The most famous case of the Smithsonian making up their own version of history was its refusal to display the Wright brothers' airplane, which sat in the Science Museum of London until the Smithsonian finally apologized -- in 1948!
see http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/5/0,5716 ,275+1,00.html
More recently the smithsonian has attempted revisionist history with the Enola Gay; see http://www.afa.org/enolagay/home.html
The first major book on nanomedicine has been published. It's entitled, appropriately, Nanomedicine and is by Rob Freitas. see http://www.foresight.org/Nanomedicine/index.html where you can find chapter summaries, a sample chapter, and other info.
in this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_ 480000/480710.stm ) article just a month ago, the BBC (which is usually very accurate) said,
"China's real intentions are confused with speculation by scientists who can be misunderstood by both China's internal press and the western media. Most observers with a realistic understanding of China's technical capabilities do not expect it to put a man into orbit until around 2005."
TRUSTe's incentives are clearly bass-ackwards. The Consumer's Union model, where the evaluating organization takes no money from the evaluated, is clearly more... trustworthy. All I can ask is, who in their right mind ever expected this to work?
Oddly enough, falling into a black hole is one of the most efficient ways to get energy out of matter (the only better one I know of being to react it with antimatter). You get something like a third the e=mc^2 energy with the black hole, compared with 1 percent-like numbers for nuclear and 1e-10 for chemical fuels.
Slashdot Mirror
... by E. O. Wilson. Note that the Enlightenment
and Romanticism are not the same at all.
-jsh
>even NASA has succumbed to the
>"e + (someword)" phenomenon.
You mean the E-word phenomenon?
their own version of history was its refusal to
display the Wright brothers' airplane, which
sat in the Science Museum of London until the
Smithsonian finally apologized -- in 1948!
see http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/5/0,571
More recently the smithsonian has attempted
revisionist history with the Enola Gay;
see http://www.afa.org/enolagay/home.html
The first major book on nanomedicine has been
published. It's entitled, appropriately,
Nanomedicine and is by Rob Freitas.
see http://www.foresight.org/Nanomedicine/index.html
where you can find chapter summaries, a sample
chapter, and other info.
--JoSH
in this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_ 480000/480710.stm ) article just a month ago, the
BBC (which is usually very accurate) said,
"China's real intentions are confused with speculation by
scientists who can be misunderstood by both China's
internal press and the western media. Most observers with
a realistic understanding of China's technical capabilities
do not expect it to put a man into orbit until around 2005."
TRUSTe's incentives are clearly bass-ackwards. The Consumer's Union model, where the evaluating organization takes no money from the evaluated, is clearly more ... trustworthy. All I can ask is, who in their right mind ever expected this to work?
Oddly enough, falling into a black hole is one of the most efficient ways to get energy out of matter (the only better one I know of being to react it with antimatter). You get something like a third the e=mc^2 energy with the black hole, compared with 1 percent-like numbers for nuclear and 1e-10 for chemical fuels.