Slashdot Mirror

Embryonic stem cells are not taken from unborn babies, they are taken from embryos, preferably while still undifferentiated. This is because what is wanted is the cells *before* they start taking on roles. The cells are then cultured. And as in the SciAm article I linked to before, it is far from certain adult stem cells even exist and work.

Note, the whole point of embryonic, is so one can clone a patient and while the cloned cells are still in undifferentiated stage, use them for treatment to avoid rejection. This is far different from your implication of somehow extracting them from a baby.

The addiction is real.

You can't sue bugs either.

Bush is in the White House, so probably no law will get passed. If it does, it will be 400 pages long, and allow the FBI to come to your house, take your computer and dump it in Anwar. Then, a few months later, Bush will send a "Reclamation Team" to go and 'dig it up'. "Look! We found oil! Since we're already here, might as well 'dig that up' too.



And if we had Clinton still in office? Still probably no law, but if it did get passed, it'd allow secret service to come to your house, escorting Bill, he'd search your harddrive for porn, order the machine confiscated, have it to be brought to the oval office with an intern. Then the you'd get it back with stains, he'd claim that he didn't have sex with it.

Had Algore been president, he'd have the machine confiscated because of DMCA violations as he invented the internet. You'd then be thrown in the nearest "why the government handles your money better than you can" rehabilitation center.


If you're Republican, and are offended by my comment or mod it down, it proves you have a small weiner.


If you're a Democrat/Green/whatever else, and are offended by my comment or mod it down, it proves that you have more in common with Dolly and the rest of the free (think like everyone else on slashdot for karma) thinking slashdot liberals. Oh, and probably have a small weiner too.


Don't say I didn't warn you...


Take this warning about as much as the one above.

in the sciam article they explain this bit... apparently the dB scale is logarithmic

Check out their article here. Unfortunately, no mention of peoples' hair igniting.

There are lots of studies using fMRI (functional MRI,the more appropriate name for what they are using, since they actually take a "movie" of MRI snapshots in the brain.) The fields that use fMRI most heavily is neuroscience and cognitive science.

As an example of studies I'm aware of, people are monitored while doing simple tasks, such as reading the words on a series of cards. The words are color names, and sometimes the color name is written in the same color as the name and sometimes in a different color. Simple motor tasks, such as squeezing a ball, are also examined.

The drawbacks of fMRI is that they only allow you to monitor bloodflow in the brain. The idea is that areas that are being actively used will get increased blood flow, but this happens on the order of tens of seconds, so it doesn't really provide a detailed picture of brain activity.

The brain is immensely complicated, and it will be a long time before we have even a simple understanding of how it functions. Even longer till we understand higher level tasks, such as how we decide to buy something.

I, like one of the critics in the article, suspect that this "neuromarketing" effort will prove ineffective, at least in the short run. The biggest worry would be that they'd stuble onto something like the "orienting response" that keeps people in front of the TV.

I think the Japanese did that or something similar...4 years ago. But the American's have the market when it comes to quantum haiku

Two leading sci am links seems to be taking quite a toll on the Sci Am servers!

This formatting is a little strange, anyone else think that looks like "this delicious 350-million-year old Trilobite"? (in the second paragraph)

Images used in document: Indian man with child holding Simputer, Close-up Picture of Simputer

Images Courtesy of ENCORE SOFTWARE LTD

Article Mirror

The article:

It doesn't look like much. A drab, gray piece of plastic, about five inches long and three inches wide. A black-and-white screen, three inches by two inches, showing a few simple snippets of text. And yet this nondescript little computer may hold the key to bringing information technology to Third World countries.

The device is known as the Simputer. I recently got a chance to evaluate one of the preproduction models that have been put together by the Simputer Trust, a nonprofit organization based in Bangalore, India. This year Encore Software, a Bangalore company that licensed the technology from the trust (not to be confused with the California software company of the same name), plans to sell thousands of the handheld devices, capping an effort that began in 1998.

