-->In a recent presentation at the American College of Surgeons Clinical Congress, researchers from the Wake Forest Institute for Regenerative Medicine showed off the results of a unique experiment involving a printer that uses living cells as its "ink."
The system, which lays down cells with the same fluid-based inkjet technology used in many printers, could print large swathes of living tissue directly onto the injuries of soldiers wounded on the battlefield. Covering burns and related wounds is of critical importance because, the scientists note, "any loss of full-thickness skin of more than 4 cm in diameter will not heal by itself."
Tests on mice revealed advanced healing by both the second and third week of recovery, with complete closure and formation of scar tissue by week three in treated (but not untreated) subjects. The printer has two heads, one of which ejects skin cells mixed with fibrinogen (a blood coagulant) and type I collagen (the main component of the connective tissue in scars). The other head ejects thrombin (another coagulant).
Like the components of quick-setting resins which must be kept separate until mixing causes a chemical reaction that hardens the resin, the products of the two print heads mix to immediately form fibrin, yet a third protein involved in the clotting of blood. The whole confection is topped by a layer of keratinocytes (i.e. skin cells), which are also printed.
Future iterations of the research will be conducted on pigs (which have skin that more closely resembles that of humans), and it's not clear when, if ever, such a device might appear in a field hospital in Afghanistan, not to mention your local burn center.
Full citation: In Situ Bioprinting of the Skin for Burns
Kyle W. Binder1, Weixin Zhao1, Gil Young Park2, Tao Xu1, Dennis Dice1, Anthony Atala1, James J. Yoo1
1 Wake Forest Institute for Regenerative Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, United States of America 2 Imperial College London, Department of Bioengineering, London, United Kingdom
E-mail Print Favorite Share
Follow Mims on Twitter or contact him via email.
Are 'Patent Trolls' the Secret Heroes of the Tech World? How 3-D Printing Is Transforming the Toy Industry
Wednesday, November 03, 2010
'Skin Printer' Could Help Heal Battlefield Wounds - Technology Review
How 3-D Printing Is Transforming the Toy Industry - Technology Review
-->
Sculptors use whatever medium they find most effective for creating investment vehicles for the world's idle rich, but the reality for many model makers is far different. Take, for example, DesignWorks, a UK-based studio full of people who do nothing but sculpt for a living, on deadline.
DesignWorks creates prototypes and finished pieces in a variety of media (OK, a variety of plastics) for inventors, manufacturers and toy makers. LiDesignWorks used to create all of its models the old-fashioned way -- by hand, in clay. And they still do; what's changed since the invention of 3D scanners and stereolithography -- now known by the more inclusive term 3D printing -- is that they now have the ability to directly translate real world objects into miniature versions of themselves.
This transformation recalls the transition from illustration and painting to the age of photography, when the impression of a thing could be replaced by a representation of it that was in some sense more faithful, not to mention easier to produce and mass distribute. The difference is that 3D scanning and 3D printing have arrived in the age of computers, a time when all media, including photos, are endlessly manipulable.
Unlike the hobbyists who seem to love 3D printing for its own sake, in the world of industrial model-making, this transition is driven almost entirely by the demands of the marketplace: Ed Barnett-Ward, Designworks director of sculpting, told Develop3D that the transition to 3D rapid prototyping cut development time from a year to just three months.
Working on the computer also allows both faithful reproductions of actor's faces. This is especially important given that actors have likeness rights granting them veto power over any representation of their characters.
"But now scanning takes that out of the equation - if you've digitally scanned something it's a true reflection," says Barnett-Ward.
DesignWorks doesn't own the expensive 3D printers it uses; it relies on Industrial Plastic Fabrications, a rapid prototyping bureau that got its hands on the UK's first Objet Connex 500 3D printers, the first commercial multi-material 3D printer ever released.
Photography also began as an art form with limited application and draconian requirements for resources and expertise -- before the invention of photographic paper, photos were captured on metal plates and glass slides. As 3D printing and 3D scanners follow the same trend, we can expect a future in which our memories are captured and even realized in something other than the two dimensions to which we've become accustomed -- and that this process will be as mundane then as the digital camera is now.
E-mail Print Favorite Share'Skin Printer' Could Help Heal Battlefield Wounds Museum Lets You Play Just About Every Video Game Ever
mikedu
- 6 Days Ago
- 10/28/2010
- 18 Comments
Is this affordable to the public
I'm really interested if people like artists, modelers or architects can have their cad or sketchup drawings created on demand. Is there a service like that for people in Asia?
