Atellus

This is of no specific relevance to the discussion of science, technology or related topics. However, I thought it might be of interest, nevertheless, given the growing number of scientific articles that are appearing on Wikipedia; some of which seek to deal with particularly advanced and difficult topics, and in light of the growing propensity for many people to quote, or reference, Wikipedia articles as part of their arguments. It's a good, easy listen presented by Clive Anderson, a well educated individual who is generally worth listening to and usually has something intelligent to say. The program is not, as far as I could tell, biased for or against Wikipedia, but seeks to examine it objectively, giving equal weight to all points of view and leaving the final conclusion up the listener. I found it informative and worthwhile. The program is available until Thursday 2nd August from the following link as either a podcast or streamed download. http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/factual/radio4choice.shtml

I've just had a fascinating experience! First, some background. I have recently installed what is widely known as a whirlpool bath. Such baths have a variety of features more commonly found in saunas. This particular bath has water jets fed by a pump. The bath is filled and when activated, the water is drawn through an inlet and circulated to a number of water jets distributed around the circumference of the bath. The bath is a standard sized 1700mm by 700mm glass-fibre-reinforced acrylic bath. There is nothing special or unusual about it, it's installation or any of the materials used in or around it. Perhaps I should really characterise this experience as mysterious, as I doubt many of you are finding this at all fascinating so far! And so, the experience. I decided to have a bath. This is the first time I've tried a whirlpool bath. I drew the bath, mixing the water to a temperature that was easily tolerable without being too hot. The kind of hot water that you ease yourself into slowly and aclimatize to in a few seconds. If I'd known what would happen I would have taken more accurate measurements! I spent a few moments in the water, soaking, both sitting up and lying down and then turned on the jets. It wasn't a mind blowing experience, but it was quite pleasant, particularly on the lower back and soles of the feet. I increased the intensity of the jets, which wasn't really all that much more intense. I did notice that there was significant vibration through the water. I lay down again until the water covered my chest and was up to my chin, with my knees bent and feet on the floor of the bath. Perhaps not more than 30 seconds later I began to feel a strong tingling throughout my whole body that got very much worse very quickly. So bad, in fact, that my abdomen tightened to the point of causing severe discomfort. My chest felt like there was a jack hammer inside trying to get out, which, whilst I was able to breath normally and was not short of breath, certainly made me feel that if I didn't concentrate on breathing I would have problems. My throat tightened, which didn't help the breathing. The muscles and tendons of my wrists and hands contracted and tingled in a way I can only describe as ferocious. It actually caused my hands to twist into hooks, with the fingers straight and bent at the first joint, creating a right angle with the palm of the hand! I could resist this contortion if I tried and could clench and unclench my fists, but if I relaxed, they returned to this position. And all the time I felt this incredibly powerful vibrating/tingling sensation throughout my whole body! I concluded that it might be time to get out. I turned off the bath without any trouble (I had to reach around to a push button behind my shoulder) and levered myself out of it, at once point becoming afraid that I might pass out as I did so and topple, head first, onto the tiled floor. However, at no point did I actually feel that close to passing out. Given the situation and the way I felt, I considered it a possibility, remembering as I do the early warning signs of loss of consciousness from previous situations, such as illness. Out of the bath, I held onto the back of the closed bathroom door for a second, feeling overheated, and then decided I needed to elevate my legs. I was still tingling throughout all my muscles and felt very shaky. I once collapsed after a very hard and fast bicycle ride, but did not actually feel that bad on this occassion. Again, I was forestalling the worst by getting down on my back on the cold tiles and propping my feet up on the back of the door. And there I stayed for what must have been at least 5 minutes or more, breathing deeply and regularly and thinking about my breathing rhythm, as one does whilst running or recovering afterwards. I stayed in that position until my abdomen relaxed. It was like having a severe bout of stomach cramp throughout the whole experience. Then I stood up and, as I felt reasonably alright, decided to try again. I performed the same ritual as before, but this time started the bath whilst sitting up with my legs straight, the water coming halfway up my torso. No effects. Just a pleasing circulation of warm water. Then I lay down again. No effects. I stayed in there for several more minutes until I began to get too hot, as one does after a while, and bored. I got out and noticed I still felt a little wobbly, but this was like the normal sensations of having spent too long in a hot bath. I left the room in order to get out of the steamy environment and lay on the bed and air dried in the breeze from a fan. I took my pulse rate using the bed side clock and measured 102 beats per minute. My normal resting heart rate averages at about the mid 70s. Despite my athletic references earlier, I am not extremely fit and should be considered of average fitness. So, what on earth caused this physiological reaction? There is some further information that may be relevant. I had just completed 3 or 4 hours of physical labour, ripping up flooring and carting heavy loads back and forth. Home improvements, you see. The bath is only the latest completed project. So I was fatigued from those exertions. Whilst in the bath initially, relaxing, I was also thinking about my girlfriend, with the usual predictable results. So we must factor in the physiological effects of arousal. Believe me when I say that this subject didn't stay on my mind for long once the vibration started! Hard to feel amorous when you're afraid you may stop breathing. I am a 27 year old male, 189lbs, 6 feet tall... brown eyes, dark hair ;-) ... with no existing medical conditions, no vascular or respiratory illnesses, no history of serious illness beyond physical injury, no known neurological conditions. What else? Oh, I stubbed my toe a few days ago and I get hayfever, but not that bad ;-) So, the cause is a mystery. Even more so as I was unable to replicate it a very short time later! Other than that, I wouldn't necessarily recommend against getting a whirlpool bath. The second time around it was very pleasant. But perhaps they should print a warning for first timers!