Simputer stands for " simple, inexpensive, multilingual computer." It was designed to meet the needs of rural villagers in countries such as India, Malaysia, Nigeria and Indonesia. Many of these potential users are illiterate and have never even seen a computer before. Loaded with some elementary software, the Simputer will sell for about $250 (or $300 for a model with a color screen). That's a sizable chunk of the yearly per capita income in many developing nations. But the Simputer's proponents argue that a single device could enable an entire village to access the Internet, perform transactions, keep track of agricultural prices and educate its children. Says Shreyas Patel, a consultant to Encore who has been setting up pilot tests of the Simputer in East Africa: " This will bring computing power to isolated communities. It can have an enormous impact."

The Simputer was conceived by a team of computer scientists at the Indian Institute of Science in Bangalore. To make the machine cheap enough to sell in poor regions, the developers kept the hardware requirements to a minimum. The Simputer's microprocessor is an Intel Strong-ARM chip, which is known for its low power consumption. The device will have as much as 64 megabytes of random-access memory and 32 megabytes of flash memory, as well as a modem that can connect to a telephone line. And the computer runs on the Linux operating system, which is available free of charge.

Like the Palm, the Visor and other personal digital assistants (PDAs), the Simputer has a touch-sensitive screen. You use a stylus to tap on icons and to input information. The device doesn't have a keyboard or handwriting-recognition software, but in certain applications the user can select letters or numbers from a software-generated keyboard that pops up on the screen. In addition, the Simputer has a program called Tapatap that displays a three-by-three grid; you can input a letter or number by tapping on the squares of the grid in a particular sequence. Although this method is easier than hunting and pecking on a software keyboard, it is still somewhat laborious, so the Simputer's applications have been carefully designed to minimize the need for tapping in text.

But how will illiterate people be able to use the Simputer if they can't read the directions on the screen? There are two answers. One is the simplicity of the device's interface: because each display page shows only a few possible commands, even illiterate users should be able to learn by trial and error the purpose of the icons and buttons on each page. The second answer is software that can turn text into speech. The Simputer holds a database of phonemes-- basic linguistic sounds-- and from these it can generate an audio representation of any word as long as it is spelled phonetically and in characters from the Roman alphabet. It will work for various Indian languages, including Hindi, Kannada and Tamil, allowing the Simputer to read the text aloud on its tiny built-in speakers. The Simputer Trust says the software will be made available in other languages as well, depending on where the device is used.

I was unable to test this function on my preproduction model, which lacked the text-to-speech program. I can confirm, however, that the Simputer is remarkably easy to use. Its screen is free of the annoying graphical clutter that most of us are accustomed to seeing on our PCs. Below the screen are seven small buttons, one an on-off switch and the rest for use with certain embedded applications such as the Tapatap program. I found that I did not need to bother with the buttons very often, because the design of the software made it easier to use the stylus.

The Simputer also has a slot for " smart" cards, a feature that its makers see as crucial. Because the device lacks a hard drive, smart cards will act as the device's portable storage units. In this way, many people will be able to share a single Simputer without having to share their private information with one another. The cards will cost between $1 and $3 apiece and will hold four to eight kilobytes of data-- not very much by commercial standards but enough to carry some basic information for each user. " We envisage that a village might club together to buy one," notes Shashank Garg, vice president for product development at Encore. A farmer in India, for example, could use the Simputer to find out the latest prices for cotton, allowing him to strike a better deal when selling his crop. The next day one of his neighbors could use the same device to examine government property records, eliminating the need to make a difficult journey to the city.

The Simputer Trust believes the range of applications will prove compelling. But the device does have some drawbacks. It's slow, taking about 15 seconds to boot up and often needing several seconds to digest the information that the user inputs. And the Simputer sometimes crashes when it is left idle for a while, making it necessary to reboot the machine. Also, powering the device may be a daunting task in areas that do not have a reliable electricity supply. Although the Simputer can run on three AAA batteries, it can operate for only a few hours before draining them. And in the developing world, even batteries are expensive and hard to come by.