Duann
- 6 Days Ago
- 10/28/2010
- 1 Comment
Re: Is this affordable to the public
Hi Mikedu,
3D printing with www.shapeways.com starts at $1 per cubic cm and has free worldwide shipping on any order over $25.
flared0ne
- 5 Days Ago
- 10/29/2010
- 328 Comments
So is that $1 per cubic centimeter of resin, or whatever your build-out material is, or is that per cubic centimeter of total volume enclosed, as with some form of aetherial construct??
A bit steep, but better than the price of printer ink -- it's recently going for around $10,000 per gallon, while your price is closer to around $3,785 per gallon. Assuming no "volume" discount (heh).
You might want to research and publicize the characteristics of your various build-out material options. For example, one question that jumps to mind is whether your output pieces vaporize cleanly (no ash, etc) at kiln temperatures -- like might be encountered in a lost-wax casting process. I would also want to find out if the material is amenable to further "sculpting", texturing, thermo-forming, etc...
The potential niche of small molds for elaborate metal jewelry might be worth exploring. Granted, the economics might fail completely. Just a thought.
fdeschouwer
- 5 Days Ago
- 10/29/2010
- 1 Comment
Re: Is this affordable to the public
It is affordable. Two Industrial Design students from Brazil recently used our 3D printing service - http://i.materialise.com - to realize their graduation project, a 3D printed toy called Oh Dog!
Read the story on our blog:
http://i.materialise.com/blog/entry/3d-printed-moveable-toy-dog-oh-dog
Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense - Technology Review
-->
cc andrealindenbergNigel Leck, a software developer by day, was tired of arguing with anti-science crackpots on Twitter. So, like any good programmer, he wrote a script to do it for him.
The result is the Twitter chatbot @AI_AGW. Its operation is fairly simple: Every five minutes, it searches twitter for several hundred set phrases that tend to correspond to any of the usual tired arguments about how global warming isn't happening or humans aren't responsible for it.
It then spits back at the twitterer who made that argument a canned response culled from a database of hundreds. The responses are matched to the argument in question -- tweets about how Neptune is warming just like the earth, for example, are met with the appropriate links to scientific sources explaining why that hardly constitutes evidence that the source of global warming on earth is a warming sun.
The database began as a simple collection of responses written by Leck himself, but these days quite a few of the rejoinders are culled from a university source whom Leck says he isn't at liberty to divulge.
Like other chatbots, lots of people on the receiving end of its tweets have no idea they're not conversing with a real human being. Some of them have arguments with the chatbot spanning dozens of tweets and many days, says Leck. That's in part because AI_AGW is smart enough to run through a list of different canned responses when an interlocutor continues to throw the same arguments at it. Leck has even programmed it to debate such esoteric topics as religion - which is where the debates humans have with the bot often wind up.
"If [the chatbot] actually argues them into a corner, it tends to be two crowds out there," says Leck. "There's the guns and God crowd, and their parting shot will be 'God created it that way' or something like that. I don't know how you answer that."
The second crowd, Leck says, are skeptics so unyielding they won't be swayed by any amount of argumentation.
Occasionally, the chatbot turns up a false positive - for example, it has a complete inability to detect sarcasm. This proved to be a problem when a record heat wave hit L.A. last summer, causing innumerable tweets of the form "It's 113 degrees outside - good thing global warming's a myth!"
Leck always apologizes when AI_AGW answers someone who isn't actually arguing about the science of climate change and then subsequently whitelists his or her account. The bot also has a kind of learning algorithm in it in that can be trained not to respond to phrases that cause false positives.
In the future, Leck would like to expand AI_AGW by giving it the ability to learn new arguments from the twitter feeds of others who debate climate skeptics - allowing it to argue into the ground an ever expanding array of anti-science tweeters who are unwilling or unable to look up the proper scientific literature themselves.
In a way, what Leck has created is a pro-active search engine: it answers twitter users who aren't even aware of their own ignorance.
E-mail Print Favorite ShareAre 'Patent Trolls' the Secret Heroes of the Tech World?
eric25001
- 1 Day Ago
- 11/03/2010
- 13 Comments
Mindless chatbot; Mindless reporter
Not much differance. Few on either side have an open mind or can discuss the issue. To use the phrase anti-science nonsense is ad hominem and shows that the reporter lacks an open mind or science background and cares little for the truth, accuracy, or the facts.
howiem
- 1 Day Ago
- 11/03/2010
- 12 Comments
Re: Mindless chatbot; Mindless reporter
People like Mims are the pseudo scientists, because when they say something it cannot be wrong, even when it turns out to be wrong. I read his article that the Global Warming fruitcakes have no argument so they use a software puppet. One would expect no less.
