??Quakeeee??

Yes, quake...but not the kind you are thinking. Geologists think they may be able to tell when an icequake is coming, meaning they may be one step closer to predicting avalanches. Scientists find that avalanches are much easier to learn about than other earthquakes because the seismic waves only travel through the ice, raher than several layers of earth. Scientists, however, do maintain that it is impossible to predict an earthquake, or icequake for that matter, with any certainty far in advance.

Despite the impossibility of prediction, geologists believe that they may be able to make accurate predictions of avalanches within 15 days. This new information may be able to save skiers as well as villages and towns. Although all glaciers make a lot of sound due to the gravitational pull on the ice, those on a slope are particularly susceptible to avalanches and tend to make even more creaks and moans. Geologists have shown this prediction ability in Switzerland on the peak of Weisshorn. In order for scientists to get an accurate prediction, they place reflectors on different places atop the glaciers. They then ingeniously froze a microphone into the ice to record the sounds of the mountain. There was an increased amount of sound that occurred around the time before the glacier began to slide down the mountain in an avalanche.

This simple technology shows one the power of logic. If scientists simply apply what they know,  sometimes incredibly high tech equipment isn't necessary. This simple use of a microphone fascinates me; it is as though the mountain is talking to the geologists, warning them to protect the people below. This new information could save many from tragedy and definitely prevent avalanche stories from being presented on Discovery Channel...

??What Are We Going to do for Energy??

Alternative Energy Sources

With all the hype about becoming a greener world with more energy efficient alternatives, one much ask: What can I use for energy? One very important place to start is motor vehicles. As Americans we do a lot of driving. This is due to the layout of most American cities, where it takes people anywhere from ten minutes to an hour to drive to work. It would be ideal to go Euro-style and have everyone walk to work, pick up their baguette on the way, but that is simply not feasible in the United States. We are all about big: big roads, big houses, big neighborhoods, big distances between places and of course, big cars.

   

A friend of mine  bought his new car with a diesel engine (even if the stuff from the gas station is tons more expensive) for the sole reason that he could use biodiesel. In fact, diesel gasoline is actually much more energy efficient because there is more energy packed into the molecules. They are generally 20-40% more efficient than gasoline engines. For a time in the United States, diesel engines were incredibly popular because the diesel was cheaper; then people realized they were smelly and loud. Today, researchers are attempting to come up with more efficient and popular forms of diesel. One of these, as already mentioned, is biodiesel. Instead of smelling bad, drivers can spread the joy of French Fries as they drive along highways. This should be an incredibly cheap alternative, and helps eliminate other wastes from the restaurant industry. Restaurants  would likely be more than happy to give away their used oil to be refined, rather than have to pay to dispose of it.

         

A new technology in the diesel world is the topic of a recent ABC News article. The article discusses using a diesel fuel cell much like a hydrogen fuel cell. The benefit of diesel in this case is that it is much more efficiently stored than hydrogen (which requires huge containers held at dangerous pressures) and takes advantage of the high energy storage of diesel molecules. When the hydrogen atoms are attached to the carbons of diesel molecules is much larger.

So... I urge you to consider a diesel engine. It may end up being cheaper in the long run, and until diesel fuel cells are massively produced, everybody loves the smell of fries right?

??Microscopy??

Microscopy has a long and intriguing history. In 1590 the predecessor to the compound microscope was created by a pair of eyeglass makers. Then, in 1665, Robert Hooke observed the first cell structures in a piece of cork. Later, in 1674 von Leeuwenhoek built the first simple microscope, mainly for examining biological specimens. It wasn't until the 1930s, however that we had the ability to see atoms with the electron microscope. This microscope has changed many of the ideas formulated in the scientific world and has shaped much of the knowledge of today.

This microscope is in stark contrast to the microscopes of today used by scientists. They have developed in opposition to computers. The better the microscope, the larger the size, whereas computers have shrunk with computing power. It is also ironic that the smaller the object to be viewed, the larger the microscope must be.

The only problem with scanning electron microscopes and transmission electron microscopes is that the specimen must be dead in order to view it. In one case, the specimen is coated with gold and the other requires a slice of the specimen. This is incredibly unfortunate, however, the scientific discoveries since their invention have been fascinating. One very interesting subject is that of human biology. With electron microscopes we have been able to view different cells of the body. We can know say with certainty that the human nerve cell has an axon and body. We know about the organelles within our cells. Microscopic evolution has led to many advancements in the study of disease as well.