Fortunately, Simputer users may be able to draw on muscle power instead. A decade ago English inventor Trevor G. Baylis created the Freeplay radio, which is powered by turning a crank that winds up a spring inside the machine. As the spring unwinds, it turns a shaft that runs a small electric generator. Freeplay Energy Group, the company that now sells these radios, recently produced a similar charger that can power a mobile phone. In a demonstration this year some energetic hand-cranking yielded enough energy to run an Apple laptop for a few minutes. With a few adaptations, devices such as these could charge up the Simputer.

But the Simputer may not be the best tool for bringing information to the world's poorest nations. Because most people in developing countries have no access to fixed telephone lines, many mobile-phone operators are setting up networks in those areas. Mobile phones are cheaper than the Simputer, and the most advanced models can send text messages and access the Internet. Communities choosing between the devices may find a mobile phone more immediately attractive for keeping in touch with the outside world and conducting business.

Perhaps the greatest obstacle for the Simputer, though, is cost. Will people in developing countries be able to justify the expenditure of $250 on a device that may be helpful but is not essential? When so many communities in the Third World still lack clean drinking water and adequate medical facilities, are computers really a priority? Posters note: I am karma capped

Images used in document: Indian man with child holding Simputer, Close-up Picture of Simputer

Images Courtesy of ENCORE SOFTWARE LTD

Article Mirror

The article:

It doesn't look like much. A drab, gray piece of plastic, about five inches long and three inches wide. A black-and-white screen, three inches by two inches, showing a few simple snippets of text. And yet this nondescript little computer may hold the key to bringing information technology to Third World countries.

The device is known as the Simputer. I recently got a chance to evaluate one of the preproduction models that have been put together by the Simputer Trust, a nonprofit organization based in Bangalore, India. This year Encore Software, a Bangalore company that licensed the technology from the trust (not to be confused with the California software company of the same name), plans to sell thousands of the handheld devices, capping an effort that began in 1998.

Simputer stands for " simple, inexpensive, multilingual computer." It was designed to meet the needs of rural villagers in countries such as India, Malaysia, Nigeria and Indonesia. Many of these potential users are illiterate and have never even seen a computer before. Loaded with some elementary software, the Simputer will sell for about $250 (or $300 for a model with a color screen). That's a sizable chunk of the yearly per capita income in many developing nations. But the Simputer's proponents argue that a single device could enable an entire village to access the Internet, perform transactions, keep track of agricultural prices and educate its children. Says Shreyas Patel, a consultant to Encore who has been setting up pilot tests of the Simputer in East Africa: " This will bring computing power to isolated communities. It can have an enormous impact."

The Simputer was conceived by a team of computer scientists at the Indian Institute of Science in Bangalore. To make the machine cheap enough to sell in poor regions, the developers kept the hardware requirements to a minimum. The Simputer's microprocessor is an Intel Strong-ARM chip, which is known for its low power consumption. The device will have as much as 64 megabytes of random-access memory and 32 megabytes of flash memory, as well as a modem that can connect to a telephone line. And the computer runs on the Linux operating system, which is available free of charge.

Like the Palm, the Visor and other personal digital assistants (PDAs), the Simputer has a touch-sensitive screen. You use a stylus to tap on icons and to input information. The device doesn't have a keyboard or handwriting-recognition software, but in certain applications the user can select letters or numbers from a software-generated keyboard that pops up on the screen. In addition, the Simputer has a program called Tapatap that displays a three-by-three grid; you can input a letter or number by tapping on the squares of the grid in a particular sequence. Although this method is easier than hunting and pecking on a software keyboard, it is still somewhat laborious, so the Simputer's applications have been carefully designed to minimize the need for tapping in text.

But how will illiterate people be able to use the Simputer if they can't read the directions on the screen? There are two answers. One is the simplicity of the device's interface: because each display page shows only a few possible commands, even illiterate users should be able to learn by trial and error the purpose of the icons and buttons on each page. The second answer is software that can turn text into speech. The Simputer holds a database of phonemes-- basic linguistic sounds-- and from these it can generate an audio representation of any word as long as it is spelled phonetically and in characters from the Roman alphabet. It will work for various Indian languages, including Hindi, Kannada and Tamil, allowing the Simputer to read the text aloud on its tiny built-in speakers. The Simputer Trust says the software will be made available in other languages as well, depending on where the device is used.