I was wondering about the effect on homeostatic regulation of imbibing hot fluids such as tea and coffee. In particular I was wondering about the effects of so doing during a period of hot weather and high humidity. I suppose one should really frame the question around the drinking of hot water, as the caffeine content of tea and coffee may introduce variables, but as most of us drink our hot water with caffeine in it, perhaps not! Do you think there is any truth to the notion that drinking hot fluids during hot weather is both refreshing and in some way keeps the drinker cool, and why? Cheers

I begin to see how she managed as she did. The staff often commented that she seemed to live on the boiled sweets and cups of tea (certainly more than 4 a day). She was 76 when she died, but had not led an easy life from a health point of view, having suffered various ailments and been on the receiving end of some less than efficacious fashionable treatments many years ago, so one could probably argue that she was prematurely aged to begin with. Her general physical deterioration, that was not directly linked to illness, could probably be accounted for by the lack of vitamins in her diet, I suppose. Thanks, Danzman. That's very interesting.

I'd like to make sure I've got the definitions of my terms straight. I understand genetic engineering to be the modification of an organisms germline with the goal of introducing that modification into all that organisms future offspring. It seems that this is mostly carried out on embryonic organisms, typically at the zygote stage or earlier. I understand gene therapy to be the introdution of a genetic modification to an individual using some from of vector that is introduced into a specific part of the body, with the aim of modifying gene expression within a specific organ or tissue. It seems that it would be very difficult and probably impossible to effect a change to the organism's entire genome using a vector method as every cell in every tissue and organ in the body would need to be successfully infected and every modification made would only exist for the lifetime of the infected cell. The gene therapy therefore needs to be repeated regularly if the effects are to be long lasting. This is not necessarily a problem if the gene therapy is some sort of drug targeting a contracted disease, but is a problem if the therapy is acting against a hereditary disease. So, assuming the know how and technology exists, in principle if you want to make the human species immune to the common cold, you need to engineer it into the germline. If you want to cure an individual of a particular instance of the common cold, you use genetic therapy. Do I have it straight? Thanks