During the anthrax scares after 9/11, scientists from the CDC used powerful microscopes to study the bacteria. Without these microscopes, the world would have never known that these bacteria had been scientifically manipulated to contain silicone and be especially resilient. We also would have never known the true maliciousness behind the attacks, the attacker was truly using bioweapons to their fullest.

Besides their ability to detect vicious diseases, microscopes hold a bright future in the world of science. Their improvements in the future may help to lay the path for the next generation of scientific textbooks. I am personally thrilled to hear about a new discovery resulting from microscopic images, because it is those discoveries over the past few hundreds of years that have fueled the science of biology. And who in their right mind wouldn't want to learn some bio? :)

??What Happened to My Books??

This Christmas season millions of mom are rushing to the stores or getting online to purchase the Amazon Kindle, the nook, etc. My older sister already got one for her birthday, and my younger sister is begging for one for Christmas. Besides its impact on reading and the market in books, the impact of technology is readily visible through electronic reading devices. Families can afford to have multiple of a single technology rather than only desire a single product.
Besides its indications of the expanding market of technology that is personalized to individuals, the Kindle is also changing. The technology of these devices is rapidly changing as well. Originally, the devices simply were black and white, with only the ability to upload books. Recently the nook released a new version, the nookcolor.  (Dr. Bassett notice the William Gibson novel :)

These devices are redefining the industry as a whole. There is the talk of converting massive amounts of textbooks to electronic copies to reduce costs for students. One question I pose is: will the electronic book industry take off with the same fever as the music industry did with the release of the iPod. Apple has even made a division of iTunes called the iBookstore.

What does this mean for education? Are electronic books akin to a teacher over the Internet? We know these systems work, however learning is no longer the same. Without the tactile, the entire institution is called into question, in my opinion.  Online education is not nearly the same experience as attending an actual university where you live and thrive on campus. Readers don't get the same experience when they crack open a new book. The smell is missing, the feel of the pages as they are turned is entirely missing. When you finish an electronic book looks exactly the same as it did at the beginning, but with a paper book a reader can see the progress. With the advent of the electronic book, the electronic age is becoming even more visible.

I will, however, admit the convenience of these electronic books. They cater very well to the demands of society while still delivering the content. A reader no longer has to pack ten books in their bags as they go on vacation, they can simply pack their eReader, nook, or Kindle and read as many books as they like. They will never have to face the dread of finishing all of their books before the vacation is over.

The new electronic books bring new meanings for how we, as a population, read, purchase books and the development of new technologies by other companies. Not to mention, retailers won't mind one more product on their shelves.

??I Can Dance in a Game without a Controller??

I've never been big into video games. For the longest time my mother refused to allow a gaming system in my house because she believed it to be a waste of time...and brain cells for that matter. She preferred us to be outside enjoying the fresh air.When I begged and begged for a game; all I got was an Atari. In 2005. Not exactly what you want as a kid. I only played for about a month.
Then of course, the Wii came out (and my mom caved to my little sister- tooootally fair). The Wii is now the 'fit and active' video game. Motion is a part of the game, there are even Wiis in nursing home because they force residents to get up and move without forcing them to be too strained. Motion is the new revolution in the world of gaming.

The gaming world is based on a life of fantasy. As this picture shows, gamers are living almost in an alternate universe. They are living a life vicariously through the world of their idols. Other brands are picking up this idea. The world of gaming is moving away from remotes; the less buttons the better. Video games now allow people to move and dance with direction without actually having to learn the skills. It gives people the avenue to be anything they want, occupy any position in life without taking the effort of attaining the actual knowledge. This follows the trend of society today. Admissions are asking college applicants to be everything. In order to go 'anywhere' a student must have the grades, the extracurricular activities, the athletics and the religious activities. In a world where people are forced to be everything, video games allow society a world where they can be everything without trying.
Seth Schiesel compares button-less video games to an art form. This same expressiveness is the freedom discussed earlier. There is a wide barrage of motion sensitive video games today. Microsoft and Playstation are getting in on the action. These new games are redefining what it means to play a video game. Now they are no longer video games that create a world simply of the virtual, it could be considered a virtual reality with more emphasis on the reality. Now gamers won't be couch potatoes, they will be up and moving. This is probably a step in the right direction for one of the most obese nations in the world. If we can't beat those games, we'll join 'em.