I was unable to test this function on my preproduction model, which lacked the text-to-speech program. I can confirm, however, that the Simputer is remarkably easy to use. Its screen is free of the annoying graphical clutter that most of us are accustomed to seeing on our PCs. Below the screen are seven small buttons, one an on-off switch and the rest for use with certain embedded applications such as the Tapatap program. I found that I did not need to bother with the buttons very often, because the design of the software made it easier to use the stylus.

The Simputer also has a slot for " smart" cards, a feature that its makers see as crucial. Because the device lacks a hard drive, smart cards will act as the device's portable storage units. In this way, many people will be able to share a single Simputer without having to share their private information with one another. The cards will cost between $1 and $3 apiece and will hold four to eight kilobytes of data-- not very much by commercial standards but enough to carry some basic information for each user. " We envisage that a village might club together to buy one," notes Shashank Garg, vice president for product development at Encore. A farmer in India, for example, could use the Simputer to find out the latest prices for cotton, allowing him to strike a better deal when selling his crop. The next day one of his neighbors could use the same device to examine government property records, eliminating the need to make a difficult journey to the city.

The Simputer Trust believes the range of applications will prove compelling. But the device does have some drawbacks. It's slow, taking about 15 seconds to boot up and often needing several seconds to digest the information that the user inputs. And the Simputer sometimes crashes when it is left idle for a while, making it necessary to reboot the machine. Also, powering the device may be a daunting task in areas that do not have a reliable electricity supply. Although the Simputer can run on three AAA batteries, it can operate for only a few hours before draining them. And in the developing world, even batteries are expensive and hard to come by.

Fortunately, Simputer users may be able to draw on muscle power instead. A decade ago English inventor Trevor G. Baylis created the Freeplay radio, which is powered by turning a crank that winds up a spring inside the machine. As the spring unwinds, it turns a shaft that runs a small electric generator. Freeplay Energy Group, the company that now sells these radios, recently produced a similar charger that can power a mobile phone. In a demonstration this year some energetic hand-cranking yielded enough energy to run an Apple laptop for a few minutes. With a few adaptations, devices such as these could charge up the Simputer.

But the Simputer may not be the best tool for bringing information to the world's poorest nations. Because most people in developing countries have no access to fixed telephone lines, many mobile-phone operators are setting up networks in those areas. Mobile phones are cheaper than the Simputer, and the most advanced models can send text messages and access the Internet. Communities choosing between the devices may find a mobile phone more immediately attractive for keeping in touch with the outside world and conducting business.

Perhaps the greatest obstacle for the Simputer, though, is cost. Will people in developing countries be able to justify the expenditure of $250 on a device that may be helpful but is not essential? When so many communities in the Third World still lack clean drinking water and adequate medical facilities, are computers really a priority? Posters note: I am karma capped

"So useful and easy, even bin Laden says it's #1!"

How much you wanna bet he's reading his hate emails?

In the very back of the September 2000 issue of Scientific American there is an article Using a Kite as an Experimental Platform, which provides plans for a 'Picavet Suspension' system that you can use to keep your equipment (camera) level in flight, historical references, a discussion of kite types/recommended uses, and references.

By the way, Shawn Carlson, the guy that wrote that article, is the Founder and Executive Director of the Society for Amateur Scientists. Seems like the type of organization slashdotters would enjoy.

Hoo-rah for the day of the citizen scientist! Hoo-ray for the impending American Renaissance.

Scientific American
July 2002 issue
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FE C-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&catID=2

Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up.

Embarrassingly, in the 21st century, in the most scientifically advanced nation the world has ever known, creationists can still persuade politicians, judges and ordinary citizens that evolution is a flawed, poorly supported fantasy.

Hey Shwag!

Check out Susan Blackmore's article "The Power of Memes" which was originally published in Scientific American. She's a little out there but it will at least get you started. She is also an editor at the online Journal of Memetics.

