 - marshfellow
Reply +1
(09/30/2013) [-]
and the guy who came up with this example is called "LUKIN"!
you know light sabers and Luke.. coincidence?
#99 - asimplepotato
Reply +8
(09/30/2013) [-]
What's the matter?
#197 to #99 - twelveleven
Reply 0
(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.
#17 - ochsderp
Reply +7
(09/30/2013) [-]
This is one of the few without "We've almost cured AIDS" related stuff in it.