I discussed the idea of a brain computer interface with my 17 year old sister. At first, she seemed enamoured of the idea and could see many benefits. With further thought, she then became squeamish about the surgery that would be necessary for a true nervous system interface to function, and about the possibilities of a networked device attached to her body being hacked or otherwise having security liabilities. Then she decided that after all, it would be a very bad idea to have this kind of constant, easy access to something like the internet, or even the contents of her own hard drive, such as games and so on. She said that she herself had wasted many long hours in front of the monitor and had often been astonished at the way her sense of time was impaired whilst browsing or gaming. She had made the decision, especially in the light of her increased study load, to cut back on browsing for pleasure, but knows many of her contemporaries who have not. She can name many people who spend many more hours a day online or gaming than they spend sleeping, eating, defecating or studying. She particularly highlighted role playing games as a serious cause for concern as most are not turn based, leading to the gamers attempting to be in constant attendance of their "characters" in the game, often to the exclusion of other priorities. She also noted, in addition to her teenage friends, younger children of between 6 and 12 years old (often siblings of her friends) who had similar habits and were extremely unpleasant children to be around, especially if they couldn't get their daily "fix" of gaming and browsing. Does internet addiction really exist? Clearly some of these individuals have an unhealthy preoccupation with computing in one form or another, but would that be accurately defined as an addiction? This sort of behaviour; which one can witness among many differing individuals, not just teenagers, certainly results in a high degree of social exclusion if nothing else. Given these concerns, would we really want to pursue the development of brain computer interfaces designed specifically to enable widespread wireless access without the need for mechanically operated peripherals and data display devices? Are these concerns realistic?

Following on from the thread on elective technological augmentation of humans (discussing the Singularity) and other conversations about the social acceptability of merging computers with the human body in the real world, it occured to me to try drawing up a list of the current "scientific bogeymen" that occupy, rightly or wrongly, the public consciousness. Here's what I've got so far: - Human Cloning - Designer Babies - GM food - Embryonic stem cell research - Artificially Intelligent machines at or beyond human equivalence - Nuclear power generation (waste products) Several of these are related, but in the media are generally segregated. I thought of including the controversy over the MMR vaccine and related incidences, but evidence seems to be emerging that this really was just a public relations scare with no data to back up the medical concerns. This was 30 seconds brain storming. I'm sure I've left out alot so would anyone else care to contribute and see what we can come up with?

I'm finding the concept of BCI increasingly interesting. This would seem to fall more in the category of intelligence augmentation, but I see a flaw in that one is only intelligent to the degree that one understands how to draw useful conclusions from the knowledge one has available. For instance, if an individual had a direct mental link to a vast library of accurate information, that individual could still be ineffective because they'd be limited, first by the capabilities of their search tools and second, by their own ability to absorb and understand and otherwise make sense of any information that they retrieve. No good digging up some post-doctoral work in oceanography when you haven't downloaded and read and understood the oceanography undergraduate file yet. When you consider the definition of intelligence, that is the ability to acquire and apply new knowledge and skills*, it strikes me that the future might be populated by people who are very well educated but not intelligent because while they have an almost unlimited capacity to acquire information, they have no clue how to apply it. *Oxford English Dictionary

