Quantcast
Channel: Popular Science | RSS
Viewing all 20161 articles
Browse latest View live

Pick An App Just By Thinking About It With Samsung's Mind-Controlled Tablet

$
0
0
Tablet Accessory? A woman wears an EEG cap for a Sandia National Laboratories experiment. To use the mind-reading tablet below, people must wear an EEG cap, though a slightly different one that doesn't require gel on the scalp. Photo by Randy Montoya
For when touchscreens will be *so 2010s*

One of my friends already thinks that people look silly holding up tablets to take photos, so I'm not sure what he'd think of using a tablet with a wire-covered EEG cap on. The experience might be worth the side-eyes, though: Samsung is researching a system that lets people control a Galaxy Note 10.1 with their thoughts, MIT Technology Review reported.

This is definitely something for the future. Samsung has no plans yet to sell what they're researching, and it works pretty slowly, allowing just one selection every five seconds. Once it is ready for sale, though, it could be especially helpful for those who have trouble with fine motor control (people with cerebral palsy, for instance). Of course, it could also just be cool for anybody.

Researchers still need to work on improving their detection of genuine, directed brainwaves versus noisy artifacts. They also need to make a brainwave-detecting cap people will actually want to wear. Roozbeh Jafar, an electrical engineer at the University of Texas, Dallas, has developed an EEG cap that works without the scalp gel many such caps require, but it's still large and unwieldy.

Be sure to check out Technology Review for a video of someone using a prototype system to pick an app, pick a song to play, start and stop a song, and choose some pre-recorded phrases from a list. That last feature suggests people who can't speak could use this to express their wishes.

[MIT Technology Review]

    



What Drugs You Like Depends On Where You Go Dancing [Infographic]

$
0
0
Drugs Used In The Last 12 MonthsMixMag
A graphical look at clubgoers' preferences in the US and UK

MixMag's annual Global Drug Survey came out yesterday, and it has the breakdown. The survey asked 22,000 people about their drug use habits, and MixMag packaged the data in this nice little infographic. Maybe not surprisingly, the drug of choice is the legally obtainable alcohol. Cannabis isn't too far behind.

The infographic also charts cultural differences between the U.S. and U.K. Judging from this, it would appear the U.S. is more fond of LSD (or can obtain it more easily), while ketamine is considerably more popular in the U.K. Maybe all of this is slightly skewed, though, since 14 percent of all respondents said they'd taken a mystery powder without knowing what it was.


[MixMag via The Fix]

    


How Physics Can Help Solve Crimes

$
0
0
Blood SplatterNyki M, via wikimedia commons
The key to better blood splatter analysis? Better science.

It turns out that the best way to understand the science of how blood splatters is, well, science. With funding from the U.S. Department of Justice, researchers at Iowa State University are turning to physics to reduce uncertainty and guesswork in bloodstain pattern analyses.

Blood stains have the potential to reveal a lot about a crime--the distance blood splattered, the direction it flew in, and something about the nature of the struggle. But existing methods fall short. A 2009 National Research Council report on forensic science expressed frustration with the current state of blood spatter analysis, noting technicians were relying on subjective measures instead of objective ones.

The Iowa State researchers' solution? Mathematically model blood spatter. To do that, the researchers drop, launch, spray, and splatter horse blood onto white paper, then record the spray with a high-speed camera. From there, they use the physics of fluid dynamics and a computational model to create an understanding of how the blood that traveled landed the way it did.

It isn't the only effort aimed at improving blood forensics. Previous efforts include using proteins to find hidden bloodstains, reconstructing blood droplet sizes with laser scanning and digital photography, and narrowing the age of the person's blood by counting white blood cells.

By creating and analyzing their own spatters in the lab, these scientists create a guide and a program that can tell people in the field can use to fill in from one variable the rest of the missing information.

    


The Week In Numbers: Homes For Boston Marathoners, Kilt-Wearers Without Underpants, And More

$
0
0
Second explosion at the Boston MarathonFrom a photo by Dan Lampariello

5,037: the number of Massachusetts residents who offered their homes to people stranded after the Boston Marathon bombing

5 microns: the width of the pixels used by a tiny new camera from DARPA

1938: the year Albert Hofmann synthesized LSD for the first time

1,200 degrees Fahrenheit : the temperature needed to ignite anhydrous ammonia, the chemical at the site of the factory explosion in West, Texas

93 percent: the portion of a single cell's DNA scientists were able to map using a new genome-sequencing technique

1884: the year a Popular Science writer overdosed on hasish

11,417: the number of sharks killed per hour by humans

1.78 mg: the amount of ricin (the poison mailed to President Obama this week) needed to kill an average adult

70 percent: the portion of kilt-wearers who go without underpants, which may make their sperm stronger

3.5 million: the number of inhabitants per square mile in the vice-ridden former Chinese military fort known as Kowloon Walled City (Manhattan's population density is only 27,000 people per square mile)

3.5 grams: the amount of marijuana in the nitrous-powered Green Dragon liquor

20-30 percent: the percentage of cats that don't react to catnip

44.3 percent: the portion of U.S. clubgoers who have used LSD in the past year, compared with only 14.5 percent of UK partiers

3800 kV: the voltage of a zap from the new anti-rape bra created by engineering students in India

10 inches: the length of the Giant African Land Snails that have invaded Florida (they may have been imported for Santería followers to drink their mucus)

    


Don't Be Afraid Of Your DNA

$
0
0
Science Runs Free With Our DNARyan Snook
Privacy is a pipe dream. Let's start saving lives.

In January, scientists scared the world by using public information to find the names behind five people's anonymous, public DNA samples collected for research. The scientists then determined the identity of some 45 family members who had also donated DNA. How? By linking ages and locations associated with the five individuals to family trees associated with DNA on genealogy websites. (The subjects' ages were then removed from public view.) The stunt, intended to raise awareness, also raised new fears-insurance companies denying coverage, discriminatory hiring practices, and the end of dating as we know it.

But these 50 people aren't any less safe than the rest of us. No one's DNA is-or has ever been-private. We spray our genetic material everywhere. We slough off a million skin cells a day. And free genealogy databases need only a fraction of a Y chromosome to find a last name. Sequencing a genome cost $100 million in 2001; today, it's less than $10,000; soon, it will be as cheap as buying lunch.

