Yet more potential transhumanist body-modification! File under “you must all send me money until I can afford one of these”:
The strapline for the image on the Physorg report reads: “Waterproof and powered by pizza”. 🙂 [Via Chris Roberson and many others]
Richard Morgan, author of a number of excellent cyber-noir sf thrillers (the most recent being the excellent Black Man, or Thirteen as it was titled in the US) was asked by Index On Censorship Magazine to write an essay about the future of the internet, which is now available on his website. [Image by Meyshanworld]
If you’re familiar with Morgan’s books, you’ll know not to expect rose-tinted panglossian speculation from him. I’ll freely admit that I get carried away with techno-utopian visions from time to time, and it’s good to have writers with Morgan’s incisive intelligence to bring me down to earth:
“The future of the internet, then, is not going to be too much of a shock for anyone who knows much about human nature and whose eyes are open. In fact, regardless of the technical innovations that we may or may not see in the next few decades, virtual reality looks as if it’s going to conform pretty ordinarily to the existing human tendencies we so know and love.”
Go read! [Props to Ariel for the tip.]
Here’s a quick one from Futurismic’s (electronic) postbag – calling all writers of speculative fiction over fifty years of age!
“The Speculative Literature Foundation (SLF) is pleased to announce that it is accepting applications for the 2008 Older Writers Grant. The grant of $750 is available to any writer of speculative literature of 50 years or older at the time of application just beginning to work professionally in the field. There are no restrictions on the use of the grant money.
The grant will be awarded by a committee of SLF staff members on the basis of interest and merit. Applicants are asked to submit a brief autobiographical statement, a writing sample, and a bibliography. For full details on how to apply for the grant, please refer to the grants page on the SLF web site, or email olderwriters[AT]speclit[DOT]org.
Applications must be received by March 31st 2008. The successful applicant will be announced on June 1st 2008.”
Well, what are you waiting for?
Gravitational lensing is all the rage in astronomy right now. A confirmation of one of Einstein’s theories, the phenomenon has seen recent use in mapping dark matter and detecting exoplanets.
To avoid making myself look like the bluffer and layman enthusiast that I am, I’ll defer to the experts and let Phil “Bad Astronomy” Plait explain how gravitational lenses work, and point out that the Hubble telescope has just found a big new crop of them. [Image: NASA, ESA, C. Faure (Zentrum für Astronomie, University of Heidelberg) and J.P. Kneib (Laboratoire d’Astrophysique de Marseille)]
“Big deal,” you might be thinking. In which case, I’ll direct you to Centauri Dreams, where you’ll find an explanation of how the phenomenon might be used for the rapid propulsion of interstellar probes or (in the comments) communication between star systems.
Steve Rubel points us to an article at American Journalism Review that discusses the hazards of newsrooms relying on Wikipedia for research and citations. [Image by rabbleradio]
This is hardly a new story (though usually we hear about the horrors of students rather than journalists citing the online encyclopedia), but it’s not going away any time soon – in the always-on 24/7 culture of the web, the only constant is change. As Rubel puts it:
“The big question in my mind is this: when journalists cite Wikipedia articles, what happens when the facts they reference from the wiki entries change (assuming they do)? Do the reporters go back and update their articles? The news reports call more attention to the articles, potentially opening up a can of worms each time they source Wikipedia.
Seems like a big vicious cycle. Perhaps in the future these stories will carry some of the same disclaimers that Wikipedia lists.”
And if you think that’s a symptom of postmodernism running wild, what about CNN handing over the reins of iReport to the community of citizen-journalists who contribute to it? [Via SlashDot]
Are the definitions of “truth” and “consensus” converging? Were they ever really different?