Don’t Tell My Kids

Playing video games could improve the vision of people born with cataracts, according to new research.

Surgery and contact lenses do not always work – and people experience visual difficulties into adulthood.

However, some of these effects can be reversed if the individual follows a short course of ‘game therapy’.

Doctor Maurer, of McMaster University in Canada, said: “After playing an action video game for just 40 hours over four weeks, the patients were better at seeing small print, the direction of moving dots, and the identity of faces.”

Psychologist Daphne Maurer has researched how vision develops in individuals born with cataracts in both eyes.

Previous research found that a 40-hour ‘course’ of video gaming could be used to treat ‘lazy eye’ or amblyopia, a brain disorder in which the vision in one eye fails to develop properly.

‘Those improvements tell us that the adult brain is still plastic enough to be trained to overcome sensory deficiencies,’ says Maurer.

Dr Maurer is internationally known for her work on “synaesthetes” – a condition that makes people’s brains link different senses.

Dr Maurer is due to present her findings at the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Vancouver, in a session called The Effects of Early Experience on Lifelong Functioning: Commitment and Resilience.

Attribution: Daily Mail

What the Frack

by: the Common Constitutionalist

Below is a short demonstration pulled from the movie Gasland. Gasland, you may or may not be aware, is a short film highlighting the evils of hydraulic fracturing or fracking. Fracking is a method of drilling to extract oil and gas from the earth.

There is a slight problem with above clip. No, there was no movie magic occurring. Mike Markham’s tap water really did ignite. The problem lies, as it always does, with the honesty of the report. It is not suggested nor implied. We are told outright, the water ignited due to fracking. The evil drillers did this. So where is the problem? The problem is that it is not true. None of it. In the tradition of movies made by Al Gore & Michael Moore, the lies are rampant & claims they make are baseless.

Below are excerpts of a State of Colorado government report refuting the claims of Gasland. It was not sponsored by the Oil & Gas industry. It is a Government report.

Report from the State of Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation Commission:

The documentary Gasland has attracted wide attention. Among other things, it alleges that the hydraulic fracturing of oil and gas wells has contaminated nearby water wells with methane in a number of states including Colorado. Because an informed public debate on hydraulic fracturing depends on accurate information, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) would like to correct several errors in the film’s portrayal of the Colorado incidents.

Methane is a natural hydrocarbon gas that is flammable and explosive in certain concentrations. It is produced either by bacteria or by geologic processes involving heat and pressure. Biogenic methane is created by the decomposition of organic material through fermentation, as is commonly seen in wetlands, or by the chemical reduction of carbon dioxide. It is found in some shallow, water-bearing geologic formations, into which water wells are sometimes completed. Thermogenic methane is created by the thermal decomposition of buried organic material. It is found in rocks buried deeper within the earth and is produced by drilling an oil and gas well and hydraulically fracturing the rocks that contain the gas. In Colorado, thermogenic methane is generally associated with oil and gas development, while biogenic methane is not.

Based upon our review of hundreds of Colorado gas samples over many years, the COGCC is able to differentiate between biogenic and thermogenic methane using both stable isotope analysis of the methane and compositional analysis of the gas.

In the Denver-Julesburg and Piceance Basins, the COGCC has consistently found that biogenic gas contains only methane and a very small amount of ethane, while thermogenic gas contains not just methane and ethane but also heavier hydrocarbons such as propane, butane, pentane, and hexanes.

Gasland incorrectly attributes several cases of water well contamination in Colorado to oil and gas development when our investigations determined that the wells in question contained biogenic methane that is not attributable to such development.

We (COGCC) concluded that Mike Markham’s and Renee McClure’s wells contained biogenic gas that was not related to oil and gas activity. Unfortunately, Gasland does not mention our McClure finding and dismisses our Markham finding out of hand.

Laboratory analysis confirmed that the Markham and McClure wells contained biogenic methane typical of gas that is naturally found in the coals of the Laramie–Fox Hills Aquifer, from where both households draw their water.

Water samples from the wells were analyzed for benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX), which are constituents of the hydrocarbons produced by oil and gas wells in the area and all associated with thermogenic gas. The absence of any BTEX compounds in these water samples provided additional evidence that oil and gas activity did not contaminate the Markham and McClure wells.

You may read the entire COGCC report here

There is a new film being released called “Fracknation”, that extol the benefits & give the viewer the real story of fracking, not the lies and over-hyped fear mongering of “Gasland”.

