Is a lack of diversity in science writing a bad thing? Yes and no. Obviously if science writing relied on conservatives and the free market where people will only work for what capitalism will bear, Science 2.0 could not exist. Academics, progressives or liberals in America (I have made the case that they are quite distinct in America, however - see Like Freedom? Thank A Scientist - How Science Made America Possible
), both famous and non-famous, have contributed here for no reason other than a desire to communicate science.
I don't get excited about the singularity the way some on Science 2.0 do (and certainly elsewhere) though I admire the optimism. So when I got an email from a publicity person at PBS about NewsHour Science Correspondent Miles O’Brien’s report on the upcoming match between Jeopardy masters Brad Runner, Ken Jennings and the super computer Watson I had to wonder if this would lead to more claims about an upcoming singularity and exponential leaps in artificial intelligence.
While many in America were happy about the collapse of the Mubarak government, they were likely happy for the wrong reasons. Optimists, it is said, are people who do not learn from experience and the toppling of a dictator in Egypt looks a lot more like Iran in 1979 than it does America in 1776.
But regardless of the irrational optimism of many in the political spectrum, plenty of scientists are going to be happy that protesters have now turned their sights on Zawi Hawass,
a man who could only have gotten his job in a dictatorship and wielded his position just like one.
Online dating is mainstream big business, we all see television commercials for any number of sites catering to any number of interests - but do they work?
Nothing says science like Valentine's Day and we are positively littered with articles on neuroscience, chemistry and social aspects of romance. Really, we cover it all.
Not sure who to date? Garth Sundem answers it in The Valentine's Day Man-O-Meter
. Be sure to take it as gospel because he never just makes stuff up. If you need even more help than that, here is his Ultimate Valentine's Day Toolkit.
Last year I attended a singularity conference and Ray Kurzweil's avatar predicted it was 25 years away. Well, it's been 25 years away for a long time. It's a nice, safe number, close enough that no one gives up and stops buying books (global warming will happen in 100 years, for example) and not so close anyone looks silly (Al Gore saying in 2006 that we were doomed in 10 years, for example) it if doesn't happen.
In 1993, for example, Vernor Vinge said "Within thirty years, we will have the technological means to create superhuman intelligence. Shortly after, the human era will be ended."