??How Can a CHILD Be Obese??

In the past few decades, childhood obesity has become a major concern. There has been billions thrown into research and projects documenting childhood obesity, as well as adult obesity. Films like Supersize Me  have shown this increasing concern.

A large argument within this documentary was whether the problem occurred as a result of negligence on the part of the consumer or McDonald's. A judge found that if the prosecution could prove that the company intended its customers to eat McDonald's every day for every meal and the products were in fact harmful to health then McDonald's would be at fault. Throughout the course of the documentary Morgan showed that beyond a shadow of a doubt McDonald's was harmful to his health. His doctors would not even allow him to finish his 30 day Mickey D's diet because it was destroying his liver.

But this issue brings to light another portion of the question. What causes obesity? Some allege that it is entirely a product of the environment they grow up in, while others report that it is entirely a product of genetic inheritance. Often times, people who don't want to admit that they are responsible for obesity say that it is entirely genetic inheritance, while those seeing others around them as lazy blame it on the situation. The problem with these extremes is that neither is entirely correct. Recent research has shown that obesity, and several other genetically inherited traits are caused by a combination of the environment and genetic inheritance called the epigenetics.

This theory purports that a person inherits their traits from both their father and mother, however, the expression of the genes inherited is determined partially by the surrounding environment. DNA is tightly wound around histone proteins which inhibit genetic expression. Pressures from the environment can cause more histone proteins to become tangled in the DNA or some of the histones to be released. This is where the theories of genetics v. how you grew up clash. There are also other factors like diet and exercise that influence obesity that can also be significant. A person may have a genetic predisposition for obesity from their family, however this is no way means that they are obese. If they eat healthily and exercise frequently they have a better chance of remaining at a healthy weight. Their DNA may be pressured into wrapping around histones suppressing the proteins that may cause obesity. By the same token, if a person whose is not genetically predisposed to obesity eats food with high fat contents frequently and does not exercise, proteins that prevent obesity may be suppressed, and it is highly likely that they will become obese.

Although obesity is not simply a factor of eating and exercise habits or the epigenome, people are not entirely blameless for obesity. They can still be incredibly healthy even if they are predisposed for obesity, they must practice extra self control. The diseases caused by obesity should only encourage everyone to exercise and eat healthily.

So what are you doing sitting on your computer?? Get outside and EXERCISE!!! 

??Can You Actually Grow an ORGAN??

"Researchers at the Institute for Regenerative Medicine at Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center have reached an early, but important, milestone in the quest to grow replacement livers in the lab. They are the first to use human liver cells to successfully engineer miniature livers that function – at least in a laboratory setting – like human livers."


Several weeks ago, I heard Dr. Anthony Atala speak to a group about tissue growth, regeneration and implantation. He has actually been able to successfully implant a bladder grown outside the body using a patient's own cells into the patient. Years later she is happy, healthy and much better off. Besides that, another patient with more pressing need in an emergency situation was able to get a bladder. The future of this technology is almost exactly the concept of the movie The Island. The concept of having your organs at the ready in case of emergency has very nearly been realized. This research is monumental, definitely life changing. There is now the legitimate possibility of organ transplant without recipient rejection. The new organ is made entirely of the patient's own cells, every small marker on the cell is now duplicated without the threat of the wrong tags. All signs point to these developments becoming a major part of hospitals' medical know-how. The technology has even been duplicated on a recent episode of Grey's Anatomy; it has even "made it" in Hollywood.


The only issue in front of researchers now is stem cell legislation; and lobbyists for immuno-suppressor drug companies that are utilized after transplants will not exactly be thrilled. For the majority of the time, physicians will simply use stem cells in the marrow to make the organs grow, however, in order to do research doctors at the Wake Forest Institute for Regenerative Medicine will need stem cells to do their tests. It would be highly advantageous for them to have the ability to utilize cells harvested from the umbilical cord at birth. This would not harm the mothers or the child. It is also a lost opportunity (no matter your opinion on abortion, and I do not wish to show support or opposition to the issue) to allow stem cells of aborted fetuses to be destroyed. There are many opportunities for advancements in healthcare into the future, and only time will tell what legislation will allow. That which legislation grants will determine what these cutting edge researchers will be able to create. We have the proof, they can create functioning organs and place them into patients, they can create functioning liver cells (at least in the laboratory setting) and develop much more. What do you think? Would you like the possibility in the future of being ensured you will get that organ transplant you need?