The following is an interview with Fracknation filmmaker Ann McElhinney:

Iran, All Bark, No Bite…Right

Let’s place this article in the “We’ll react with surprise after Israel is vaporized” file., or Move Along, Nothing to see here!
 

US downplays Iranian nuclear advancements as ‘hype’

By REUTERS, via The Jerusalem Post
 
Ahmadinejad unveils new centrifuges able to enrich uranium much faster; “We frankly don’t see a lot new here. This is not big news,” US responds.

The United States on Wednesday played down Iran’s latest announcements on advancements in its nuclear program, saying its reported breakthroughs were “not terribly new and not terribly impressive.”

Iran proclaimed advances in nuclear know-how, including new centrifuges able to enrich uranium much faster.

“We frankly don’t see a lot new here. This is not big news. In fact it seems to have been hyped,” a State Department spokeswoman said.

Despite Washington’s dismissal of the nuclear advancements as unimportant, the moves appeared designed to show that increased sanctions are failing to halt Iran’s technical progress and to strengthen its hand in any renewed negotiations with the major powers.

“The era of bullying nations has past. The arrogant powers cannot monopolize nuclear technology. They tried to prevent us by issuing sanctions and resolutions but failed,” Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said in a live television broadcast.

“Our nuclear path will continue.”

However, Iran’s Arabic-language Al Alam television said the government had handed a letter to EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton expressing readiness to “hold new talks over its nuclear program in a constructive way”.

An Ashton spokeswoman confirmed receipt of the letter, saying she was evaluating it and would consult with the United States, Russia, China and other partners among the big powers.

Iran has long refused to negotiate curbs on its nuclear program, saying it is intended to produce electricity for booming domestic demand and for other civilian uses.

The nuclear achievements proclaimed by Tehran involved a new line of uranium enrichment centrifuge and the loading of its first domestically produced batch of fuel into a research reactor that is expected to soon run out of imported stocks.

Tehran has for some years been developing and testing new generations of centrifuges to replace its outdated, erratic “P-1” model. In January it said it had successfully manufactured and tested its own fuel rods for use in nuclear power plants.

Ahmadinejad said the “fourth generation” of centrifuge would be able to refine uranium three times as fast as previously.

If Iran eventually succeeded in introducing modern centrifuges for production, it could significantly shorten the time needed to stockpile enriched uranium, which can generate electricity or, if refined much more, nuclear explosions.

Last year, Iran installed two newer models for large scale testing at a research site near the central town of Natanz.

But it remains unclear whether Tehran, under increasingly strict trade sanctions, has the means and components to make the more sophisticated machines in industrial quantity.

“We have seen this before. We have seen these announcements and these grand unveilings and it turns out that there was less there than meets the eye. I suspect this is the same case,” said Shannon Kile at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).

However, Ahmadinejad said Iran had significantly increased the number of centrifuges at its main enrichment site at Natanz, saying there were now 9,000 such machines installed there.

In its last report on Iran, in November, the UN nuclear watchdog said there were 8,000 installed centrifuges at Natanz, of which up to 6,200 were operating.

State television aired live footage of Ahmadinejad loading Iranian-made fuel rods into the Tehran Research Reactor and called this “a sign of Iranian scientists’ achievements”.

The Tehran reactor produces radio isotopes for medical use and agriculture. Iran says it was forced to manufacture its own fuel for the Tehran reactor after failing to agree terms for a deal to obtain it from the West.

In 2010, Iran alarmed the West by starting to enrich uranium to a fissile purity of 20 percent for the stated purpose of reprocessing into special fuel for the Tehran reactor.

In boosting enrichment up from the 3.5 percent level suitable for powering civilian nuclear plants, Iran moved significantly closer to the 90 percent threshold suitable for the fissile core of a nuclear warhead.

Analysts remained doubtful that Iran would be able to operate the research reactor with its own special fuel.

“As usual, the announcement surely is exaggerated. Producing the fuel plates … is not so hard. But the plates have to be tested for a considerable period before they can be used safely in the reactor,” said Mark Fitzpatrick of London’s International Institute for Strategic Studies.

“If Iran is really running the reactor with untested fuel plates, then my advice to the residents surrounding the building would be to move somewhere else. It will be unsafe.”

Clean Up Your Space, Young Man

More than half a century of sending objects into space has left the Earth surrounded by junk. Bits of long-dead satellites, spent rocket stages and other debris orbit the planet at almost 18,000 mph, each chunk a potential hazard to working satellites or astronauts.

