Chewing gum? Seriously? If they're so concerned about people on cell phones, why not get some undergrad engineers to build a system to detect broadcast-level transmissions within the confines of a perimeter of antennae. Or how about a directional microphone to drop in on someone who looks like they are chewing gum?

On a side note, I know someone who attended a school in Europe where they had an interesting approach. They would have a short interview the student to check how well they understood the content. It might be reasonable to assume someone who is cheating wouldn't do that great in an interview about the content.

The idea of this image is interesting. The light sources on some of the items is confusing/conflicting (particularly on the cameras). I'd say that the shadows are too sharp, too invariant with object distance from board, and look more like those from an apple UI than real life (but maybe this could be "sold" as being intentional, considering the hardware on display). For example, the headset and the camera below it do not share a common shadow direction and the cameras appear to be lit head-on (despite that the shadow falls below and to the left).
The funny thing is that for all the time taken to process the images into this end product, one could have arranged all the items onto a pegboard and taken a high-res photo.

This, my good sir, is full of win.

I think his point is that "people are making lolcats, and that's doing something (creation) versus doing nothing (watching TV)." I think what is important is that people are being more creative, and for some people this translates to the creation of novel ideas. Lolcats are not a cause, but a key indicator; and it seems to coincide with this: http://ipwatchdog.com/images/us_patent_applications

The gay one is not even good. Gay jokes are too "grade 4"-level.

@DarrenBaker

Typically, the "fingers" share a bone with other fingers, and are far from functional (more like a "nub" with some basic movement ability if any).
In this case of this child (and it's probably *quite* rare) is that the 5th finger (note: not including thumb here) is just like the other 4 fingers. The extra digit appears to be fully-functional and it's quite astounding and interesting.

Didn't mad cow disease start through a similar sentiment?

It looks like the majority of colour-blind people only report problems at night with flashing signals. Perhaps the solution is not to design a completely new light, but rather use a different method to signal that case. For example, perhaps one light on (red) and one light flashing (yellow).

Usually I hate when people do junk like this. I clicked the link anyway, and I'm thoroughly impressed.

It makes for a good story, but what purpose does it serve? Why the hell would someone be so secretive? Why the hell would someone try to argue this?

I mean, seriously, the outlined figure they have looks like a woman in jeans with a tucked in shirt, laying on her stomach, facing away from the viewer. Maybe Michelangelo was trying to tell us that jeans were going to be a huge hit. Maybe he secretly liked the tucked-in shirt look.

Give me a fu**ing break.

Look at this video:

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/912495/slow_motion_baseball_hit/

It's not conclusive, but I would say that a baseball feels more rigid than than a golf ball. Yet, you still see the same deformation; though, to a smaller degree, which is expected.

I can't authenticate this without further information, but it doesn't seem unreasonable..

Juice is right. What the heck; did it not occur to anyone making this claim that photons have no mass?

"The common definition of matter is anything that has both mass and volume (occupies space)."

Photons have no mass, and have no volume (well, they have a 'region' dictated by uncertainty, but it couldn't displace water). Scientific claim fidelity: 0%.

This is ludicrous. Case in point: "Bitch Slap." This movie is horrible and would give any feminist nightmares, yet the entire script is carried almost entirely by a cast of 3 women, with names (albeit stripper ones, but the male names are on par), and talk to each other about something other than men. So this movie passes the test, yet is probably the worst type of representation of women in films. It's basically a porno without the sex.

Just because you watched a movie where the heroes blow up an icecap and it sinks doesn't mean the same shit happens in real life.

If you didn't RTFA, here's the key points:

1. the genome was planted into a "fairly close cousin"
2. The first attempt failed; it turned out they got "one letter out of a million" wrong (note the touchiness of "cooking up" life).
3. "It's partially synthetic, some said, because Venter's team had to stick the manmade genetic code inside a living cell from a related species. That cell was more than just a container; it also contained its own cytoplasm — the liquid part."
4. "Venter said he removed 14 genes thought to make the germ dangerous to goats before doing the work, and had briefed government officials about the work over the course of several years — acknowledging that someone potentially could use this emerging field for harm instead of good."

These points being said, it was still a huge success.

In closing, I just want to add that when a day comes where the ignorant are the ones who decide what can and cannot be researched, then science is dead. One cannot make a proper decision regarding the science without understanding the scope of that science. I am upset when people outlaw things like stem cell research and sciences like this, and then turn around and demand to know why cancer is not cured or why their loved one is sitting on an "organ donor death row list." If you don't understand, read up or STFU.