Calling those who do not agree with you names like "crackpots" is not exactly the way to convince skeptics that the "Warmers" aren't just a bunch petty demagogues. If the "Warmers" have nothing to hide, then why are they hiding things?
flared0ne
- 1 Day Ago
- 11/03/2010
- 328 Comments
And I read his article as a prime example of finding a resource allocation problem and fixing it. There is a REASON why "profiling" systems work so well -- because they DO detect characteristic patterns. And when a particular pattern says "here is someone who has a belief, an opinion, but no basis for that position", the solution to an ongoing disagreement is to automate the citation in response of pertinent facts. No "puppet" involved -- more like a teacher recording a lesson plan and automating the "here's what you don't know" lesson.
I CAN see how that might seem condescending -- to imply that someone's hard-fought pseudo-"rational" arguments are about as predictable as playing tic-tac-toe... But statistically speaking, there are VERY few original arguments still waiting to be made.
Do I pass my Turing test??
nigel.leck
- 1 Day Ago
- 11/03/2010
- 3 Comments
If you were told "The Sun is causing GW as Neptune is also warming", you think well that's interesting and then go look it up and find "Neptune's orbit is 164 years so seasonal plus the sun is in a low activity phase" unless any more evidence is presented the answer this argument would remain and really shouldn't be a matter of opinion.
flared0ne
- 1 Day Ago
- 11/03/2010
- 328 Comments
Re: "anti-science nonsense"...
It's fairly obvious that YOU have never been "pinned to a wall" by someone speaking nonsense, TRYING to discuss something waay outside of their grasp... Have to wonder what your cut-off threshold is, at what point YOU say "Sure. You're right. Excuse me, I have to go watch some paint dry."
If you have NOT ever experienced that dubious joy, I have an aether-wave-theory proponent you should meet. Or maybe you would prefer to debate Standard Relativity and the invalidity of physics with another individual I'd be happy to distract with YOUR availability. Who knows -- if you enjoy reading comic books and conspiracy theories, you might enjoy their conversation.
Personally, I vote for the increasingly common "Ignore" button as the best option for reducing background clutter and inane demands upon my time.
Here's to not seeing you later.
bilkie
- 1 Day Ago
- 11/03/2010
- 1 Comment
Re: Mindless chatbot; Mindless reporter
How is Leck "pinned in a corner?" Seems to me he's just a spammer. The script would be just as effective if it took the other side of the debate and "wore down" "pro-science" commentators by flooding them with a set of canned responses. Maybe someone should do just that; but let Leck and Anti-Leck get a room where the scripts can duke it out without filling Twitter with useless drivel. (Oops too late.)
flared0ne
- 1 Day Ago
- 11/03/2010
- 328 Comments
EXCELLENT point. Except proponents on the other side of the argument (specifically the "under-informed" category he is doing battle with) don't HAVE an equivalent set of supporting citations they CAN use in a counter-barrage. THAT is the whole POINT.
I hypothesize that his intentions are "for the public good" -- except studies have shown that to "encourage" behavior is much more effective than "educating" and then EXPECTING good behavior. And his approach IS definitely aligned toward provoking more of a scientific method, providing peer-reviewed citations to clarify misunderstandings... Which goes over big (not) with the most typical rednecks.
I can see it now: "The Match of the Century"
between SmartA-Leck and The Anti-Leck-tual...I don't insist he's found a viable solution to anything -- but I'll bet on two things: a) we WILL see more automata like this and b) we will never be able to fully trust twitter stats ever again.
StupidPeasant
- 1 Day Ago
- 11/03/2010
- 82 Comments
The quantity of opposing data may be inversely related to the quantity of funding for researching supporting data. If you seek to test by disproving a theory that has a great deal of political, philosophical and monetary potential for the types that run universities or political parties, you might not get the money you want. Is that possible?
nigel.leck
- 1 Day Ago
- 11/03/2010
- 3 Comments
Re: Mindless chatbot; Mindless reporter
I would suggest that http://www.heartland.org is already doing that.
jpontin
- 1 Day Ago
- 11/03/2010
- 50 Comments
Re: Mindless chatbot; Mindless reporter
I take bilkie's point - but as flaredone notes, there is a subtle difference between Leck's bot and a hypoethetical climate-change denialist bot that would assert there is no athropogenic change. Leck's bot generates references and citations to published research that refute denialist claims.
