What's the matter with New Scientist? Check out Ian Musgrave's smackdown of Douglas Axe and the Biologic Institute is good stuff.
If Douglas Axe and his co-signers are so badly misinformed about something as basic and well known as the relations between engineers, computer designers and biologists, can we trust their judgment on any research that comes out of this Institute?
The DI claims to be supporting real research…so why is what little emerges from them so bad?
More like this
“I have signs in my kitchen to remind me not to eat breakfast and that my job is always. Most cops work only at night or at day. I am a lucky cop because I work both.
"I'll chop your head off!" -Axe Cop
Finally, a product to bring much-deserved recognition to an
out-of-the-way place: Intel has announced their "enthusiast"
motherboard for high-performance computing: the
href="http://www.intel.com/products/motherboard/d975xbx/index.htm">D975XBX,
nicknamed the
I've started to assemble pictures and maps for my Bronze Age book.
What's the matter with New Scientist?
***yawn** Omni had more boob shots.
In other news:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/02/12/chimps.with.hammers.ap/index…
Somebody forgot to tell those chimps that science wasn't possible until Christians invented it.
Hey, GWW -- Seed has a writeup of more or less the same piece. Nifty.
Technology and culture are two words it's delightful to see mentioned with chimpanzees in the same sentence ... unless, I guess, you're a cretinist.
The piece about relations between engineers and scientists that you quote was not in the letter Ian sent to New Scientist. Personally I think his piece about those relationships would have made a more publishable letter than his actual letter.
What's the matter with New Scientist? Lots.