Thank you all for your replies. Sorry if I was short tempered earlier. After reading Vinge's and Kurzweil's papers and other sources about the topic, it was useful to observe a discussion of the basic premise. My humble conclusion is relatively unchanged from my earlier one. Naivety and lack of realistic perspective. In other words, not enough knowledge of real world human behaviour, particularly in relation to judging which technologies people will "buy into" and thus permit to be developed; wildy optimistic predictions of technological progress based on very selective and exclusive criteria, ignoring obvious variables and confounding influences. However, its easy to see how a group of relatively closeted, specialist academics with a predilection for daydreaming (and publishing those daydreams in the science fiction press ;-) could come to such conclusions. I let the idea of engineering the future of the species buzz around in the back of my head for a few days and came up with a very similar conclusion to that of ParanoiA. The future is squishy and organic. Computer hardware prostheses and/or replacements, if they happen on a large scale and become at all socially acceptable, will be a transition at best - something to facilitate an expansion of capabilities, knowledge and technological applications to the point where we're able to achieve things with biomolecules that we use silicon and copper to do today. With that in mind, I decided that future humans would look extremely similar to us because they can if they want to and they will choose to for reasons of cultural continuity, racial memory and the fact that in order to be human you must retain the physical form of a human. I have a friend who used to watch Stargate and we discussed the arch nemesis of that show which parasitized human bodies. My contention was that these aliens, having existed in human bodies for long enough, would become humans on a psychological level, despite their origins. That, at least, would then excuse the various human behaviours these "aliens" apparently exhibited! The reverse would surely be true if we chose to engineer ourselves into something more convenient, perhaps with more appendages and more efficient and less obstrusive bodily functions. We'd become, physically and then psychologically, something else. Meanwhile, genetic engineering continues to grow and expand and touch our lives in ways never previously envisaged as our understanding of molecular biology increases. I think it would be a very rich man who chose to put money on some other branch of science to be the touchstone of future human development. Thanks, all.

Thank you for your reply. It so happens that I disagree with the whole idea and have concluded that many of the proponents are suffering from an unbearable naivety and a lack of perspective... but all this is completely beside the question. Whether or not you think the Singularity is at all likely in any form, it remains a reasonably plausible suggestion that one day we will have the technology to achieve the scenario the question is framed within. My interest is in the answer to that question.

I have been reading about the concept of the Technological Singularity, otherwise referred to as the Law of Accelerating Change or perhaps more simply, the Artificial Intelligence revolution. Proponents of this model of the future argue that we will in some way become merged with technology. There are two possible end results: either our own intelligence will be enhanced or augmented or we will simply become semi-autonomous components for greater group intelligences. I don't agree with the assumptions of many of the ideas within this theory, but in this post I would like to focus on one particular aspect as I am interested in peoples reactions to the idea. When you put the idea of merging with technology to people, most exhibit revulsion at the idea. This could simply be a problem of semantics. For instance, the technology in question could simply be a small implant running some sort of software, or it could be the wholesale replacement of parts of the nervous system with computer hardware. The point is that it is not necessarily the case that such individuals will resemble the Borg from Star Trek, which is what I think alot of people assume. There is no justification for this assumption. Many people today willingly have cosmetic surgery, and many of those have cosmetic implants. These implants are not connected to the internet, granted, but they are physically unnecessary additions to those peoples bodies. They do not improve the basic function. Yet these people are quite happy to have them. What if you were offered the option of becoming merged with technology if that meant that you would have a physically beautiful exterior appearance? Would you trade some of your viscera for mechanical parts and link your nervous system to something like the internet if it meant it would give you the power to alter your external appearance so as to enhance your athletic ability and improve your looks? No one would ever see you as a cyborg. You would appear as a well developed, sexually desirable human. Would that cast the idea of merging with technology in a different light? Thank you EDIT: I would like to emphasise that the question is not intended to include those who would accept artifical components in order to correct an injury or disability. The motivation in those instances is completely different and understandable. The question is intended to focus on whether the promise of physical beauty in a perfect body is sufficient to overcome the objection to installing machine components.

ajb, thank you for that link.