You're welcome,
gcondon

p.s. I think Dan Gillmor's answer was a cop-out.

Computers Without Clocks

There was an article in Scientific American about this just recently...

This may be a little offtopic but as people is again discussing the merits of the modern patent system I would highly recomend this link from Scientific American:
There's No Stopping Them

Well SciAm is a highly respectable publication which seems to have some good years of life. So I think we may take into consideration that if even perpetual motion engines keep being patented, anything can be patented, even the Creation or the Big Bang... Besides, in the article they give some interesting reason why we have so many silly patents and why we have so many troubles with courts. While this is not exactly about this patent we are discussing here, it gives some light on the state of the things.

In these modern times, where money can control everything, it is not uncommon to see a former communist government letting this happen and supporting. Perhaps this is a downside to capitalism and reality TV that we want to shoot desperate competitive into space. Reality TV is already loosing a lot of its luster in the United States of America so I assume that this show will be marketed in other area's where the demand is still high.

Also is this a setback for NASA? Possibility, but I think there is a larger issue for NASA here. Some Stories from Scientific American I believe shed light on the issue Has the Space Age Stalled? and Lost in Space.

A larger issue that is discussed in both articles is that many young Americans are loosing their attachment to NASA and the space race. This could be a costly mistake. This prize winner wont help NASA, but I don't think they are going to kill the space program.

Medevo

In these modern times, where money can control everything, it is not uncommon to see a former communist government letting this happen and supporting. Perhaps this is a downside to capitalism and reality TV that we want to shoot desperate competitive into space. Reality TV is already loosing a lot of its luster in the United States of America so I assume that this show will be marketed in other area's where the demand is still high.

Also is this a setback for NASA? Possibility, but I think there is a larger issue for NASA here. Some Stories from Scientific American I believe shed light on the issue Has the Space Age Stalled? and Lost in Space.

A larger issue that is discussed in both articles is that many young Americans are loosing their attachment to NASA and the space race. This could be a costly mistake. This prize winner wont help NASA, but I don't think they are going to kill the space program.

Medevo

There was an article in Scientific American about an Internet Scale Operating System, which would have as an important part the ability to sell CPU cycles, donate them, and keep track of who owes you what. This is still offtopic, but I agree that under such a setup, I would be more likely to donate CPU cycles to someone who didn't want to patent the result or something similar.

Last night, I was sitting on the sofa watching the game, and I glanced over and saw this headline on the front of the magazine, and something about wondercars, and another fluffy sensationalist barely scientific come-on.

And I thought it was the latest issue of Popular Science, which it turned out was was right underneath this issue of Scientific American.

Seriously. If you covered up the name, and don't have the UPC memorized, you couldn't hope to tell them apart. They used the same layout template for the covers. And maybe for their websites, because both covers are in about the same spot on their home page:

exhibit A.
exhibit B.

Scientific American should never have started taking ads.

--Blair

More persistent-looking links to the cover thumbnails:
sa
ps

Last night, I was sitting on the sofa watching the game, and I glanced over and saw this headline on the front of the magazine, and something about wondercars, and another fluffy sensationalist barely scientific come-on.

And I thought it was the latest issue of Popular Science, which it turned out was was right underneath this issue of Scientific American.

Seriously. If you covered up the name, and don't have the UPC memorized, you couldn't hope to tell them apart. They used the same layout template for the covers. And maybe for their websites, because both covers are in about the same spot on their home page:

exhibit A.
exhibit B.

Scientific American should never have started taking ads.

--Blair

More persistent-looking links to the cover thumbnails:
sa
ps

Everyone, please read this article at Scientific American: 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense . It states 15 common statements/questions that creationists pose to try and discount evolution, and answers them all quite nicely.

Yeah... no mention of speed other than "tons of data"... how scientific. However, the other link in the post is to the UWB Working Group's FAQ and from their links list I found a great Scientific American article on the subject. It says that potential speeds are 100 to 500 Mbps and the range is 5 to 10 meters. Note that that range restriction, if I understand correctly, is due to current FCC restrictions. Nonetheless, that's a wide enough range to cover my tiny house. The article points out that a large chunk of the population in the developed world spends most of their day within ten meters of a wired internet access point.