The Swiss have a plan, however. Scientists at the Swiss space centre at EPFL, the federal institute for technology in Lausanne, want to send a “janitor satellite” into orbit, to sweep up debris and permanently remove it from orbit.

The $11 million satellite, called CleanSpace One, could launch within five years, according to EPFL.

Nasa keeps track of 16,000 pieces of orbiting junk that are larger than 10cm (4in) in diameter. There could be more than 500,000 measuring 1cm-10cm and many hundreds of millions smaller ones.

Even a small fragment of debris could severely damage (or even destroy) satellites or other spacecraft that collide with them, creating even more dangerous debris. The International Space Station has to regularly alter its orbit to avoid being hit by large bits of junk.

In February 2009, the US satellite Iridium-33 exploded when it accidentally hit Russia’s long-abandoned Cosmos-2251 satellite.

“It has become essential to be aware of the existence of this debris and the risks that are run by its proliferation,” said Claude Nicollier, an astronaut and EPFL professor.

CleanSpace One would match its trajectory to that of its target using an EPFL-designed ultra-compact motor. When it reaches its target, it will grab the junk with a gripping claw. At speeds of up to 18,000mph, this will not be an easy task, especially if the junk is rotating. CleanSpace One will then head back to Earth and burn up in the atmosphere, along with its attached junk.

For its first mission, EPFL will aim to bring down one of two abandoned Swiss satellites: the Swisscube picosatellite, which was launched into orbit in 2009, or the TIsat, launched in July 2010.

Russia’s planned Mars/moon probe never escaped Earth orbit after its November launch, despite the efforts of Russian and European space agencies. It’s one of the heaviest and most toxic pieces of space junk ever to crash to Earth.

“We want to offer and sell a whole family of ready-made systems, designed as sustainably as possible, that are able to de-orbit several different kinds of satellites,” said Volker Gass, the Swiss space centre’s director, in a statement on the EPFL website.

“Space agencies are increasingly finding it necessary to take into consideration and prepare for the elimination of the stuff they’re sending into space. We want to be the pioneers in this area.”

Attribution: UK Guardian

A Rock goes for a Walk

What’s so special about a rock rolling across the ground, even on the moon?

One would certainly forgive you for thinking that this solitary boulder on the Moon had recently rolled down a slope, leaving a trail behind it.

The tracks are in almost perfect condition so it appears as though this journey just happened.

However, NASA’s Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera (LROC) is able to zoom in so closely that it is possible to see craters along the route of the 9-meter (29-1/2 feet) boulder, which is thought to have bounced off the rim of the Schiller crater.

With the high resolution capability of the LROC, scientists were able to work out when they believed the journey took place.

It is thought the boulder actually rolled between 50 and 100 million years ago.

Lunar scientist James Ashley said on the LROC website: “Studies suggest that regolith development from micrometeorite impacts will erase tracks like these over time intervals of tens of millions of years.”

“Eventually it’s track will be erased completely”, added Ashley.

It is not known what might have caused the rock to roll but Ashley has suggested the boulder moved because of impact and that this might have been caused by a direct hit from a meteoroid.

 

Attribution: Daily Mail

Greenies on the Run

Three Cheers for James Inhofe, an American hero. Thanks to spearheads like Inhofe, could it be that we may actually be able to beat back these Enviro-Fools?
It appears we’re making progress.

The following video is from December, 2011. It is quite funny to watch these desperate Green Movement pin heads as they throw out their talking points & slogans. The newest one is “Climate Justice”. They’ve even folded in the old 99 vs. the evil 1%. Listen carefully. No facts or evidence, just slogans.

Next we have a short article by John Gizzi at Human Events entitled: Inhofe unveils “the greatest hoax” of climate control from Friday:

After years in the wilderness decrying the scientific argument for climate control (formerly known as climate control), Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) is finding that the tide is turning to his point of view–that climate control is little more than a hoax, and one perpetrated on the world for many years.

In an interview HUMAN EVENTS at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Washington, the ranking Republican on the Senate Environment Committee unveiled his new book, “The Greatest Hoax,” about the lack of truth in the case for climate control.

“Yes, we’re finding that the tide is turning,” Inhofe told us, citing “Climate Gate–the 2010 revelation that much of the evidence produced by scientists to support climate change on earth had been confabulated and was untrue. The Oklahoman said that since the revelation, people who formerly assumed climate change existed have come over to his point of view.

