Skip to main contentdfsdf

  • Sep 25, 09

    www.wired.com/...n-scans-reveal-what-youve-seen cognition neural activity sight brain reading device

    • Having modeled how images are represented in the brain, the researchers translated recorded patterns of neural activity into pictures of what test subjects had seen.

      • My word is getting here at last!

      Add Sticky Note

  • Nov 02, 09

    Return of the monogamous and promiscuous voles. It appears that we, like them, may be genetically ordained to cheat or be loyal.

    "The gene is the vasopressin receptor, the mutation is called "334" and it is fairly rare: 60 per cent of us do not have it."

    www.wired.co.uk/...ner-for-the-faithful-gene.aspx monogamy genes

    • A divorced friend asked a woman at a party if she would like to have dinner one night. Her reply: "Would that involve sexual intercourse?" This anecdote came to mind as I browsed a paper by Hasse Walum, a Swedish biologist who has found that he can partly predict the future health of a marriage from a single mutation in a gene on chromosome 12. The gene is the vasopressin receptor, the mutation is called "334" and it is fairly rare: 60 per cent of us do not have it.
    • The gene is the vasopressin receptor, the mutation is called "334" and it is fairly rare: 60 per cent of us do not have it.
    • This would simplify things. Perhaps it could be in the form of a strip which turns pink or blue. - Andrew Lyons on 2009-11-02

  • Nov 03, 09

    Interesting piece on how anti-science fear mongering causes physical harm to others.

    www.wired.com/...ff_waronscience vaccine science luddites

    • This isn’t a religious dispute, like the debate over creationism and intelligent design. It’s a challenge to traditional science that crosses party, class, and religious lines. It is partly a reaction to Big Pharma’s blunders and PR missteps, from Vioxx to illegal marketing ploys, which have encouraged a distrust of experts. It is also, ironically, a product of the era of instant communication and easy access to information. The doubters and deniers are empowered by the Internet (online, nobody knows you’re not a doctor) and helped by the mainstream media, which has an interest in pumping up bad science to create a “debate” where there should be none.

  • Nov 25, 09

    I'm personally a fan of prediction three: seizing control of the evolutionary process. However, I think it will have to be that or option 1: we've meddled so much in our development that it's come to a virtual halt as least as natural selection and sexual selection are concerned.

    news.nationalgeographic.com/...50-darwin-human-evolution.html future humans

    • In essence, the old-fashioned evolution of On the Origin of Species may be beside the point: The future may belong to unnatural selection.  

        Nick Bostrom, director of the Future of Humanity Institute at the University of Oxford, said Darwinian evolution "is happening on a very slow time scale now relative to other things that are leading to changes in the human condition"—cloning, genetic enhancement, robotics, artificial intelligence, and nanotechnology, for starters.  

  • Nov 26, 09

    Wikipedia's facts-about-facts make the impossible real
    "Shortcut to Omniscience," talks about the cognitive shift that Wikipedians undergo in order to collaboratively write an encyclopedia, and how that kind of fundamental, subtle change enables networked groups of people to do things that were previously considered impossible.

    www.make-digital.com/...vol20 future humans wikidpedia

  • Dec 01, 09

    Researcher Dr Andrzej Urbanik said: "This might signal that when confronted with dangerous situations, men are more likely than women to take action." ON average, maybe, but I know a lot of examples of the opposite.

    news.bbc.co.uk/...8380429.stm

    • Researcher Dr Andrzej Urbanik said: "This might signal that when confronted with dangerous situations, men are more likely than women to take action."
1 - 6 of 6
20 items/page
List Comments (0)