Here's the thing: Lack of genetic privacy isn't just something to accept. We should embrace it. Scientists currently have just a tiny stock of human genomes, which they're mostly unable to share between institutions because of restrictive regulations. Imagine the possibilities
if we open-sourced all our DNA.
The Human Genome Project is public, but it's just one sequence. And most biotech companies, such as 23andMe, consider their databases proprietary. The two main groups that share full genomes of individuals (the 1000 Genomes Project and the Personal Genome Project) together have only about 1,500. This closed system is holding research back.

Imagine the possibilities if we open-sourced all our DNA-or at least tweaked consent forms to allow opt-ins for sharing genetic info with all scientists. John Wilbanks, chief commons officer at Sage Bionetworks (which offers a database of public genomes), says the Human Genome Project covers only what we have in common. "What makes us unique is what makes us respond differently to drugs, to food, to environment, to disease," he says. "A large database of individual genomes is going to be vital to help us understand how our variations make us healthy or not." Genomic research today, he says, is like doing a Google search on only a handful of Web pages. With a few hundred thousand genomes, we would better understand how illnesses and drugs behave differently from person to person. Put aside the fear. It's time to let science run free with our DNA.

This article originally appeared in the May 2013 issue of Popular Science. See the rest of the magazine here.

    


3-D Print Your Doodles With This New Kickstarter Project

$
0
0
Plastic cat made with Doodle3DDoodle3D
Software turns simple line drawings into 3-D objects.

A new project on Kickstarter allows amateur artists to 3-D print their simple 2-D doodles. The Doodle3D Wifi Box is designed to connect any wireless drawing device (i.e. any tablet, smartphone, or computer) to a 3-D printer. The software runs on the WiFi box, and users access it through their browser.

How it works: Connect the Doodle3D WiFi Box to a compatible 3-D printer via USB, sketch an image into the Doodle3D software, then hit "print." The printer then turns the 2-D line drawing into a 3-D object.

Users who want to print more complex objects can play with the software's sculpting and rotating features. The creators of the device, who are hoping to raise $50,000 by May 22, say their goal is to create a more user-friendly interface for designing 3-D-printable objects.

Want more 3-D-printable doodling? Check out this pen than draws plastic objects in midair.

    


FYI: Is Ecstasy Safer When It's Purer?

$
0
0
EcstasyDEA
Is pure MDMA "absolutely" safe, as a Canadian health official claimed last year?

Last summer, British Columbia's top health official caused an uproar when he called the risks of MDMA -- the synthetic amphetamine sold as ecstasy -- overblown.

According to CBC News:

Provincial Health Officer Dr. Perry Kendall says while the pure form of the drug has been proven safe in controlled clinical trials by psychiatrists, the type of ecstasy sold on the street is laced with potentially dangerous impurities.

Ecstasy is one of a few names for MDMA, or 3,4-methylenedioxy-methamphetamine, the popular dance drug banned in the U.S. in 1985. The term ecstasy typically refers to the drug in a pressed pill form that might be laced with other substances besides MDMA. It also goes by the name molly, a powder or crystal form of MDMA that has a reputation for being "pure" MDMA, and thus, safer.

On its own, MDMA produces feelings of euphoria and connectedness, decreasing activity in the amygdala, a region of the brain associated with the fear response, and increasing activity in the pre-frontal cortex, where higher-level brain processing occurs. Like psychedelics such as LSD or magic mushrooms, it increases the level of the neurotransmitter serotonin in your brain, and possibly due to greater levels of the hormone prolactin, it also creates a kind of post-orgasmic state.

Side Effects

MDMA was used in psychotherapy in the 1970s and early '80s, but in 1985, it was classified as a Schedule I drug, meaning the government considers it a dangerous substance with high potential for abuse and no acceptable medical use. There are a couple unappealing side effects that have been observed with recreational ecstasy use: People have died of both dehydration and over-hydration (which causes brain swelling, ew) after taking MDMA, and it increases your blood pressure, so it can potentially lead to a stroke. At high doses, studies have found it can cause hyperthermia, or overheating, though there has been some debate over whether or not the MDMA itself can cause significant hyperthermia without overexertion.

"It's a lethal side effect," says Edward Mills, an associate professor of pharmacology and toxicology at the University of Texas at Austin. "It's rare, but it happens commonly enough." Mills studies the way ecstasy increases body temperature in animals. MDMA activates the sympathetic nervous system, the same nerves that generate fevers.

Other reported side effects have been somewhat overblown. A 2003 paper claiming ecstasy causes permanent brain damage not unlike Parkinson's Disease, for example, was retracted because it turned out the researcher administered the wrong drug. The potential neurotoxicity of MDMA--whether or not it damages the nervous system and the brain--is still contested.

Michael Mithoefer, a private psychiatrist in Charleston, South Carolina, has been working on using MDMA in psychotherapy to treat PTSD since 2000. In his research, he uses MDMA made in a university lab that's registered with the FDA as more than 99 percent pure. So far he's only seen short-term side effects, like dizziness, impaired balance and anxiety.

"Nothing is completely safe," he says. "We're using it in a very controlled setting," with patients that are screened and monitored carefully, he explains. "It's a favorable risk-benefit ratio, but that does not mean that even pure MDMA can't be dangerous."

The Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Research (MAPS), which sponsors Mithoefer's MDMA research and wants to make it a prescription medicine for use in psychotherapy, says "In laboratory studies, pure MDMA-but not Ecstasy-has been proven sufficiently safe for human consumption when taken a limited number of times in moderate doses."

Is Purer Safer?

MAPS doesn't endorse ecstasy because most ecstasy isn't pure MDMA -- it's often cut with a some unknown filler, as are other drugs like heroin and cocaine. Both caffeine and ephedrine, another stimulant, serve as common fillers for ecstasy because they look and function somewhat similar to MDMA, but are cheaper to obtain. They share some of the speed-like effects of ecstasy, though they don't give you the same increase in empathy and emotional openness.

There's also a lot of hand-wringing about how kids these days think "molly" is purer, safer MDMA (Details likened its reputation to that of organic fruit). But whether or not an adulterant makes your MDMA experience more or less dangerous depends, of course, on what it is. If your pill or powder is laced with something like baking soda, the toxicity of the MDMA would actually be diluted.

