Through-silicon vias promise smaller, smarter chips--but not yet

The results of a series of randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials assessing the efficacy of inhaled marijuana consistently show that cannabis holds therapeutic value comparable to conventional medications, according to the findings of a 24-page report issued earlier today to the California state legislature by the California Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research (CMCR).
Four of the five placebo-controlled trials demonstrated that marijuana significantly alleviated neuropathy, a difficult to treat type of pain resulting from nerve damage.
“There is good evidence now that cannabinoids (the active compounds in the marijuana plant) may be either an adjunct or a first-line treatment for … neuropathy,” said Dr. Igor Grant, Director of the CMCR, at a news conference at the state Capitol. He added that the efficacy of smoked marijuana was “very consistent,” and that its pain-relieving effects were “comparable to the better existing treatments” presently available by prescription.

ROVE’S RECOVERY RESERVATIONS…. Just this week, it seems we’re starting to see conservatives worry about the state of the American economy. And by that I mean, they’re concerned it’s starting to improve in ways that may undermine Republicans’ campaign plans.
Some of this was evident when House Republican Conference Chairman Mike Pence (R-Ind.) tried to move the goal posts, arguing that government efforts that create jobs aren’t good enough. Karl Rove appeared on Fox News yesterday to argue that the economy is growing, but policymakers should get no credit for the progress.
“This in many ways is a false debate,” Rove said. “The economy is stabilized compared to where it was a year ago, but is it because the government has spent $200 billion in the stimulus program? I don’t think so.”
“If you take a look worldwide, the Federal Reserve and the central banks have injected $30 trillion into the world economy,” Rove continued, before acknowledging: “Again, the economy is going to recover, no ifs, ands, or buts.”

King’s College London president Rick Trainor announced recently that the university would be closing the chair of paleography, the UK’s only one.  Held by Professor David Ganz, the chair of paleography is the position that overseas a discipline many consider to be a vital component of historical research.  Paleography is the study of ancient manuscripts and has pieced together and deciphered many of the texts that have provided the basis for our knowledge of history.

Budget cuts are the precipitating factor, or rather “strategic disinvestment” as the official announcement goes, but they’re being met with some resistance.

“Palaeography is not simply an arcane auxiliary science,” says Professor Jeffrey Hamburger, chair of medieval studies at Harvard University. “It is as basic to the training and practice of ­historians as mastery of Dos or Unix might be to a computer scientist.”

-from the Guardian

by Warren Karlenzig

This headline, from Sunday’s Washington Post, is factually inaccurate:
Series of missteps by climate scientists threatens climate-change agenda
You could read the entire article that follows and come away with no idea that there have in fact been zero errors identified in the UN climate change panel’s science.
With its 2007 report declaring that the “warming of the climate system is unequivocal,” the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change won a Nobel Prize — and a new degree of public trust in the controversial science of global warming.
But recent revelations about flaws in that seminal report, ranging from typos in key dates to sloppy sourcing, are undermining confidence not only in the panel’s work but also in projections about climate change. Scientists who have pointed out problems in the report say the panel’s methods and mistakes — including admitting Saturday that it had overstated how much of the Netherlands was below sea level — give doubters an opening.
The “doubters,” of course, don’t include any credible climatologists. But the article’s authors include this bit of he said-she said for balance:

Taking biological samples from thousands of people every few months for several years could give scientists the first real understanding of aging.

This post was originally published on Think Progress.
Tomorrow, conservatives from around the country will converge at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), which serves as a “showcase of the heart and soul of American conservatism.” The Washington Scene reports that this year’s CPAC willprominently feature a Nancy Pelosi piñata and a Harry Reid punching bag for guests to take turns beating:

Interesting - opposing the end of suffering in terminal cases is a severe lack of compassion in my opnion. Hearing a religious leader take a philosophical stance on this is cool. But, as always, how the issue is viewed will depend on the worldview of the individual and which developmental moral stage dominates their perspective.

Summary

All the major religions are opposed to euthanasia (in their official statements at least), but why is this?

The most basic religious attitude is one that seeks to preserve the affirmation of life, and it is very fearful of anything which might undermine that. But against this is the seeming negation of the religious and moral decree of compassion and care, by increasing the amount pain and suffering a terminally ill person will have to undergo in a sustained or extended life.

How do the major religions stand on these issues and what help can it offer us in contemplating this political hot potato?

BIO