Digg this, Digg that – crowdsourcing is the ultimate way to unearth what’s newsworthy. Or at least it would be – if its user-base actually did some real ‘digging’ and checked the facts behind a story (or at least the comments string beneath the post) before giving it the thumbs up. Coincidentally, Hal Finney has some thoughts on the ‘wisdom of crowds’ concept – it looks like the Digg hive-mind experienced an ‘information cascade’.

Technology just keeps getting smaller – if you don’t believe me, ask your grandmother. Computers, phones, cameras, particle accelerators …

We’re all about the future here – there’s a clue in the name, right? So, I present you with what allegedly may become the future of PR and marketing, web2.0 style, in the form of Edelman PR’s prototype iteration of the ‘social media press release’. OK, so it has all the tagging/comments/feeds functionality that the modern multimedia landscape requires, but I remain to be convinced that this is anything more than just PR with widgets.

Is there no end to the hubristic machinations of these genetic scientists? Surely it’s some sort of sin, even in the ethical system of an atheist, to create coffee plants that don’t have any caffeine in them? Pest-resistant cotton, fine. Vitamin-enriched rice, fair enough. But get your filthy hands off my java, man!

I’m not entirely sure what to make of the results of a recent survey that concludes the American public thinks nanotech is less useful and more risky than bicycles (but more beneficial than handguns). Is this an insight into public perceptions of risks associated with new technologies, a carefree ‘um, whatever’ to nanotech from Joe Average, or an example of how surveys often churn out results that don’t actually tell us anything useful whatsoever?