"If the adulterant is caffeine or ephedrine, you can get a combination of toxic effects that can be as bad or greater than MDMA alone," Mills says. "They may enhance each other's toxicity, but definitive studies haven't been done."

In both Canada and the U.K. recently, people have died after what they thought were ecstasy pills turned out to contain a toxic chemical called PMMA, or "Dr Death."

Ecstasy's toxicity is a scientific mystery because it lacks a clear "dose and response effect," according to Mills--one person might get sent to the hospital after one pill, while someone else can take 50, no problem. How many people actually die a year from ecstasy-related causes is hard to pin down, but according to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, there were 22,816 MDMA-related emergency room visits in 2009.

For Mithoefer's study, under controlled clinical conditions with research-grade, pure MDMA, the drug didn't show any long-term side effects. Trials of MDMA-assisted PTSD therapy have also been completed in Switzerland and gotten underway in Vancouver.

As for recreational drugs, it's pretty much impossible to tell whether what you're buying is 100 percent pure. You can buy test kits to check for some common adulterants. If your drug dealer happens to press his pills with baking soda, a less pure dose could actually be a bit safer, though the effects you're paying for will also be lessened. Other than that, you're probably better off with a purer dose of MDMA, rather than something that might be laced with a substance with Death in its nickname.

    


Why Airports Always Lose Your Bag [Infographic]

$
0
0
Just never, ever transfer and you might be okay!

You're heading home for the holidays or vacation when--whoops!--your bag falls into the clutches of the airline underbelly. What happened?

Well, it could've been a lot of things, according to this infographic from Boldface and Irish Independent. If you're one of the unfortunate 26 million souls this happened to in 2012 (a 4.5 percent increase from 2011), there was a 48 percent chance you were the victim of a "transfer mishandling." The next closest error, at 17 percent: "failure to load."

As you might expect, the bigger airports with more bags to juggle are way more likely to lose your bag than the smaller airports, but what's a little strange is how much regional variation there. Europe, for some reason, has a way higher bag-mishandling rate than Asia.

It's all enough to make you think there's some kind of conspiracy to separate you from your belongings, but then again, the airlines took a $2.6 billion hit because of the mix-ups. Not really a good situation on either side.

International Airport Baggage Report

[visual.ly]

    



FYI: How Much Cocaine Can You Fit In Your, Ahem, Body?

$
0
0
Drugs In Machineryvia UK Home Office
The science of drug muling

The first thing you learn, when investigating drug muling, is that muling is a very common and efficient way of transporting contraband. The second thing you learn is that you have no idea how elastic the gastrointestinal tract is.

There are two kinds of mules. The first is long-term; these are the ones that fly from another country and need to keep whatever they're smuggling inside their bodies for a day or so. Dr. Rama Rao, an emergency room physician at New York Presbyterian Hospital, calls this "body packing," though terms vary. The other type is short-term, the ones who need to smuggle something into jail or just to conceal something for a few minutes or hours. Dr. Rao calls this "stuffing" or "booty bumping," though as with packing, there are dozens of slang terms for it. Whatever it's called, the ER sees plenty of it.

These two methods primarily differ based on which end the contraband enters: packers swallow, stuffers insert (...into the butthole).

When we talk about mules caught with hundreds of bags of cocaine or heroin, we're talking about packers. "Almost always these people will swallow," says Dr. Rao. "The [gastrointestinal] tract is very long; it's the best way to store a lot." It makes sense to follow the body's natural inclinations here; when you swallow something, the gastrointestinal tract will naturally keep materials within the body while it digests (or attempts to digest), and then pass it. Your entire body is designed to help take things from your mouth and pass them out your anus, with some time in between. When smuggling, that's exactly what you want.

There have been no conclusive studies done on the body's capacity for packing via the mouth. "It's really just up to what the patient can tolerate," says Dr. Rao. Cocaine and heroin are the most common items to smuggle via packing, as they have an extremely high ratio of value to physical size. Stephen Traub led a study in 2003, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, that focused on this sort of muling. The study found that the packets are highly sophisticated and efficient. Muling, despite seeming sort of primitive, is just about the best and safest way to get illicit materials across a border. If you're picturing a poor sap swallowing a condom filled with coke, forget it. "Drug packets, which previously varied in size and construction, are now well crafted, with a precision that suggests the use of an automated process," notes Straub's paper.

These drug packets typically consist of the drug--usually cocaine, heroin, or methamphetamine--compressed to be as dense as possible, and placed into some kind of latex. That latex might be a condom or balloon, yes, but that's not the end of the preparation. That balloon is then sealed with a coating, typically of wax or some kind of industrial sealant. The packet might also include aluminum foil or some other item to throw off any machine that might be able to detect it. The packets are uniform, tapered at both ends, with the appearance of being machined--this isn't a guy smooshing balloons with his hands, this is a concerted, professional operation.

As for capacity, well, nobody knows, really. Typically a packer or mule will carry about 50-100 of these packets, but folks have been caught carrying in excess of 200--as much as five pounds, concealed in the gastrointestinal tract. Sometimes packers will take some kind of anti-diarrheal medicine to halt the body's impulse to expel the packets, and choose not to eat during the flight. As Mary Roach notes in her excellent new book Gulp: Adventures on the Alimentary Canal, some flight attendants on long international flights make a note of any passenger who refuses to eat, to be given to security when the plane lands. So a packer will be wildly uncomfortable, paranoid, committing several illegal acts, and on top of it all, probably hungry.

Once on the ground, that packer will have to keep as calm as possible; customs officials keep an eye out for people who look like they've shoved literally pounds of hard materials inside themselves and are shaking, perspiring, or walking like their legs are made of glass. That's just due to the basic discomfort of having a bunch of alien objects in your gastrointestinal tract, and it doesn't mean it's dangerous, necessarily, but it's still difficult to act normal when you're dealing with a couple hundred wax cylinders in your gut. And so some people get caught.

When suspected, an in-depth x-ray, more time-consuming than the one given to regular passengers, is administered on possible packers. If packets are found, these packers will have to wait around to defecate, which doesn't sound like much fun. At New York's JFK Airport, that's done at the "drug loo," a toilet that automatically washes packets after they've been passed.

