SGamgee wrote:
An altered view of the source of consciousness through sub-cellular quantum entanglements.

Roger Penrose was advancing a precursor to this theory in The Emperor's New Mind back in the 1980s. My take (from having not read it) is that the whole thing smacked of cartesian dualism and was more about putting the ghost back into the machine than anything else.

If his theory is right, then so what? We're going to build quantum computers someday anyhow. I think that Penrose will get backed into a corner arguing for an ineffable something that makes our meat computers special. They are not. They're just meat.

RE: Quantum Consciousness . Stuart Hameroff

It now costs about US $20 000 per kilogram to put objects into orbit. Contrast that rate with the results of a study I recently performed for NASA, which concluded that a single space elevator could reduce the cost of orbiting payloads to a remarkably low $200 a kilogram and that multiple elevators could ultimately push costs down below $10 a kilogram.

We will build this. Believe it!

IEEE Spectrum on Space Elevators

American troops wounded in Iraq and brought back to military hospitals in the United States have unexpectedly high rates of infection with a drug-resistant type of bacteria, doctors are finding.

Troops in Iraq Bring Resistant Bacteria Home

A new kind of machine for decoding DNA may help bring costs so low that it would be feasible to decode an individual's DNA for medical reasons. The machine, developed by 454 Life Sciences of Branford, Conn., was used to resequence the genome of a small bacterium in four hours, its scientists report in an article published online today by the journal Nature.

DNA Machine May Advance Genetic Sequencing for Patients

Researchers at the Stanford, led by chemical engineering professor James Swartz, have discovered a soil microorganism that absorbs photons and subsequently metabolize the energy to split water, a chemical reaction that produces hydrogen, said Jim Plummer, Stanford's dean of engineering, during a presentation at the AlwaysOn conference taking place at the university this week.

!!!

Stanford project mixes Darwin with hydrogen

Decius wrote:

bucy wrote:
If this really works, can we generate power from it or is it
only useful as a neutron source?

There is an IEEE article links from my second meme on this that covers that topic. If the experiment can be reproduced it will need to be scaled, alot... Right now its not efficient. An efficient version is not going to be something that would run on a tabletop. This is still a big industry scale steam turbine. The advantage is that its easy to control, its waste products degrade quickly, and its fuel is abundant.

I wonder if steam turbines are really the most efficient way of converting reactions like this into usable electric power. It seems like such a 19th century approach...

There are a number of other possibilities:

Stirling engines -- great on paper but its been hard so far to build practical ones.

magnetohydrodynamic generators

Certain fusion reactions can apparently generate electricity more-or-less directly: there are some big electrodes in the reactor and you can pull electricity straight out. See the
Wikipedia article on fusion power.

RE: Table Top Nuclear Fisson

I'm still skeptical but the upshot of this is that their experiment
is simple and cheap -- I suspect many physicists can set it up
with stuff lying around the lab.

If this really works, can we generate power from it or is it
only useful as a neutron source?

RE: Table Top Nuclear Fisson

The best way for doubters to control a questionable new technology is to embrace it, lest it remain wholly in the hands of enthusiasts who think there is nothing questionable about it.

I think this is all stuff I've heard before, mostly in Wired, but
worthwhile nonetheless.

Environmental Heresies

Scientists don't talk often enough or loud enough about the real strength of evolution - not that it is correct, but that it meets the definition of science.

This is an excellent point and one I haven't heard nearly
enough of in the current debate.

How Quantum Physics Can Teach Biologists About Evolution

] The Mayo researchers call the type of movement and
] calorie burning that they study NEAT, for nonexercise
] activity thermogenesis. The leader of the research team,
] Dr. James Levine - a nutritionist, an endocrinologist and
] a professor of medicine - has defined the term as "the
] energy expenditure associated with all the activities we
] undertake as vibrant, independent beings." Those
] activities include "occupation, leisure, sitting,
] standing, walking, toe-tapping, guitar playing, dancing
] and shopping," he writes. His team has even measured the
] energy burned in gum-chewing (11 calories an hour, if you
] chew six pieces at a time).

New Weight-Loss Focus: The Lean and the Restless