“And much of the international community feels the way [I] do,” said Inhofe, In just the last few weeks, the environment minister in Canada has come out against international agreements on the agreement. Other countries have followed suit.

For Inhofe, the publication of “The Greatest Hoax” puts into print what he has argued against the tide for a long time. Like the author, the book will in arguably be controversial.

And from Tulsa World News:  Ralph Nader has dropped out of efforts to schedule a global-warming debate between U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe and a House Democrat, the Tulsa World learned Thursday.

Katherine Raymond, an assistant to the veteran activist, said Nader is leaving the organization of a debate to Inhofe and Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass.

“Ralph won’t be doing anything further on this, it appears,” Raymond said.

Several weeks ago, Nader issued his debate challenge to Inhofe after the Oklahoma Republican declared victory on the years-long global warming controversy.

Inhofe, who once declared global warming a scientific hoax, quickly accepted Nader’s challenge.

Not much has happened since then.

It was unclear what impact Nader’s decision will have on whether a debate will occur.

Gotta Get Me one of Deez

Ever wonder what it would be like to drive a F1 racecar? I know I have.

Well, wonder no more. For the miserly some of about $500,000, you too, can be the proud owner of the Caparo T1, street-legal supercar.

The Stratton Motor Company in Norwich, England is now offering this 2 seater that will do 0-60MPH in a blistering 2.5 seconds, which almost matches the 2.4 seconds of the 2011 Bugatti Veyron 16.4 Super Sport. The Bugatti will set you back a tad more at $2,400,000.

So the T1 is a veritable bargain.

Of course it has no doors, windows or even a windshield, but is equipped with a 6 point racing harness as the seatbelt. What do want for a half a million?

It is fitted with a six-speed ‘flappy paddle’ gearbox and brakes which will stop it from 100MPH in three seconds.

The T1’s maximum speed is more than 200MPH and does 0-100 in 5 seconds.

The T1’s power plant is a 575HP Aluminum V-8 engine. For those in the know, 575HP doesn’t sound that radical. After all, the Bugatti has 1200HP.

The key to the incredible performance of the Caparo is the power-to-weight ratio.  At 1210 pounds, it weighs 20 percent less than a Smart Car, which gives it twice the power-to-weight ratio of the Veyron.

 There have been more than a few humans who weigh more than this car, but I don’t have the stomach to show a picture of any of them.

The wildly popular British television show, “Top Gear”, took it out on their test track, where they have driven virtually every supercar in the world.

The official test driver, known as “The Stig”,  flew around the Top Gear track in just 1 minute 10 seconds – six seconds quicker than the Bugatti. On that short track, six seconds is a lifetime.

Due to the awesome performance of the T1,  the Stratton Motor Company insist on taking the new owner on an intensive two-day driving course on road and track so they can understand the car’s incredible capabilities.

Attribution: Daily Mail

How Green Zealots are Destroying the Planet

By: James Delingpole, courtesy, UK Daily Mail

Just imagine a world where you never had to worry about global warming, where the ice caps, the ‘drowning’ Maldives and the polar bears were all doing just fine.

Imagine a world where CO2 was our friend, fossil fuels were a miracle we should cherish, and economic growth made the planet cleaner, healthier, happier and with more open spaces.

Actually, there’s no need to imagine: it already exists. So why do so many people still believe otherwise?

How come, against so much evidence, everyone from the BBC to your kids’ teachers to the Coalition government (though that may change somewhat now Energy Secretary Chris Huhne has resigned), to the President of the Royal Society to the Prince of Wales continues to pump out the message that man-made ‘climate change’ is a major threat?

Why, when the records show that there has been no global warming since 1997, are we still squandering billions of pounds trying to avert it?

These are some of the questions I set out to answer in my new book — which I can guarantee will not make me popular with environmentalists.

Almost every day, on Twitter or by email, I get violent messages of hate directed not just at me, but even my children. Separately, I’ve been criticised by websites such as the Campaign Against Climate Change (Honorary President: the environmental activist and writer George Monbiot). I’ve had a green activist set up a false website in my name to misdirect my internet traffic. I’ve been vilified everywhere from the Guardian to a BBC Horizon documentary as a wicked ‘denier’ who knows nothing about science.

Not that I’m complaining. Margaret Thatcher once famously said: ‘I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.’

That’s just how I feel about my critics’ ad hominem assaults. They’re born not of strength but out of sheer desperation.