Dr. Rao was a little bit reluctant to talk about this--I only got through to her after promising the hospital's press relations person that I'd talk about safety, which I will later--but there isn't actually that much serious long-term risk in packing. "If all the packets are passed," she says, "then, medically speaking, that person is likely to do fine." The muscles of the rectum and anus won't get stretched out permanently or anything like that.

When swallowing packets of drugs, the length of time they stay within the body is mostly up to the literal intestinal fortitude of the packer. Generally it'll take about a day or two to pass through the system, but if the packer is desperate, times of as long as five days (five agonizing days) have been reported.

There is a risk of obstruction or perforation of various internal bits, but that's up to a combination of bad luck (your body tries to pass several packets at once, say) or shoddy worksmanship on the packets. "The number of packets ingested does not appear to correlate with the risk of these complications," according to Traub's paper. If everything goes as planned, you're probably fine. Of course, this is drug smuggling; not everything always goes as planned.

The bigger risk is that one of the packets will break open. Any single one of these packets--and remember, packers are swallowing literally hundreds of them--"generally contains several times more than a lethal dose," says Dr. Rao. Overdosing is common; there is an antidote for a heroin overdose, but for cocaine, the only solution is a specific type of beta blocker which can treat hypertension. And besides that, mules are often unwilling to cooperate with authorities, seeing as how they're engaged in highly illegal activity on behalf of a criminal organization.

Packing is more widely practiced than I realized; after 9/11, it's proved one of the most failsafe ways to smuggle reasonably large quantities of hard drugs into the US. It's basically impossible to spot for standard airport security, and it's not very expensive for the exporter (packers are paid a few thousand dollars or sometimes just with the plane ticket to the States).

* * *

Stuffing, the insertion of something directly into the rectum, is comparatively primitive. Stuffing is a short-term solution; you stuff things into your rectum to get past one quick check, not to travel across international borders and go through customs. The two most common stuffing situations are prison smuggling and quick concealment (for example, you're surprised by police, and have to get rid of some contraband object immediately). That means it's just as likely that the materials will be objects, tobacco, or other non-drug--stuffing is not done by professional drug smugglers, so such professional packaging is rarely seen. It's much more likely that a stuffer will simply wrap the item in a lubricated balloon or condom and go to town.

"You're always working against the natural movement of the GI tract," says Dr. Rao. There's very simply a limit to how far you can push something into the rectum; after a few inches, you run into the colon and then the large intestine, which is much more delicate and prone to perforation or tearing, especially when you're forcing it to do the opposite of what it's designed to do. The muscles of the body are fighting you the entire way.

That said, the rectum is designed to be a storage container. It's used to store a certain amount of feces, until the stretching of the walls of the rectum send a message to the nervous system that you have to expel what's in there. If you ignore the message, the feces can sometimes be drawn back into the colon, where more water is extracted from it until the feces becomes hard and bumpy and awful, which makes for a more painful bowel movement later.

The key to stuffing, as in so many things, is practice. Accomplished rectal stuffers, many of whom can be found in our prison system, work both to expand their rectal capacity and, at least as importantly, to train their bodies to suppress the urge to defecate. I spoke to Dr. William Whitehead of the University of North Carolina, an expert on the movements of the gastrointestinal system, who says, "There are a lot of circumstances in which people develop a much larger rectum, or a megarectum." A megarectum is just a large rectum, generally defined as having a capacity of more than 1,500 mL, and Dr. Whitehead is used to seeing it from those with severe constipation. "Through repeated retention of stool the rectum becomes enlarged," he says, but when I asked if manual effort--practice, basically--could also enlarge the capacity, he said "I think it could."

The maximum capacity of a normal rectum--meaning, before the patient is overcome by the urge to defecate--is about 350 to 500 mL, or about a pint in volume. That's a lot; the first urge to defecate comes at about 100 mL, so if you're storing five times that amount, you're probably pretty uncomfortable. But repeated stretching of the rectum can increase that size markedly. "We do know that it's not rare for people to have larger capacities," says Dr. Whitehead. "We have certainly tested people for whom it's 800 mL. With practice the capacity becomes larger."

The rectum is a fantastically powerful, stretchable part of the body. The problem I kept running into in trying to figure out how much cocaine you could fit in your butthole is that, well, there isn't really an upper limit. It's all about conditioning and practice. That said, let's take that 800 mL as an example upper limit. Given the density of cocaine hydrochloride, that converts to about 0.97 kilograms of cocaine, or very nearly the size of one of those big bricks you see confiscated on the news. And that 800 mL isn't unheard-of; it's probably on the low end for someone who performs a lot of rectal stretching activities.

A more firm upper limit can be found by looking not at volume but at pressure. At a certain amount of pressure, the walls of the rectum will begin to perforate, which is exactly as horrifying as it sounds. "There's no evidence of perforation before 150 mm of mercury," says Dr. Whitehead, mm of mercury being a measure of pressure similar to pounds per square inch or pascals. But that doesn't really get us anywhere, since calculating that pressure depends on the capacity, which is basically impossible to nail down.

Can repeatedly stretching out the rectum in order to carry huge amounts of cocaine cause permanent injury? Dr. Whitehead thinks probably not. "It would almost certainly lead to a weaker sense of urgency to defecate, weaker warning signs," he says, and in cases of constipation, which can have a similar rectum-stretching effect as stuffing, "the act of defecation becomes less efficient." But that's not life-threatening, really. The danger is more from sharp objects tearing the walls of the rectum, or from drug packets bursting and causing overdoses--much more likely in stuffers than packers. That's because stuffing is a last-minute, often hastily prepared activity, just to get something through a quick security check.

So, how much cocaine can you fit in your butthole? With practice, the sky's the limit, though if you're aiming for pure storage capacity, you'd be better off swallowing--you can nearly double your storage space by entering through the mouth rather than the anus. Right now, at most, assuming you haven't been practicing by stretching your rectal capacity and that your rectal capacity is on the high end of the normal spectrum, you could fit about 0.61 kilos of cocaine in there. The more you know!

    


The First Elevated-Pin Braille Smartphone Gets A Prototype

$
0
0
Braille PhoneSumit Dagar
Incoming text gets translated into braille through little pins, constantly moving up and down to convey what's happening in the phone.

With smartphone interaction mostly relying on sight, since there's no tactile difference to what's on the screen, some blind people have turned to apps to make up the difference. These apps can do some pretty impressive things, like determine the denomination of currency or read text out loud, rendering braille unnecessary for some tasks. But those were workarounds, to make up for the inability to create an actual braille interface. For about three years, a team of inventors in India have been working on a smartphone that can turn apps and text into braille. Now they've got a prototype.