I have been continuing my reading around the subject area of relativity and have come across the following: http://www.physorg.com/news10789.html The article describes how Dr. Franklin Felber has come up with a solution to the Gravitational Field Equation that accounts for the gravitational effects of masses moving at speeds close to that of light, which has been presented to the Space Technology and Applications International Forum in Albuquerque. This solution is touted as a likely basis for a spacecraft capable of extremely high speeds. I have been unable to locate a biography online. There is just this from the bottom of an article at http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/517997/ I was wondering whether anyone would care to comment on the idea presented, or whether anyone with current knowledge of goings on in physics circles generally could assess any reactions to this paper by academia which were not expressed through the media? And now to the heart of the matter: I am writing a science fiction short story for a collection I'm building up for possible publication. This is part of the reason I've been reading around various technical subjects, because I would prefer, where ever possible, to base the technical components of the plot on existing research or at the very least, the more promising and realistic looking of the currently available theories. I would like to think that the reader would understand that they might be getting something out of the experience other than just an addition to their toilet paper collection. For plot purposes I've decided I need a method of propelling a spacecraft that is capable of approaching light speed. I like the idea of a spacecraft which must accelerate to a predefined fraction of light speed which generates a focused region of antigravity as it is more interesting than the usual "hyperdrive" fudge beloved of lazy writers and offers dramatic possibilities. To this end, I have one or two further questions which I hope someone might help me with. According to the article linked above, the spacecraft overcomes the problem of increasing inertia by travelling down the antigravity beam in a state of freefall. However, if the spacecraft were to then activate another form of propulsion and accelerate down the beam, would the mass of the spacecraft increase as it would under "normal"* conditions; would it be able to more closely approach the speed of light; would it be able to exceed the speed of light? * where normal is the absence of an antigravity effect And while I'm here, another question that just occured to me: there is a great deal of reading material available that talks about what is expected to happen to any object or traveller who attains light speed, but what might happen should the traveller be capable of achieving a speed twice or more that of light? Would the expected effects be the same, worse or non-existent? I realise that I can't expect to understand the subject in sufficient detail to discuss it intelligently based on internet research and questions on forums. If anyone would like to offer any thoughts or comments, then thank you very much for your time.

Thanks for the comments, folks.

Before I continue, I should make it clear that I am a complete layman and have no formal physics education. Now that's out of the way... I have come across mention in the media of the theories of a certain Reg Cahill, Associate Professor of Physics, who says that Einstein is wrong, that there are many experiments performed over the past years which prove this and that the only reason it's not widely accepted is partly institutional inertia and partly because experimental data that does not conform to Einstein's theories are discarded as artefacts. What really got my attention was Cahill's comment to the effect that physics could have been going off on a tangent for the last hundred years. This idea intrigued me so, being in no position to analyse any of the technical information, I looked up some comments. These varied from "idiot" to "while I accept that someone will probably surpass Einstein someday, and that this is reasonable, I don't think it's happened yet." Another view was that good scientists let the data stand for itself while bad scientists with dodgy ideas run to the media because the media can't do the math. Obviously, there are two sides to every argument, but as I said, I'm not qualified to properly assess them. I would, therefore, be very interested in, and grateful for, any comments and assessments that any board members might find the time to express below. Thank you