My rules to live by... if you're hungry, drink a glass of water, avoid eating after dinner, and never, ever eat before bed.

I never have bought this one. Sleeping is exactly what most carnivores do after eating. Have you ever seen a fat tiger? Besides, in today's sedentary society, many people are hardly more active during the day then they are asleep. Why should someone not eat before bed just to eat at 8:00 AM and sit at a desk for 9 hours?

The unfortunate truth is that The Man Show had it right with the amazing new "Stop Eating So Much Diet". Seriously, it's called "caloric restriction" and not only will you lose weight, you'll live longer (up to 150% longer in lab animals).

[*Me kisses my karma goodbye as I'm modded into oblivion by thick-fingered Slashdotters.]

I'm starting to consider the BBC as the National Enquirer of online news.

They're probably looking at something like this

Basically, a process that breaks down biomass from plants and produces hydrogen and CO2 as byproducts. They claim the CO2 produced will be less than what is used by next years crop of plants that are grown for this purpose. We'll see, I suppose.

But anyway, it's a promising technology, and probably what Ford is looking to for the future.

Scientific American had a feature article a while back that explained the superparamagnetic effect, as well as the holographic storage technology that the story poster referred to.

The article was also featured on Slashdot.

Scientific American had a feature article a while back that explained the superparamagnetic effect, as well as the holographic storage technology that the story poster referred to.

The article was also featured on Slashdot.

We were stuck with Unary. Try coding with all one's! We were waiting for the Sumerians to finish up the specs for Zero!

Binary indeed. Good day Sir.

within it mentions an experiment where some lab rats were kept awake for ~2 weeks (the longest human record is 11 days) and then they died. the acticle keep emphasizing that it was not proven that the death was caused by sleep depravation. but well... They just don't want to admit that they tortured a buncha cute lil mice to death.

on a even MORE related point: try red bull / blue donkey / green chicken and all that -- they seem to work pretty well. i drove across the US (SJ to NY) on those. 2 bux a can (8.6 oz) is steep, but hey -- when you gotta stay awake, you GOTTA stay awake.

lastly... erm... try some speed. they work too, so i hear.

within it mentions an experiment where some lab rats were kept awake for ~2 weeks (the longest human record is 11 days) and then they died. the acticle keep emphasizing that it was not proven that the death was caused by sleep depravation. but well... They just don't want to admit that they tortured a buncha cute lil mice to death.

on a even MORE related point: try red bull / blue donkey / green chicken and all that -- they seem to work pretty well. i drove across the US (SJ to NY) on those. 2 bux a can (8.6 oz) is steep, but hey -- when you gotta stay awake, you GOTTA stay awake.

lastly... erm... try some speed. they work too, so i hear.

There was an article in Scientific American entitled "15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense", which covers the 15 most misconstrued aspects of Evolution, and defends them. Here is an exceprt, which seems pertinent to a lot of posts on here already: "1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law. Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are not expressing reservations about its truth." People who are arguing that Evolution is just theory, do you argue with math as well? Pythagorean theorem, theory of relativity, etc. Are those not true, also? FUll article here.

Might be a little devastating...

Avouris and Collins reply: We have not read Edwards's report on the subject, but one may anticipate great difficulties in the implementation of the project. Although it is true that individual nanotubes have very high tensile strength, the record length achieved for a single nanotube is a mere two millimeters, and this applies only to multiwalled nanotubes, which have lower strength than single-walled tubes. One could make ropes from shorter tubes, but tube-tube adhesion is not particularly strong. That said, the carbon nanotube field is advancing at an incredible rate, and difficulties that appear insurmountable today may find simple solutions tomorrow.

I suspect that any competent statistician would laugh you out of his office if you asked him to attempt to calculate a trend with a sample that small. No sir, ever scientist working on that topic would simply refuse to talk to you other than in a low and calming voice.
There a hundreds of good sites on the internet, try http://www.climate.org/ for an easy starter. Don't forget the Scientific American article. And do some googeling.