The phone, from the Centre for Innovation Incubation and Entrepreneurship in Ahmedabad, translates text into braille by elevating pins: after the text or email or webpage comes in, the pins form a braille version that the user can touch to read. It's not clear what operating system the phone will run on--Android? Something else?--but according to the Times Of India, it'll feature "all other elements" that your more traditional smartphone would have.

The creators, led by inventor Sumit Dagar, are shooting for a release by the end of 2013. Starting price? Just less than 10,000 rupees, or about $185.

[Times Of India]

    


Smoking Pot And Popping THC Pills Combat Pain, Study Finds

$
0
0
Marinol Pills Ten-milligram pills of Marinol, the name-brand pill whose active ingredient is the same as the active chemical in marijuana. U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration
This is the first study to compare smoking marijuana and pills that contain the psychoactive chemical in the plant.

Both smoked marijuana and pills made using marijuana's top active ingredient relieve pain, a new, small study found. Which to choose? Well, smoked pot worked faster, but the pills' effects lasted longer, the study found.

This is the first study to compare smoked marijuana with pills containing dronabinol (AKA delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol AKA THC), the study scientists, a team of three psychiatrists from Columbia University in New York, wrote in a paper published today. And while anecdotal evidence-and several small studies-have shown that marijuana works for pain, dronabinol pills aren't yet U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved for pain. Instead, their labels say they're for nausea, vomiting, low appetite and weight loss from chemotherapy and HIV/AIDS.

Comparing pills and pot contributes to a debate within the debate about marijuana for medicine: Do pills made of isolated, marijuana-derived chemicals work as well as smoking the whole plant? Whole-plant proponents say that marijuana has several chemicals that work together to produce the effects patients want. Smoked marijuana may also work faster than pills and allow patients to titrate exactly how much effect they get, by stopping smoking when they've had enough. Meanwhile, other researchers say pills could provide pain relief without lung irritation. In the political climate around medical marijuana research, pills are also much more likely to receive research funding and approval.

The Columbia study looked at 30 healthy volunteers, 15 men and 15 women, who are regular pot smokers. The researchers tried to look for people with about equal tolerance to pot. Over two to four weeks, the researchers asked the volunteers to come into the New York Psychiatric Institute and take pills and smoke marijuana cigarettes of varying strengths, including placebo pills with no dronabinol in them at all.

After taking their treatment, the researchers had the volunteers stick their left hands and forearms into a tank of icy water. The researchers recorded how long it took for the volunteers to say they started feeling pain and how long the volunteers could keep their arms submerged before having to pull out because of pain. (Sounds like a fun study, doesn't it?)

Low-dose marijuana cigarettes and dronabinol both decreased pain sensitivity compared to placebo, the researchers found. How quickly people started feeling pain and how long they could tolerate pain didn't differ between the two treatments. But 20-milligram dronabinol pills produced an effect that peaked later and lasted longer than smoked pot. Both treatments caused an increase in heart rate.

The study is a helpful start to proving both marijuana's and dronabinol's effectiveness against pain, but it has a couple drawbacks. It looked at daily marijuana smokers, who may not react to pot and dronabinol pills the same way that non-pot smokers would. The researchers said they expected the pain relief to work better in non-pot smokers, but for more unpleasant side effects to show up, too.

The results also may not necessarily translate to other kinds of pain. In other studies, different kinds of pain have reacted differently to dronabinol and marijuana. Several studies have shown both work for pain from nerve damage called neuropathy. Other studies found that five-milligram dronabinol pills didn't help people with either pain after surgery nor pain from heat, and that 20-milligram pills were ineffective for pain from inflammation and for a condition called hyperalgesia, in which people are hyper-sensitive to pain.

Generally people want marijuana or dronabinol for chronic pain, not the immediate, acute pain of freezing your hand. The researchers wrote that they used the cold water test because it helps them keep the level of pain constant. Chronic pain sufferers may have different pain levels from one day to the next, making their pain more difficult to study. But a clinical trial to get FDA approval would need to look not at healthy people, but at those who actually need pain medicine.

The Columbia researchers published their work in the journal Neuropsychopharmacology.

    


Hyundai Made A Flying Car (Sorta)

$
0
0
Flying Car ConceptHyundai via Fox News
It is impractical! And cool! And we would like to fly it.

For Hyundai's annual Idea Festival--a Wacky Races-style competition where engineers show off the most bonkers ideas they can dream up--a team unveiled this crazy flying car. Basically, it's a multirotor drone, except with a driver's seat and 16 rotors instead of the more conventional four.

So "car" is kind of a loose term here: it's not even being piloted by the person in the cockpit; someone with a remote control is standing by. (Hopefully someone the guy in the cockpit trusts.)

Yes, cool, but just remember this is part of a swarm of inventions from Hyundai's futuristic Idea Festival. Meaning you're not going to be signing up for a flying car soon.

Darn. So close. Until it's the future, see the car in action below (it comes in at about 53 seconds in).

[SUAS News]

    


For God's Sake, Stay Inside During A Gun Fight

$
0
0
Bullet impacts on a building in Angolajlrsousa, via Wikimedia Commons
Bullets work way differently in real life than they do in movies.

Ever wonder why the people taking cell phone videos of gunfights aren't themselves hit by bullets? Turns out, there's no good explanation other than dumb luck, because according to the laws of physics, they should be totally screwed.

During the manhunt for the Boston Marathon Bombers last week, a bunch of people posted videos online of the firefights, often shot from where they stood, with smartphone cameras. Writing in Esquire, Lt. Col. Robert Bateman was incensed by the life-threatening idiocy of these amateur civilian reporters and speculated that only a poor understanding of science could explain this:

Power, with guns, is dictated by physics. As my father the physicist taught me at way too early of an age, F = M x A. Force = Mass x Acceleration. The striking, or penetrating, power of the bullet is determined by how heavy (mass) it is, multiplied by how fast it is moving. Thus, a small bullet, moving at extreme speeds, can cause a lot of damage. A large bullet can move at much slower speeds, and cause the same damage. All other things being equal, however, the higher the speed, the greater the penetration. Now, that word "penetration" is one you should think about.