??Trillions of Reasons to be excited??

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/02/science/space/02cern.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=trillions%20of%20reasons%20to%20be%20excited&st=cse

This article, recently published in the NY Times details the recent work of several physicists. They have been struggling to get their machine up and running over the past several years, as an electrical connection mishap caused the billion dollar machine to explode. Today, scientists are being cautious. They do not want to waste another couple of billion dollars in the search for new particles by pushing the machine too much. The concept is absolutely fascinating; physicists actually believe they may be able to create new particles and discover forces of nature. The machine has tremendous power, it can shoot particles around a track within 1% of the speed of light. This machine is truly on the cutting edge of technology, it is this type of invention that will lead us to the future. It may have many implications for future generations. That is, if the scientists are allowed to run it. Because of the past tragedies with the superconductor, and its costs, as tremendous in size as the machine is itself the scientists will constantly have to check on the magnets, and likely need to replace them in 20 years.
I find what these scientists are doing to be absolutely amazing. They are taking steps toward our future within the scientific community. It is incredible in such a time of dire hopes in the economic sense, we are able to see advancements in the scientific arena. I do, however, find some fault with the superconductor still being financed. I, by no means am in favor of a technology sitting dormant until it rusts over and the momentum is completely lost on the project, so I am torn regarding whether the financing for this project should have gone elsewhere considered more pressing. Many countries have fallen on hard economic times, in fact they came to light in the same year that the superconductor explosion occurred. That raises the question, should the government have rebuilt the superconductor, as they did? Or should the money have been funneled into rebuilding the economy? I am fully aware that had the government left the project for several years, the remains would have been tantamount to the military bunkers found around the United States, grown over with brush, rusty and neglected. However, one could make the argument that the funding should have been redistributed to promote and support economic growth.  You may point out that this machine employs a large number of people to keep it up and running, but they are for the majority a more educated crowd, that already have positions as professors at varying universities. I find it tremendously difficult to decide between economic or scientific future. The issue is widely discussed in situations similar to this around the world, so I propose you decide what you think should have happened, although with the knowledge that nothing can be done to change where the funding actually ended up.

Handwriting Analysis: ??Is it a Science??

http://science.howstuffworks.com/handwriting-analysis.htm

This link will take you to a how to article about the nature of Handwriting Analysis.

I have always been fascinated by the science of handwriting analysis, and yes I do consider it a science. Like all other sciences, it has its flaws and isn't always perfect, but there is a method to the madness. From its success in finding the kidnapper of Charles Lindbergh's baby to the elimination of JonBenet Ramsey's mother as a suspect in the case, forensic analysis of handwriting has been around for a long time. As the article says, "the primary basis of handwriting analysis as a science  is that every person in the world has a unique way of writing." Analysis of a piece of writing is taken through the same string of testing as would any other experiment:
1.Question - Who done it? How does this piece of writing relate to the crime?
2. Observation and Research - What are the initial signs in the writing? Should I examine for forgery, look for pieces of writing by the same author?
3. Hypothesis - I think this suspect wrote the article.
4. Test - Examine the writing more closely. Was the writer rushed? Are there frequent pauses in the letters indicating the writer was not used to writing in that manner? If possible, observe the writer as they dictate a similar sentence.
5. Analyze and Conclude - Determine who wrote the piece and their bearing as a suspect.
6. Report Results - Collaborate with police officers to catch a suspect.
Through these methods forensic analysts are able to provide relevant information to officers pursuing justice. Analysts are able to determine information from handwriting using a variety of methods. The individual nature of handwriting is developed as students progress through school, as they move the pencil to a more comfortable place in their hand, observe other styles they wish to emulate and the fastest mode of writing. Analysts often begin with two articles rather than just one. They use the piece in question and compare it to one by a known author to find the difference. The article warns against dictating to a suspected author exactly what he wrote in the note and asking him to copy a piece. If he is allowed to see the original or asked to dictate the same piece, he can more easily recall how the original was written and then change his handwriting to confuse the analyst. They consider letter form, line form and formatting when comparing two pieces of writing for an author.
Grammar can also be an indicator of  the author of a piece of writing. My favorite English teacher, Mr. Whittle, always says that writing is a measure of one's intelligence. When the police have an investigation narrowed to two suspects, with differing levels of education, the author of the note can often be deciphered. If a suspect is less educated his sentences are likely to be much simpler and straight to the point. This is where the imperfections of the science plays a role. A ransom writer could use simple sentences to throw off investigators or in the quest to save time, but if educated, he is still more likely to use punctuation correctly and create a more thought out sentence in his attempts to not get caught.
But what does my handwriting say about me? There is another application of analysis that is said to determine much about a personality.  Some say that heavy pressure on the papers indicates intense emotions and a vertical slant indicates you are holding something back, while connecting your letters means something entirely different. I've always wanted to have my handwriting analyzed because I want to know what it indicates about the type of person that I am, and to see if this prediction is truly accurate. I write in many different ways, especially under a time crunch. When practicing for AP English essays, my hand would quickly become cramped and I would change writing styles. The result was that the first and last page of my essays always looked like they were written by a different author. Somewhere in the middle of the essay, the writing would suddenly change. So what DOES this say about me? My contention is that I get bored too easily and change my style to spice it up a bit, but would I fool the analysts?
I leave you with the question, what are you saying when you write? It might be more than you think.