It's not science.

They have a critical view in the sense of criticism. Yes, creationists disagreed with the notion that species changed slowly over long periods of time. But their alternative was that there is no evolutionary change at all, not that evolution has rapid and slow phases.

Irreducable complexity is a crock. "I don't know how it could have happened." is not a proof of Intelligent Design, it is a proof of the lack of imagination.

Read 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense from Scientific American.

Also I wonder if your belief in Creationism stems from your belief in the Bible being the literal truth. I know many fundamentalist religions are always trying tout this way of looking at the Bible, and that not believing in its literal truth is paramount to atheism. The truth is that many mainstream Christian religions don't require this belief. You can have a liberal interpretation of the Bible and still believe in God. You can also believe in God and in evolution.

If you actually read the Bible, beyond just the books of Genesis and Revelations, it is easy to see various inconsistencies. One just off the top of my head is how Judas Iscariot died. Matthew 27:5 recounts the popular version where Judas hangs himself. Acts 1:18 has Judas buy some land with the money he obtained for betraying Jesus, and in tending it falls to a fatal death. Which one is right? Does it matter? In both stories did you learn something?

Another big inconsistency is the book of Genesis itself. Read the first chapter and the first three verses of chapter 2. This is one story of creation. Note how the animals are created before man is. Now read on past the second sentence in verse 2:4. Suddenly there is a second creation story that is not the same as the first. In this version man is created first and then God creates the animals. Have you not noticed this before?

(Mind you, I am not saying that the Bible is bogus either. It would be hard for anyone to prove Jesus did not live and preach what he did, or that most of the stories in the Bible did not occur.)

In Genesis, even if evolution is true, do we not gain many insights into who Man is? Can 'not being a perfect history' still make the Bible a timeless guide in living our lives? Or is it the factual truth and upon our death when we are at the gates of heaven, St Peter tells us to get out our No. 2 pencil and complete the Bible history test he has prepared for us. I often think that the latter view is what these Bible literalist think is going to happen.

Seeing as we're already below the threshold of light (400-800 nanometeres) at this point, it's probable that a plant this sophisticated could use Soft Lithography, enabling them to save plenty of cost, as well as save on the price of actual chips. I wouldn't be surprised if the plant ended up costing much less than traditional plants if they used this technology... and being on the cutting edge as IBM is, well, it wouldn't be too far fetched.

[Last time I checked it was a pretty reputable publication...]

the fluid-dynamical problems in insect flying are a hard, very much still in research physical problem.

this is the most interesting aspect of this project, and it's a pity /. responses overlook the serious stuff.

for those interested, there was a Sci. Am. article on robotic insect-flight several months ago.

He also says that the brain is horrible at math, which isn't true. While it's true of most of us, people with ssvant syndrome (good article in June Scientific American, hardcopy only) are often capable of amazing mathematic abilities, so it's not the brain (or "meat") that's the problem. It's the software.

click here
Follow the link to the side bar it's pretty funny.
I have a bridge to sell in Brooklyn. The crop circles are message from the alien saying you should buy it.

whoops. rather the above should of course read "Scientific American".

The latest issue of Scientific has an enligtening short article on the fine mischief of crop circles. (no doubt released in a timely manner in an effort to counter some of the nonsense from the release of the movie Signs.)

Nope, you can definitely patent a gene.

Scientific American actually has a good article about so-called "submarine" patents. Turns out there are ways to file for a patent and then delay its issuance for years. The details of the patent remain secret until it is issued. When the patent "surfaces" years after it's been filed, anyone who unknowingly used that idea is at the mercy of the patenteer.

An inventor named Lemelson was notorious for doing this sort of thing (see the article). He delayed one patent for 40 years after filing for it. Seems to me like a good (read "underhanded") way to make money off your ideas if you're (a) patient, and (b) too lazy to actually build and sell a product.

Look at this link. People can want slavery.