Are there other similar scientific projects funded by the military?
Yes. A large majority of hybrid insect/robot systems are funded by DARPA - the American Department of Defence's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). In a survey of published cockroach/robot research within America, I was unable to find a lab that was not funded in some way by DARPA.
Granted, it could never be viable as a research source as it stands today (that is, as you said: nothing more than an encyclopedia). What I suppose I was more so aiming for, however, is the acceptability of the concept of Wiki. Applied to the academic setting as a source of common knowledge continually reviewed by people who do know what they're talking about (that is, the academics themselves), it could become something much more powerful.
I guess, though, that you could then say it would look a lot like the current academic standard. The difference, though, is availability: academic research linked and assembled in such a manner that 1) the uninitiated could easily move from top-level encyclopedia entries towards deeper and more current knowledge and 2) academics would have an easier (but no less demanding or scrutinizing) way of bringing their work to the open.
You can be assured this will bring Wikipedia into the mainstream (relative to how it is now, anyways).
Interestingly, I was reading a research guide published by my library here at McGill University where, under "Internet Content," it strongly advised against trusting Wikipedia as a source of viable research content. Makes sense for now, but how long before it becomes recognized and accepted as just as valid as today's peer-review academic publishing?
One thing confuses me, too: when the wind picks up on Mars, it turns into a dust storm, which I'm assuming dumps dust on the solar panels. Why would the whirlwind not pick up dust as well and deposit it on the panels? The twister in the picture seems relatively clear, consisting the red dust of the planet.
Stem cells aren't harvested from babies already aborted. They are harvested from human embryos, "aborted" for the purpose of harvesting. At that point, however, they really are no more than a handful of cells.
We need to see smaller high performance batteries and cheap data plans before such polydevices can become mainstream. Sure, you can listen to the radio and take some pictures with that phone of yours, but you'll be murdering your total call time before recharge.
It's a term coined by Adam Curry of iPodder. He developed the technique for downloading webcasts/interenet radio shows into iTunes and subsequently onto his iPod for later listening. Of course, the casts are not limited to iPods.
The point is, they're looking at the in-orbit phase in a new way compared to launch and re-entry, which at first glance seem to carry far more risk. This is simply NASA increasing their safety measures in one more direction.
Whether or not these actions are a bit late can still be argued.
Exactly what I was wondering: how many variables are still unaccounted for in these experiments? I am by no means arguing against the research - it's brilliant stuff and I hope it works - but how effectively can you study the development of a disease by inserting DNA into the embryo while it is still a new and relatively untested technique?
I feel like these guys parade their lofty goals for the sake of funding and publicity, long before their procedures adhere to the control standards of the research community.
Hence why so much about this topic remains.. sketchy.
It's something that people haven't really had to think about until now, so they really don't know where they stand, and may or may not even understand what's going on, but they feel that some kind of decision needs to be made.
You're absolutely right. Bioethics as a school of thought has only been around for one hundred years or so, and it has not come close to catching up with the advances of science. Certain "celebrity" issues like Dolly pop up now and then and grab the public's attention, but there is no system set up to handle these serious ethical questions. Before they can properly be answered, we need to have a public educated in the basics and law systems flexible enough to catch up.
How certain can they be that these embryos, grown to possess the characteristic genome of an MND victim, will effectively emulate the conditions they need? Dolly, in many respects, raised questions over how clones react to their existence: she died prematurely as if she had aged too fast. Who's to say that these embryos don't possess unknown characteristics simply as a function of being cloned?
Sharing becomes prevalent only when it 1) close to free and 2) earns kudos/buying power for the sharer. Unfortunately, in today's global society of mass production and mass distribution, this is largely impossible. What we need for sharing to regain prevalence is the rejection of the idea that it's OK that almost everything we consume comes from far, far away.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm indeed.
And one on Karma whoring.
Could somebody explain this to me, though?
They're circles in squares. Um. Cool?
Granted, it could never be viable as a research source as it stands today (that is, as you said: nothing more than an encyclopedia). What I suppose I was more so aiming for, however, is the acceptability of the concept of Wiki. Applied to the academic setting as a source of common knowledge continually reviewed by people who do know what they're talking about (that is, the academics themselves), it could become something much more powerful.
I guess, though, that you could then say it would look a lot like the current academic standard. The difference, though, is availability: academic research linked and assembled in such a manner that 1) the uninitiated could easily move from top-level encyclopedia entries towards deeper and more current knowledge and 2) academics would have an easier (but no less demanding or scrutinizing) way of bringing their work to the open.
You can be assured this will bring Wikipedia into the mainstream (relative to how it is now, anyways).
Interestingly, I was reading a research guide published by my library here at McGill University where, under "Internet Content," it strongly advised against trusting Wikipedia as a source of viable research content. Makes sense for now, but how long before it becomes recognized and accepted as just as valid as today's peer-review academic publishing?
Too...many...abbreviations...head...exploding
Does it have a sizeable back seat?
One thing confuses me, too: when the wind picks up on Mars, it turns into a dust storm, which I'm assuming dumps dust on the solar panels. Why would the whirlwind not pick up dust as well and deposit it on the panels? The twister in the picture seems relatively clear, consisting the red dust of the planet.
Right, well then try this or this, then. Either way, the point is the same: we aren't moving at the same speed as others.
Perhaps... restricting relative to other countries?
Stem cells aren't harvested from babies already aborted. They are harvested from human embryos, "aborted" for the purpose of harvesting. At that point, however, they really are no more than a handful of cells.
See the wiki.
We need to see smaller high performance batteries and cheap data plans before such polydevices can become mainstream. Sure, you can listen to the radio and take some pictures with that phone of yours, but you'll be murdering your total call time before recharge.
It's a term coined by Adam Curry of iPodder. He developed the technique for downloading webcasts/interenet radio shows into iTunes and subsequently onto his iPod for later listening. Of course, the casts are not limited to iPods.
See Wired's article.
The point is, they're looking at the in-orbit phase in a new way compared to launch and re-entry, which at first glance seem to carry far more risk. This is simply NASA increasing their safety measures in one more direction.
Whether or not these actions are a bit late can still be argued.
Still, it's built with a surprising degree of intelligence - able to deal with motion and throw away uncertain glyphs.
That's pretty damn impressive.
I feel like these guys parade their lofty goals for the sake of funding and publicity, long before their procedures adhere to the control standards of the research community.
Hence why so much about this topic remains.. sketchy.
It's something that people haven't really had to think about until now, so they really don't know where they stand, and may or may not even understand what's going on, but they feel that some kind of decision needs to be made. You're absolutely right. Bioethics as a school of thought has only been around for one hundred years or so, and it has not come close to catching up with the advances of science. Certain "celebrity" issues like Dolly pop up now and then and grab the public's attention, but there is no system set up to handle these serious ethical questions. Before they can properly be answered, we need to have a public educated in the basics and law systems flexible enough to catch up.
How certain can they be that these embryos, grown to possess the characteristic genome of an MND victim, will effectively emulate the conditions they need? Dolly, in many respects, raised questions over how clones react to their existence: she died prematurely as if she had aged too fast. Who's to say that these embryos don't possess unknown characteristics simply as a function of being cloned?
Sharing becomes prevalent only when it 1) close to free and 2) earns kudos/buying power for the sharer. Unfortunately, in today's global society of mass production and mass distribution, this is largely impossible. What we need for sharing to regain prevalence is the rejection of the idea that it's OK that almost everything we consume comes from far, far away.
My ride outta here, man. It's comin'.
Damn, man. The guy deserves a thank you. Those casino sites rock. Really.