And here's just how powerful bullets are:

In the real world, I have converted a sedan into a convertible, quite easily, using bullets. Not even a lot of bullets either. If the other guy is firing anything with greater hitting power than, say, a .32 (Google .32 caliber, .45 caliber, 5.56mm and 7.62mm...I can't do it ALL for you) it will go through things. Metals, woods, sheet-rock? No problem. Your front door will not protect you, at all. Nor will the walls of a normal suburban house, nor the three Sheet-rock walls beyond that. In a car, the only thing that really stops most bullets would be the engine block itself. All the rest of the body of a car, well, basically tin-foil. All those cop movies you remember from the 70s, when they hid behind the opened door of their patrol car and shot at the bad guy? Yea, no. Do not think that works. That is stupid, and nobody but actors in Hollywood actually does that.

To expand on what Bateman sets out, even trained marksmen miss their targets more than Hollywood would have you believe. In an FBI report describing New York Police Department gun use from 1994 to 2000, only shots fired within 6 feet of the target hit with greater than 20 percent accuracy. (Shots fired within 6 feet, by contrast, were accurate 69 38 percent of the time.) Another NYPD report describing shots fired in 2006 says police shot accurately 30 percent of the time. These are shots fired by trained professionals! Of course, bullets don't just disappear when they miss their target. Handgun bullets, like the 9mm rounds that police commonly use, can continue on past the target for more than a mile.

So not only do bullets not behave like they do in movies, but they go further and with less accuracy, especially in a gunfight. Which means that if people find themselves close enough to a gunfight to film it with their phone, they should probably start running for about a mile until they're safely behind something solid. The video quality will be worse from that far away, but it's a small price to pay for being alive to watch the footage.

[Esquire]

    


Dear President Obama: When Will You Stop Talking About Climate Change And Actually Do Something?

$
0
0
Petermann Glacier BreakupNASA
You don't even need Congress to enact meaningful reform.

Dear Mr. President,

I was hoping to get a jump on this Earth Day letter during the weekend, but I fell behind because of water in my basement. Torrential rains the past few days soaked the ground so much, the water had nowhere else to go. Of course, April showers are not unusual where I live in the Midwest; the problem is that right now, I don't have enough trees and bushes to absorb them. And that's the unusual thing. Those plants died, weak and thirsty, during an epic drought last summer--the hottest year on record. Now their absence is taking a toll.

I shouldn't complain, though: 1,000 miles to the west, my family in Colorado experienced a true drought (and climate change-related) disaster last summer, as wildfires consumed entire communities and choked the air for hundreds of miles. Last fall, 1,000 miles to the east, my family in New Jersey bailed out their entire homes after Hurricane Sandy tore down the Jersey Shore.

Yeah, these are anecdotes. But the pattern is clear. The climate is changing, and weird weather is just one manifestation of it. This is linked to carbon dioxide emissions, as study after study has shown. So why aren't you doing anything about it? You could--you have repeatedly said you would--but you're not.

As the New Yorker put it recently, the phrase "climate change" appears 29 times in the new budget--"but there is no new plan for Congress to take up in your ambitious legislative blueprint." Do you need an invitation? Just in case, here is a list to get you started.

1. Regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

Power plants contribute one-third of this country's greenhouse gases, so this is a good place to start. You don't need Congress to do this. The Supreme Court has held several times that the Environmental Protection Agency can regulate greenhouse gases, and that means you can control carbon dioxide emissions without passing any new laws. Under the Clean Air Act, the EPA can work with states to develop new standards for curbing emissions at existing power plants.


Industry groups and utilities will counter that the U.S. doesn't have the technology to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from old plants. You can tell them about the catalytic converter. When the Clean Air Act was passed, automotive makers didn't have the technology to capture carbon monoxide and waste hydrocarbons from gasoline combustion--but they had to do something to comply with new EPA standards. The catalytic converter, so named because it uses catalyzed chemical reactions to convert combustion byproducts, became a part of every car sold in the U.S. by 1975.

The Clean Air Act is a technology-forcing law; who knows what new patentable products might be developed, engineered and built in the U.S. by pioneering utilities complying with new emissions standards.

2. Improve fuel economy and emissions standards in cars much earlier than you planned.

Last summer, you announced new regulations that would double the average fuel economy standard for cars sold in this country, which was an achievement because most automakers agreed. But you kicked the can down the road. A new standard of 54.5 miles per gallon is great, but by 2025? Can't we do better than three presidential terms from now?

The Clean Air Act is a technology-forcing law.

3. Say no to the Keystone XL pipeline.

You already vetoed a plan to build this thing, but your recent rhetoric makes it seem like you'll give it a green light the second go-around. This pipeline, which would bring oil from Canada's tar sands to the Texas Gulf Coast, needs a presidential permit to move forward. Polls show that most people support it, because of effective arguments from proponents that couch this pipeline in terms of energy security. But the pipeline endangers the environment in many ways. It cuts through precious aquifers in the arid West (though its route has been altered to reduce the risk) and it enables one of the filthiest forms of oil production there is. Energy security is important, but there are better ways to achieve it, while safeguarding environmental resources as well as jobs.

The New York Times put it best: "A president who has repeatedly identified climate change as one of humanity's most pressing dangers cannot in good conscience approve a project that--even by the State Department's most cautious calculations--can only add to the problem."


4. Go back to Congress.

Reducing carbon dioxide emissions through a cap and trade system--agreeing to limits on emissions and trading credits for exceeding them--is not the only solution. It'll probably never happen anyway in the filibuster-bound Senate. So try something else, like increasing tax incentives for homeowners, businesses and utilities. Republicans love a tax cut--tie them to emission-reductions programs.

There is no try.

After your reelection, we and many others exhorted you to beat the drum for climate change. When the president talks about something, it gets covered, and regular people start talking about it, too--that's the power of the bully pulpit. You've done that, to your credit. But actions speak louder than words. You can't lose an election anymore. You probably won't win back the House of Representatives next year, and the Senate, for how it legislates, might as well not be controlled by Democrats anyway. So what do you have to lose?

The American people are not dumb about this. We can see the changes coming. Sea levels are rising. Storms are becoming more severe.