The turning point towards some semblance of sanity in the great climate war came in November 2009 with the leak of the notorious Climategate emails from the University of East Anglia.

What these showed is that the so-called ‘consensus’ science behind Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) — ie the theory that man-made CO2 is causing our planet to heat up in a dangerous, unprecedented fashion — simply cannot be trusted.

The experts had, for years, been twisting the evidence, abusing the scientific process, breaching Freedom of Information requests (by illegally hiding or deleting emails and taxpayer-funded research) and silencing dissent in a way which removes all credibility from the scaremongering reports they write for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

(The IPCC is the heavily politicised but supposedly neutral UN advisory body which has been described by President Obama as the ‘gold standard’ of international climate science.)

Since Climategate, the scientific case against AGW theory has hardened still further. Experiments at the CERN laboratory in Geneva have supported the theory of Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark that the sun — not man-made CO2 — is the biggest driver of climate change.

The latest data released by the Met Office, based on readings from 30,000 measuring stations, confirms there has been no global warming for 15 years.
Now, with sunspot activity (solar flares caused by magnetic activity) at its lowest since the days of the 17th-century frost fairs on the Thames, it seems increasingly likely we are about to enter a new mini Ice Age. Should we be bothered by this? Of course we should. Not only does it mean that for the rest of our lives we’re likely to be doomed to experience colder winters and duller summers, but it also makes us victims of perhaps the most expensive fraud in history.

Over the past 20 years, across the Western world, billions of pounds, dollars and euros have been squandered by governments on hare-brained schemes to ‘combat climate change’.

Taxes have been raised, regulations increased, flights made more expensive, incandescent light bulbs banned, landscapes despoiled by ugly, bird-chomping wind farms, economic growth curtailed — all to deal with what now turns out to have been a non-existent problem: man-made CO2.

But if anthropogenic warming is not the threat environmentalists would have us believe, why do so many people believe it is? And how come so many disparate groups — from the hair-shirt anti-capitalist activists of Greenpeace and Friends Of The Earth to the executives of big corporations, to politicians of every hue from Gordon Brown to David Cameron to scientists at NASA and the UEA — are working together to promote this pernicious myth?

The short answer is ‘follow the money’.

Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit at the UEA which was at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ scandal, for example, was given £13.7 million in grants for his department’s research work; the environmental non-governmental organisations such as Greenpeace came on board because scaremongering helps them raise revenue.

You’re not going to give money to the charity’s Project Thin Ice if you think the polar bear is good for another 10,000 years, but you might if you’re told it’s seriously endangered.

Politicians were attracted because it was a good way of being seen to be addressing an issue of popular concern, and a handy excuse to put up taxes.

Big corporations joined in the scam as a) it enabled them to ‘greenwash’ their image through campaigns like BP’s ‘Beyond Petroleum’ and b) it meant all that extra environmental regulation would be a handy way of pricing their smaller competitors out of the market place.

But money isn’t the only reason. If you read the private emails of the Climategate scientists, what you discover is that most of them genuinely believe in the climate change peril.

That’s why they lied about the evidence and why they tried to destroy the careers of those scientists who disagreed with them: because they wanted to scare politicians into action before time ran out. This was not science, in other words, but political activism.

A similar ‘end justifies the means’ mentality seems to prevail among all those environmental lobby groups. They don’t exaggerate or misrepresent because they’re bad people. They do it, as a former head of Greenpeace once charmingly put it when accused of having overstated the decline in Arctic sea ice, to ‘emotionalise the issue’; because they want to make the rest of the world care about these issues as much as they do.
Powerful feelings, though, are hardly the most sensible basis for global policy. Especially not when, as it turns out, they are based on a misreading of the facts.

One of the grimmest ironies of the modern environmental movement is just how much damage it has done to the planet in the name of ‘saving’ it. Green biofuels (crops such as palm oil grown for fuel) have not only led to the destruction of millions of acres of rainforest in Asia, Africa and South America, but are now known to produce four times more CO2 pollution than fossil fuels.

Wind farms, besides blighting views, destroying topsoil and causing massive noise pollution, kill around 400,000 birds a year in the U.S. alone. Environmentalists, in fact, have a disastrous track record when it comes to predictions and policy recommendations. Rachel Carson’s 1962 bestseller Silent Spring — which promised a cancer epidemic from pesticides — led to a near worldwide ban on the malarial pesticide DDT, thus condemning millions in the Third World to die from malaria.