One of the oldest principles of warfare is that you can better damage your enemies capability to fight by creating casualties than by simply killing him. For instance, towards the latter stages of WWII the Germans, both through an understanding of this basic principle and a shortage of alternative resources, took to constructing small wooden anti-personnel mines which contained a single rifle round which was fired upwards through a soldiers foot when the mine was activated. This was not a lethal wound, but it meant that valuable men, material and resources were instantly tied up providing medical care, evacuating and then treating the injured man. Far more costly than ripping off a dog tag and paying for a body bag. You can see how non-lethal weapons is a marvelous euphemism. In this category of non-lethal (yet crippling) weapons we also have laser range finders and their close cousins which are apparently designed only to "dazzle" an enemy, not blind him permanently. Ok. Whatever you say. So happens I know a couple of orthopaedic surgeons who have told me just how incredibly fragile the retina is. Imagine, if you will, a small piece of rice paper being touched briefly by a flame. It shrivels instantly into a tiny charred crisp. A puny laser pointer can do that! Imagine what a so-called "laser range finder" will do at a couple of hundred yards. But coming back on topic: I wonder if we might not see certain technologies being developed for defensive purposes today used in manned spacecraft of tomorrow. A device like the Trophy, or any of a number of similar gun/projectile based Close In Weapons Systems (CIWS) might have some utility as a defence against space debri or small asteroids. The argument, most often used in regards to asteroid impacts on Earth, is that you'd want to deflect rather than destroy as you'll still be hit by the fragments. If we assume that the outer hulls of such craft will be quite rugged in design anyway, both to assure integrity, provide radiation protection and last ditch protection against impacts, then perhaps you don't mind so much if you destroy the target with a chain gun. It would be analogous to a tank fitted with the Trophy system, or something similar. It may destroy the RPG warhead, but the broken pieces of the rocket will still hit the tank at high speed. The only difference is the mass of each piece, the wider impact area instead of a focused punch and the lack of an explosion. In regards to Trophy, the various criticisms are not, as some have suggested, purely political (although there is always behind the scenes lobbying). Many western nations, including the US, buy and operate equipment from many other nations, and Israel is near the top of that list. The valid criticisms centre on the inability of the vehicle crew to reload and rearm Trophy without leaving the safety of the vehicle. This has the added disadvantage that each system is a one shot deal. Once it's fired, you're left with at least 180 degrees of arc completely uncovered, and are essentially back to square one. You might not consider this a particular problem. You might argue that so long as the unit survives, it can withdraw to safety, rearm and return. Well, actually, that still represents a victory for the enemy because the objective in combat is not to destroy the other side - it is to achieve your goal on the battlefield, and the two are not the same thing. If you have two men with RPG's who fire at one tank from both sides, exhausting the Trophy system, the tank might choose to withdraw. You win, because the tank has gone away. Now you can move about for the time being without being shot at by the tank. And in urban warfare, that can be a winning advantage. The worst case is that the enemy very quickly catches on about this disadvantage and arranges to fire two RPGs at the same flank. Given that the combatants in Iraq and Afghanistan expend RPG munitions like there was no tomorrow (implying that they have a plentiful supply) then one can easily see this tactic becoming standard ambush practice.

The following link leads to a page on the CBS network's Quirks & Quarks website from which you can download the mp3 file of the piece on hibernation research. The page also includes a written synopsis of the piece detailing each of the main points in brief. http://www.cbc.ca/quirks/archives/05-06/feb11.html It is all very interesting and potentially revolutionary stuff. A very great many questions have occured to me whilst studying this page and the links to the various laboratories mentioned at the end. Some questions are only fit for a theology or more philosophically oriented forum, but I have two which I will pose here: 1. The methods described range from activating a dormant genetic pathway in humans and using a drop in exterior temperature to trigger a hibernation response, to draining quantities of blood and replacing this with a cooling fluid, to inhaling a gas such as hydrogen sulphide or carbon monoxide in order to rapidly shut down oxygen metabolism to prevent the build up of waste products. Examples of naturally occuring hibernation given are Arctic Ground Squirrels and Couch's Spadefoot Toad. Both animals effectively freeze during hibernation. Examples of artificially induced hibernation or extreme torpor are pigs, mice and nematode worms; the former induced using cooling fluid and the latter two induced by hydrogen sulphide respiration and simple reduction in oxygen tension respectively. In all examples, great emphasis is placed on the fact that cells shutdown rapidly and, to all intents and purposes, completely. One phrase used is "frozen in time". Question: what effect does this total shutdown have on the various processes associated with aging? 2. Naturally, as with any report on hibernation research, there was some comment on the possibilities of space exploration. Question: how would cells in such a state be affected by radiation? Would they be more or less resistant, or would there be no change in their susceptibility to damage?

Thanks for the link, I hadn't seen it, but I'm also interested in the molecular mechanisms involved as well. This is related to my question on minimum population size as I was wondering if genetic engineering might not have a solution to the problem for small populations. For instance, if we were to say that the minimum viable human population size would be in the range of 100 - 150, but we only had 50 humans, is there a possibly technological fix, a way of artificially enhancing "effective" variation, perhaps by laboratory recombination of DNA? Is such an idea science or science fiction?