A few weeks ago, I asked a tree expert what I should plant to replace my dead greenery, and do you know what he said? He said to plant specimens native to climates hundreds of miles south--plants of the deep South. They will thrive in the Midwest now, thanks to global warming, he said. This arborist was apolitical--he just knows our climate is changing, and wants his products to last. He treated it as a fact of life, not a political argument or a controversial statement. And you should, too.

    


How A Pressure Cooker Bomb Works [Infographic]

$
0
0
It's an older recipe than you'd think.

"Contents under pressure may explode" has never been more accurate. Pressure cookers heat food with steam, using increased internal atmospheric pressure to heat and trap steam beyond its normal limit of 212 degrees Fahrenheit. This same increase in temperature is exploited by a pressure cooker bomb to amplify the power of an explosion set off within.

A pressure cooker bomb, like the one used in Boston, takes the rapidly-expanding gasses in a typical gunpowder explosion and holds them under tighter atmospheric pressure. The resulting rupture is far more violent than if the gunpowder was placed in a non-pressurized container.

So where did the idea come from? It's hard to nail down. A report published by the Department of Homeland Security in 2004 describes pressure cooker bombs used by various rebels and militant groups in both India and Algeria; a later DHS report from 2010 mentions pressure cooker bombs used in Afghanistan, Nepal, and Pakistan, as well as an attempted use in Times Square.

Recentreporting on pressure cooker explosives tied to the Boston Marathon bombing note that al Qaeda's English-language magazine "Inspire" includes a pressure cooker bomb recipe, but the design predates the existence of al Qaeda by decades. The Anarchist Cookbook, an infamous manual known for its explosives instructions, discussed the explosive potential of pressure cooker bombs back in 1971.

Pressure cooker bombs have a long history and a diverse list of users. In India, they've been used by Maoists, as well as terror groups involved in Kashmir. In France back in 2000, an Algerian terror group attempted to use pressure cooker bombs. In Greece this past January, a pressure cooker explosion was attributed to anarchists. The materials used to make pressure cooker bombs are neither expensive nor unique, and the instructions are widely available. Claiming that "pressure cooker bombs are a signature attack" of any specific group is about as ridiculous as claiming "bullets are uniquely used by American soldiers."

In understanding and investigating the aftermath of the attacks, answers are going to be found everywhere but the nature of the bomb.

The above infographic, the first part of a four-parter over at USA Today, shows visually how these bombs work as well as possible prevention tactics. It's worth a look, for sure.

[USA Today]

    



Apply Now For A One-Way Trip To Mars

$
0
0
Mars colonyMars One
Mars One has begun accepting video applications for a mission to colonize the red planet in 2023.

Want to live and die on Mars? Mars One has officially begun its worldwide search for astronauts who will fly to Mars in 2023-and never come back.

The first humans on Mars may be reality TV stars.The ultimate goal is to select 24 to 40 candidates who will travel to Mars in groups of four. Mars One wants to land the first group (two men and two women, ideally from four different continents, says CEO Bas Lansdorp) on the red planet in 2023, with the other groups following one at a time, every two years. Applications close August 31, 2013.

The nonprofit organization plans to televise the final rounds of the search in 2014, which means the first humans on Mars may be reality TV stars. But first, Mars One is asking the public to rate the application videos to help narrow down the selection pool. According to Norbert Kraft, the chief medical officer and head of the astronaut selection program, aspiring Martians should have five qualities: resilience, adaptability, curiosity, empathy, and creativity.

To filter out spam and frivolous entries, Mars One is charging an application fee that varies by country (it's $38 in the United States). Applicants must create a 30- to 70-second video that explains why they want to go to Mars, and why they're the best candidate. The pool will be narrowed to 24 to 40 in 2015.

If you're one of the (uh, lucky?) people chosen for the program, you'll move to the United States to spend the next seven years as a full-time, salaried employee of Mars One. Nine months of each year will be spent learning dentistry, emergency medicine, general medicine, engineering, biology, mechanics-anything you might need to know on an inhospitable planet with a population of four. The other three months of each year will be spent in a Mars habitat mock-up, complete with a 40-minute communication delay to the outside world and simulated emergencies. The hardest thing they'll face during the simulation? A broken toilet, Lansdorp says. "That's when people get out of control."

It will cost $6 billion to get the first group of four to their new home (the reality show is supposed to fund the mission). The company will use SpaceX spacecraft to send rovers and supplies ahead of the astronauts, and then the SpaceX Falcon Heavy will get the crew to Mars, where they will assemble their habitat and begin growing their own food. Once on the red planet, the crew can do what they want-they won't be taking orders from Mars One or anyone else back on Earth. "They will make a new civilization," Kraft says. "They will make their own holidays, their own laws. We need to send mature people, because we won't be telling them what to do."

    


What Could Possibly Go Wrong With This Child-Piloted Robot War Machine?

$
0
0
Answer: nothing. Just take the kids to the toy store and everything will be fine.

Sakakibara-Kikai is a Japanese robotics manufacturer that specializes in futuristic, semi-outlandish robotic exoskeletons. One of the company's first exoskeletons, the Landwalker, looked amazing: like a team of ace engineers built a 12-year-old boy's fantasy robot. Then Sakakibara-Kikai actually built one designed for kids. Now, apparently in a move to corner the child robot-exoskeleton market, the company's unleashed the Kid's Walker Cyclops, the world's next kid-piloted war machine.

Well, okay, it's probably just for amusement purposes. But look at that left arm! You will quickly be taking your child to the toy/candy store at drillpoint if you purchase one of these for them. And since the last version of the 'bot ran about $20,000, you probably have lots of money the children will be able to extort from you after they have taken over in their robot-fueled uprising.

[GizMag via Kotaku]

    


Researchers Treat Lazy Eye With Tetris

$
0
0
Increasing brain plasticity with falling blocks

The classic game Tetris has been shown to help alleviate some symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder, and apparently it's also good at treating lazy eyes.

Usually amblyopia, more commonly known as a lazy eye, is treated by something like "patching"--where doctors put a patch over the stronger, dominant eye and the weaker, wandering eye has to adjust on its own. It works through plasticity: the ability of certain parts of the brain to take over the work of other parts. A team led by McGill University researcher Robert Hess wanted to explore different ways for treating the estimated 3 percent of people with the condition worldwide.