Paul Ehrlich’s 1968 bestseller The Population Bomb, meanwhile, rehearsed another of the green movement’s favourite themes: overpopulation. By the Seventies and Eighties, he warned, hundreds of millions of us would be dying like flies because there wouldn’t be enough food.

Why did Ehrlich’s prediction never come to pass? Because, like most of the greenies’ doomsday scenarios, it overlooked one vital factor: progress.

Because the green movement has for years been ideologically wedded to the notion that mankind is an ecological curse (‘The Earth has a cancer. The cancer is man’, as a global think tank called The Club of Rome, which includes several current and former heads of state, puts it), it fails to understand the role which technology, human ingenuity and adaption play in our species’ survival.
Ehrlich’s population disaster was averted thanks to a brilliant American scientist called Norman Borlaug who devised new mutant strains of wheat which managed to triple cereal production on the starving Indian subcontinent.

Of course, there is still widespread concern over the use of genetically modified crops, but scientists argue that with proper safeguards in place they can actually be more environmentally friendly than conventional crops, using less water and fewer pesticides.

Similar technological advances in the field of energy make a nonsense of environmentalists’ claims that we are running out of fuel: long before coal ran out came the petroleum revolution; and, though we still have plenty of oil left, we now have the miracle of shale gas which lies in abundance everywhere from Blackpool to the North Sea, and is released using blasts of high-pressure liquid to open pockets of gas in rock.

When, many decades hence, that runs out we will start to harvest clathrates (solid methane deposits) buried on the ocean floor.

Economic progress is not our enemy but our friend. It is an historical fact that the richer nations are, the more money they have to spare on ensuring a cleaner environment: compare the relatively clean air in London to the choking smog that envelops Beijing and Delhi; look at where the worst ecological disasters happened in the last century — under impoverished Communist regimes, from the Aral Sea to Chernobyl.

But the greens refuse to accept this because, according to their quasi-religious doctrine, industrial civilisation is a curse and economic growth a disease which can only be cured by rationing and self-sacrifice, higher taxes and greater state control.

That’s why I call my new book Watermelons — because it’s about zealots who are green on the outside, but in political terms, red on the inside. If only their views weren’t so influential, in schools, universities, in the media, in the corridors of power, the global economy wouldn’t be nearly in the mess it’s in today.

As someone who loves long walks in unspoilt countryside and who wants a brighter future for his children, I’m sickened by the way environmental activists tar anyone who disagrees with them as a selfish, polluting, anti-science ‘denier’.

The real deniers are those ideological greens who refuse to look at hard evidence (not just pie-in-the-sky computer models which are no more accurate than the suspect data fed into them) and won’t accept that their well-intentioned schemes to make our world a better place are in fact making it uglier, poorer and less free.

So You Thought You were Safe?

For everyone who has posted a not-so-flattering picture up on Facebook, this should give you pause.

From: The UK Daily Mail:

Deleted Facebook photos don’t disappear but can still be accessed by anyone with a link to the images themselves.

The company admits that its systems ‘do not always delete images in a reasonable period of time.’

The news is liable to be a shock to users who’ve relied on the delete function to remove embarrassing photos from office parties or nights out.

Deleted images vanish from ‘normal’ views of the site – ie if you log in to Facebook and look on somebody’s photo page, they won’t be visible – but remain visible to anyone with a direct URL link to the picture.

That means that if, for instance, a picture has been circulated by email, the image will still be there for anyone who clicks the link.

Facebook has repeatedly promised to ‘fix’ problems with the systems it uses to remove photographs, after users pointed out that images tended to persist after deletion.

Not all deleted pictures are affected, but a significant percentage.


Technology site Ars Technica reports that a picture of a naked toddler supposedly ‘removed’ in 2008 was still visible as of February 2012.

Site readers reported campaigns of harassment using supposedly ‘deleted’ pictures.

Facebook has been repeatedly informed of the problem, but the company’s line has always been that it is being fixed.

They Did It! Russians Expose Lake Vostok Secrets

 

The unofficial comment came this morning from the American office of the Russian Embassy: They did it!!!

Attached was a link to the state-sponsored Russian news agency RIA Novosti, , which quoted an unnamed source as saying:

“Yesterday, our scientists stopped drilling at the depth of 3,768 meters and reached the surface of the sub-glacial lake.”

The news came as a huge relief after weekend speculation grew over the current status of the Russian drill team as they raced against time to reach Antarctica’s 20 million-year-old, ice-covered Lake Vostok or be forced to wait another year to try again.

Link to Original Story