It is my understanding that there is a lower limit to the number of individuals required to constitute a genetically viable population. In other words, Adam and Eve alone could not found a successful population. The resulting population would die out due to a lack of genetic variability. I have read something of genetic bottleknecks and the Mount Toba eruption theory which, among other things, seek to explain the morphological differences which characterise so-called human "races". I understand that during the nuclear winter which followed the eruption, which is considered to have taken place about 60,000 years ago, some groups of humanity were sheltered from the worst effects of this climate change in isolated pockets. In these pockets sufficient animal and plant life survived to support viable human populations and it is the lack of interbreeding between these separate populations during this period which led to the development of distinct morphologies in these isolated groups. I would be grateful if someone could help me answer the following questions: 1. What is the minimum population size in terms of breeding individuals that is required to sustain a viable population? In effect, if we were to discover a previously unknown island in the middle of an ocean, what is the minimum number of people we must seed it with in order to establish a genetically viable colony? 2. What are the deleterious genetic effects caused by having too few reproductive individuals and why do are they harmful? Why couldn't Adam and Eve succeed in breeding a population of thousands or hundreds of thousands? Thank you

Not a gradual progression to technology, a gradual progression to acquisition of it's results. I may have wireless internet and may shortly be able to pre-order my first quantum computer, but there are are good few million if not bordering on the couple of billion people in the world who still think it's cool that the lights don't go out when the Sun goes down! This was the basis of my reference to the Haves and Have-Nots. We already live in a world divided by technology and access to it. As the pace of technological advancement increases, that gap is only going to increase, and the number of those with access to the cutting edge will just as rapidly decrease. It's also worth noting that many of those dedicated nerds, hobbyists and University researchers have made quite a good living out of their work, selflessly slaving away to deliver the latest, greatest benefit to an unaware public.

I wonder if I've identified a further problem with the uptake and expansion of these techno-humans. Market forces. We may be heading for wholely knowledge based economies in some countries, but money still changes hands for accurate information. Everything from scientific data to sales research has a price. Sure, there's the internet, but the internet is not peer reviewed and fiction is self-perpetuating. I know a gentleman who engaged in a debate on the basic principles of buoyancy as applied to submarines with two individuals who held degrees in physics; one held an advanced degree. He referenced a dozen different websites as part of his argument - a dozen different and each very badly worded and often rather simplistic websites. His argument was that the inaccuracy of a piece of information was in inverse proportion to the number of replications of that information in existence. The logic of self-perpetuating fiction was lost on him. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Given this extraordinary human tendency to resist correction, no matter the source (a tendency that must be rooted in some kind of Darwinist reproductive competitiveness) then the idea that humans merging their brains with technology and downloading knowledge almost instantly will necessarily be of benefit looks a little less appealing. Consider also what kind of material is most likely to be downloaded in quantity. It's a four letter word and starts with a p. Just like we have done with the internet, so we would do with our brains themselves. The only solution is to pay for verified and certified knowledge. Just as one subscribes to a scientific journal, often at a cost of hundreds per year, so one would have to pay to receive a decent educational download. This is no different from paying for a private school or paying college fees. Alternatively, you can take a risk and get a free open source one download on, say, medicine, off the net and accept that there may be gaps and inaccuracies of which you are unaware. Imagine being the patient of such a doctor. It doesn't bear thinking about. Goodbye knowledge nirvana. Hello situation normal.