??Are YOU smarter than a Chimp??

Is humanity truly the superior being on earth? Do we really have the right to reserve this world as our own to rule?





I watched the second video in my anthropology class and my interest was sparked. I went searching and found that is was a portion of a two part video. This video was directed towards a discussion on culture. The main question was did chimpanzees have the ability to create culture, or were they simply able to form societies. But that also begged the question, how unique is man?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Not quite as unique as we once thought. But the answer to the questions posed before the videos is still yes. The reason that we can say this as compared to other primates with whom we share around 98% of our genetic makeup has a lot to do with language. Our ability to communicate in highly complex language is a major reason for our success over the majority of species. By luck of evolution or creation (whatever you choose to believe) humans received the correct wiring in their brain to be able to communicate and think more deeply. Our long term memory is highly developed and contributes to our ability to form language.
But we are not entirely alone in our abilities. In fact, as the videos show, many primates have a short term memory highly superior to our own. Due to the way the chimpanzees brain is "wired" they have they ability to remember much more quickly than humans. This may have developed out of necessity for the primates. They could use this short term memory to recall where food is, so that when they look away to swing from tree to tree they could remember exactly where to find it. Another example may be when they are being chased by a predator, this quick short term memory could allow them to find an escape route, even if they had only seen the path for 0.65 seconds. A second feature that primates share with humans is the capacity of language. Primates are not nearly as developed in their scope however.  They do not possess a large vocabulary, and they do not have the capacity to speak but they can communicate.
We once thought the only similarity between humans and other primates was the opposable thumb, and we have found that to be untrue, the few percentage points of genetic difference between the species makes a large difference when you are counting tens of thousands of genes. This brings the discussion back to the differences between the species and why mankind is more fit to hold the fate of the planet.
Our awareness of the world on a global scale puts humanity on the forefront of change. Despite our cultural and moral differences, mankind has a greater ability to bridge the culture gap than ever before. As the world is rapidly expanding, the gap between groups is rapidly shortening due to technology. And what is exactly is culture, what barriers does it create, problems does it solve?
Culture is roughly defined as that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, arts, morals, law custom and any other capabilities as a member of society by EB Tylor. This is part of the reason why we as humankind do not believe that other species can create culture, but they can create society. A person with a culture is a member of a society that forms these features. In societies of other species there are often laws and specific customs, but none to the scale of humankind, and not for the same reasons. Societies in the primate world are formed to make life easier on the group, they satisfy the basic needs of food and shelter. But culture within mankind is a living organism, it adapts and changes. Culture is formed to enrich societies both mind and body. Culture is learned, observed, adaptive, evolutionary...the list continues. One thing is also true, culture is unique to humanity, that we can claim.
All this is not to say take pride in our "superiority" but to take responsibility for it. We are the vehicles of revolution, so we need to do something about it.

??College Life??

After the whirlwind of arriving on campus with nobody in sight of my dorm, I proceeded to nearly be late for the very first dinner I was required to attend on campus. I barely had time to say goodbye to mom and Hannah before be whisked into the world of college. Then suddenly I was back on a bus into the mountains of North Carolina....and so my college journey began.