Slashdot Mirror
MIT Announces Top 35 Innovators Under 35
nursegirl writes "MIT's Technology Review has posted their top 35 innovators under the age of 35 for 2006. The 2006 Young Innovator is Joshua Schachter, of del.icio.us fame. The 2006 Young Humanitarian is Christina Galitsky from the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Galitsky has done various projects related to energy efficiency, from introducing energy efficient practices to wineries, to helping bring stoves that use less wood to Sudanese refugees, to working on cheap ways to filter arsenic from wells in Bangladesh. Technology Review has also published a related article, titled 10 Ways To Think about Innovation."
Because inventors with pretty, young bodies have better inventions :-)
Please tell me why the fuck age should make a difference.
Old people are no good at everything.
Looks like it.. untraceroutable, no reverse... wtf?!
"Fall heavy towards the moon, and the moon falls also towards you." -- Nietzsche
Hammer and feather are dropped simultaneously from equal heights (as measured by distance from the center of the moon), separated laterally by a distance substantially less than the moon's diameter. Both hammer and feather experience force from the moon's gravity proportional to their mass, and hence both accelerate at the same rate. Meanwhile, the moon is also accelerating towards the other two objects, but unevenly so: the hammer exerts a greater gravitational pull due to its greater mass. The moon is therefore subject to a torque, causing it to accelerate more rapidly towards the hammer.
The hammer is first to hit the ground.
Anyone who denies this truth is a spatially absolutist lunocentric whose refusal to recognize the validity of hammer/feather mechanics places him wholly beyond the help of Galilean metaphysics. Such hammer/feather rejectionists ought to be banished to the stars, for their own good and for the good of not only hammers and feathers but all subjugated smaller objects, everywhere, who find themselves victims of this scientifically perpetrated emassculation.
--
a756f345ec354225c08ff1a10a43162a
The Interwebs are dying
Yet another crippling bombshell hit the beleaguered Interweb community today when recently IDC confirmed that the Interwebs accounts for less than a fraction of 1 percent of all computers. Coming on the heels of the latest Netcraft survey which plainly states that the Interwebs has lost even more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. The Interwebs market is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by falling dead the other day at CES.
You don't need to be a Gates to predict the Interwebs's future. The handwriting is on the wall: the Interwebs faces a bleak future. In fact, there won't be any future at all for the Interwebs because the Interwebs is dying. Things are looking very bad for the Interwebs. As many of us are already aware, the Interwebs continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood. Register.com is the most beleaguered of them all, having recently euthanized its Interwebs business.
Fact: The Interwebs is dead.
Here's an innovative idea: use a spelling or grammar check. I had to give up reading the articles because they're so badly written. For example:
"The challenge is, once you've got all these bookmarks, how do you manage them? The problem were really dealing with is memory and recall, and using technology to make your memory more scalable."
What the heck does that mean? (Yes, it's probably meant to be "we're", but, sheesh, what happend to editing?) I am not a grammar-monkey, but poorly written articles do tend to make be question their credibility.