Instead of separating the work of the two eyes, the team devised a way of forcing them to work together. The researchers had people with amblyopia play Tetris with head-mounted goggles on. The goggles separated what the two eyes saw, so one saw only the falling blocks and the other only the blocks on the ground. After testing 18 adults over two weeks--nine with the two-eye goggle system and nine with patching--the group with the goggle system improved their weaker eyes considerably compared to the patched group, and even improved their depth perception.

Who ever said staring at a screen will ruin your vision?

    


NASA Just Led The Biggest Hackaton Ever

$
0
0
Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds via Space Apps Challenge

This weekend, NASA led the International Space Apps Challenge, a hackaton to solve the many challenges facing life on earth and in space. It sounded like a big project, but we didn't quite expect this: it's apparently the biggest hackathon of all time, with more than 9,000 people and 484 organizations creating more than 600 pieces of software, hardware, and data visualizations of public astronomical data. The projects are being reviewed now, and we can't wait to see what they are. [Space Apps Challenge]

    


10 Environmental Holidays That Are Cooler Than Earth Day

$
0
0
Swirls of ice off the northern coast of JapanChris Hadfield via Twitter
It's never too early to start planning your Fossil Fools Day party!

Sick of dusting off the tie-dye and patchouli every year to celebrate Earth Day, the planet's most generic holiday? Us, too. So we've gathered together 10 lesser-known holidays that take a much more specific look at how humans interact with the world.

According to Pew, only 52 percent of Americans think protecting the environment should be a top priority for the president and Congress in 2013, and 69 percent believe there is solid evidence of global warming. That's not enough! Help boost those numbers by adding the following celebrations to your calendar:

1. World Wetlands Day

This holiday marks the signing of the Convention on Wetlands, which was held in Ramsar, Iran in 1971, and recognizes the importance of wetlands for the greater environment. It was first celebrated in 1997, and each year, a certain groundhog steals this holiday's thunder, thanks to coinciding with Groundhog Day on February 2. But never fear: In 2008, Ohio State University introduced the world to Olentangy Olga, the muskrat. This wetland dweller became a "new symbolic mammal" but hasn't quite been elevated to Punxsutawney Phil status yet.
Parade Swag: A vial of duckweed
Celebrity Spokesperson: Bill Murray. A Groundhog Day sequel?

2. National Dark Sky Week

The darkest holiday of them all was founded in 2003, and every April the week of the new moon marks a time to shed some light on our big expanse of sky. This week aims to raise awareness about and reduce light pollution temporarily, encourage using better lighting systems that don't project into the sky, and promote the study of astronomy. In a city like New York or Chicago, it's probably impossible to see a truly dark sky, but that orangey glow is more than just unappealing, it's pollution, too.
Parade Swag: Flags made from black-out curtains
Celebrity Spokesperson: Kanye West. Turn off "all of the lights."

3. Ecological Debt Day

Perhaps the most guilt-inducing holiday, Ecological Debt Day, AKA Earth Overshoot Day, takes place on the day in which we have used up our resources for the year. Meaning, humanity has used more than the earth can regenerate for the year. It started in 1987, though humanity first went into overshoot the year before. In 1987, we acknowledged the extent of our resource gluttony on December 19. Last year, the holiday took place on August 22. The New Economics Foundation calculates the calendar day of Ecological Debt Day by using the following formula: (world biocapacity/world ecological footprint) x 365.
Parade Swag: Hermione's time turner
Celebrity Spokesperson: Al Gore

4. International Migratory Bird Day

From South America to Canada, International Migratory Bird Day brings attention to-you guessed it-bird migration. The organization that hosts the holiday, Environment For The Americas, calls it one of the most important and spectacular events in the Americas. Every second Saturday in May for North Americans and in October for those in Central and South America as well as the Caribbean. Though, EFTA stresses, every day is bird day, and thus you're welcome to celebrate all year long.
Parade Swag: A hat (watch out for falling poop!)
Celebrity Spokesperson: Alfred Hitchcock. The more birds, the better.

5. International Day For Preventing the Exploitation of the Environment in War and Armed Conflict

The United Nations created this November 6 holiday in 2001. According to the United Nations Environment Programme, over the last 60 years, 40 percent of all internal conflicts have been linked to the exploitation of natural resources and these conflicts are also twice as likely to relapse. The holiday links war and natural resource exploitation and peace and conservation.
Parade Swag: Peace-sign reusable water bottles
Celebrity Spokesperson: Angelina Jolie

6. Chemists Celebrate Earth Day

In 2003, the American Chemical Society joined in on April 22's festivities. Each year, ACS highlights one of four general topics and chooses a theme-this year it's "Our Earth: Handle With Care"-to focus the celebration and highlight how chemists can contribute to a greener world.
Parade Swag: Beakers dyed green
Celebrity Spokesperson: Breaking Bad's Bryan Cranston

7. Sun Day

President Jimmy Carter declared May 3, 1978 as Sun Day. The holiday-which sounds a little too much like the day of the week-was modeled after Earth Day, with teach-ins and workshops, and was even organized with the help of one of the original coordinators of the first Earth Day. It has been dormant since it was held in 1978, but why not revive it?
Parade Swag: Neon Ray-Bans
Celebrity Spokesperson: Snooki

8. Fossil Fools Day

For those environmentally-minded pranksters out there, Fossil Fools Day is a strange mix of April Fools' day and Earth Day and it takes place each year on April 1. It began in 2004 in the United States and Canada to hold coordinated action against the not-so-funny use of fossil fuels to derive energy.
Parade Swag: A whoopee cushion made from recycled rubber
Celebrity Spokesperson: Ashton Kutcher

9. Junk Mail Awareness Week

Junk mail isn't just annoying. The catalogues and flyers that go straight to your recycling bin (or worse, your trash can…) do their part in destroying forests. Take a day to think about that and maybe take some action--sign up for Do Not Mail lists, or post a note on your mailbox declaring it a junk mail-free zone.  
Parade Swag: Repurposed junk mail art
Celebrity Spokesperson: Charlie Sheen, pornographic junk mail purveyor

10. Global Wind Day

Every June 15, the world comes together to raise awareness about wind energy production. The public can visit wind farms, meet experts and attend events to learn more about the alternative energy source.  
Parade Swag: Sparkly pinwheels
Celebrity Spokesperson: Windy City Mayor Rahm Emanuel

    


Viewing all 20161 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images