I can't remember whether I harvested this link from these forums or elsewhere, but no matter. Here it is again. http://www.kurzweilai.net/articles/art0134.html?printable=1 And the introductory paragraph What this article really got me wondering about was the nature of a so-called software based human, and it's on this aspect that I would like to focus. For myself, and based on no research at all, I find the idea that we will reach a sudden and dramatic turning point to be dubious at best, melodramatic at worst. I can think of no sudden and dramatic turning points in human history where the world's population was fundamentally different, pyschologically or physiologically, following an event of brief duration. Like all new developments, the technological advances that will enable the true merging of the human nervous system with artificial devices and the software that runs them will take a long time to disperse amongst the global population. The "Haves" will have it first, as they always do. The "Have Nots" sitting at the bottom of the hill will have to wait until last years technology slowly rolls down to their level, as they always do. A small, very small fraction of the global population will probably experience something akin to this singularity event, but for everyone else it will be a gradual creep, like usual. So, if I were to hypothesise the course of events of human engineered evolution for the next two or three centuries, I would predict a relatively gradual change, even though in the context of historical technological development, it would still look like light speed, despite the rapid progress of the last sixty years. I wonder how this gradual integration with devices and their programming will alter the human outlook? What will it do to us in terms of our inter-relationships? How will it change our thinking? Will these alterations also effect our conclusions? Would a software based human reach the same conclusions on a matter of morality as a human living today in western liberal democracy? Will the very nature of this humans thought processes alter it's concept of rationality to the point were 1 + 1 no longer equals 2 as we currently understand it? I am much intrigued and would welcome the views of others on this point.

I'm posting this here because it doesn't strictly fit into any particular category. I came across this article whilst browsing and found it interesting. http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/badscience/story/0,12980,1564369,00.html

I remember reading about, and seeing a documentary about the traditional practice in Russia of tightly wrapping babies in swaddling clothes. This restricts the childs movement, but that is not the aim. Research has suggested that the type of physical contact which the very young of many species, especially primates, crave the most is essentially a very tight all embracing hug. The idea is that this satisfies the infants instinctive desire to be held closely to a protective adult and by extension, be kept safe. Apologies for my clumsy way of putting this across, but hopefully you take my meaning. Russian babies so wrapped are observed to stop crying almost immediately. They literally shut up the instant the swaddling blankets are pulled tight. The bound bundle is then placed in it's crib and, according to the footage on the documentary, adopts that ridiculous expression of smug comfort that only a baby can immitate, whereas less than a minute earlier it's face had been one huge open screaming mouth. The footage was quiet impressive. The film was made in an orphanage and one midwife was caring for numerous children in this fashion. There were several cribs lining the room, each containing a silent and satisfied looking infant. They only started crying again when the midwife unwrapped them to check and change their nappies. Anyway, the swaddling clothes would appear to satisfy the child by being tight enough to exert pressure over the whole childs body, thereby reassuring it. So, I suggest that the child only kicks and cries all the more when you place it in it's crib (thinking you are providing the opportunity to sleep which the child then illogically refuses) because you have now removed it from any sensation of contact with a parent. If you wrapped it tightly in a blanket whilst in your arms, perhaps you could woo it to sleep and then place it in the crib?

First, some background: My Grandmother suffered from osteoporosis, among other things which were mostly related to radiation poisoning (she took part in early medical trials involving X-rays). For the last ten years of her life she required nursing home care, and over that period became increasingly bed bound. Due to the osteoporosis, her spine began to crumble until she stood at less than half her original height. It was in a sense fortunate that she had previously had one lung and half of the other removed due to tuberculosis, as this was what essentially "made space" within the chest cavity for this degree of "crumpling" to occur without destroying any organs, although there was still damage to the remaining lung and the heart. Another side effect of the spinal deformity was an obstruction of the esophagus which eventually prevented her from swallowing any solid food at all. It would be trapped in a curvature not unlike the U bend of a toilet and be vomited back up. So, for the last few years, she existed on cups of tea (milk, no sugar), her various drugs which included a huge dosage of morphine, the occassional nutritional drink (a thick, soupy substance tasting of cardboard that was provided in cartons with a straw) which she eventually refused to take anymore, and bags of boiled sweats which she would suck for hours. On this cocktail she survived for many years after her movement became restricted to sitting all day, with occassional trips to the bathroom, and continued to survive for several months after becoming completely bed bound. And so my question: how was she sustaining herself on so little? What are the absolute minimum dietary requirements to sustain human life, assuming a sedentary life style with little or no strenuous movement. What effect would a large dose of a drug like morphine have, if any? Among their various chemical constituents, can drugs contain any essential minerals or nutrients that might contribute to a patients diet? Thank you