See: "...Tweets about how Neptune is warming just like the earth, for example, are met with the appropriate links to scientific sources explaining why that hardly constitutes evidence that the source of global warming on earth is a warming sun."
zdzisiekm
- Today
- 11/03/2010
- 3 Comments
Re: Mindless chatbot; Mindless reporter
Neither the reporter, nor the programmer in question are scientists for starters. To label scientists critical of AGW mantra "proponents of anti-science nonsense" shows ignorance. Prof. Lindzen of MIT has authored 235 refereed papers and is an outstanding scientist, yet he remains critical of AGW and for a good reason: the hypothesis is not confirmed by observation. In science, you see, this invalidates the hypothesis.
jpontin
- Today
- 11/03/2010
- 50 Comments
Re: Mindless chatbot; Mindless reporter
Prof. Lindzen does not, in fact, doubt that greenhouse gasses contribute to global warming, nor that the earth has warmed. Rather, he says we do not know a variety of things: the possible contributions of other causes and possible alleviations from other factors, and therefore the range of possible temperature changes. Yet, he is always the example cited by skeptics of someone who doubts anthropogenic global warming. Do you have other citations, please, of climate scientists who have basic reservations about the fact of global warming, and the contribution of greenhouse gasses?
cripdyke
- Today
- 11/03/2010
- 50 Comments
Re: Mindless chatbot; Mindless reporter
@ eric who said:
To use the phrase anti-science nonsense is ad hominem and shows that the reporter lacks an open mind or science background and cares little for the truth, accuracy, or the facts.
=============================================O, g37 r33lz!!!11!1
u r proving urself unAbl 2 p0st heerz
-as unable as someone who thinks l337sp33k is simply a lack of typing skill.
Don't use "ad hominem" if you don't know what it means. Here's a hint: it's not latin for failing to take someone's argument seriously.
Calling anti-science nonsense, like "as soon as you put this cracker in your mouth it will magically transform into muscle-y goodness with the DNA of some guy who died a bunch of centuries ago, but still somehow taste and feel like a cracker," anti-science nonsense is not ad hominem to all christians.
[One clue that is true? No christians were actually named in the quote]And, y'know, there's scientific proof that crackers don't transform into meat into people's mouths - human meat, delicious maguro, steak tartare or any other kind.
Now that quote is anti-religion, and specifically anti-Christian-theology. But it's not ad hominem.
Just because your argument is shredded at the end of a debate doesn't mean someone insulted you. Just because your hypothesis is proved right doesn't make you better than anyone else.
Information can be true or false, persuasive or nonsense without saying anything at all about the quality of any person who has allowed such information to pass through that person's mind.
Now I've made an argument that your statement that the phrase is "ad hominem" is anti-latin nonsense.
That doesn't mean I'm smarter than you or that I can get more dates for a Saturday night or that I can run the 110-meter hurdles 7 times faster than you (or, frankly, *at all*!!!).
It means somewhere along the way, either you got a very incorrect impression of the meaning of ad hominem or that, in a moment of commenting, you got careless or confused with which latin phrase you meant to say. That's it.
If we can't say that 2+2=896 is anti-math nonsense without someone whinging that we are being insulting, then we can't develop vaccines or build cell-phones or...y'know, *program computers to create networks that allow people to comment on articles*.
I prefer the world we've got, thank you very much.
Shine
- 1 Day Ago
- 11/03/2010
- 22 Comments
Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense
Hah clever. I was wondering when something like this would show up. I am sure it'll get some people to question their sources. It would be cool if they made one to respond to creationism, homeopathy etc.
jturnbull
- 1 Day Ago
- 11/03/2010
- 1 Comment
Re: Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense
Is this clever or a form of high tech bulling? My army of Chatbots will beat you down for ever expressing an opinion different than mine.
cripdyke
- Today
- 11/03/2010
- 50 Comments
Re: Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense
Bullying?
I think you truly misunderstand what bullying is.
The answer to bad speech is not censorship, it is good speech.
This is a way to respond to Twit's who put *erroneous information into the public sphere*.
Everytime misinformation is put out there, CORRECT information is immediately appended to the discussion.
The truth is that the original poster is unlikely to be convinced...but this makes it much less likely that corners of the twitterverse can be filled with bad information *only*... which means that readers of a thread will get exposure to good info when bad info might otherwise make an open-minded person lean in the direction of believing something truly false.
The side effect is that if the original poster keeps posting that the bot will also keep posting. But this is not bullying anymore than the law against false commercial speech "My toothpaste will cause teeth you lost in an accident to regrow! Magically! For Reelz!" is disallowed by law. If you say that you can be fined or arrested or go to jail.
Is that bullying? That's *way* worse than having someone say, "Actually, there's a journal article that disproves your line of argument."
What if someone has a religious belief that they can magically regrow teeth & that if the toothpaste doesn't regrow someone's teeth, it's because that idjit didn't "believe on the Lord ToofFairree" hard enuf?
Now you're arresting someone for expressing their religious beliefs. Isn't that bullying? - according to your definition, it would pretty much have to be, wouldn't it?
Why don't we concede that bullying involves actual harmful actions - and actual intent to harm - whether psychologically harmful "You are a bad dresser and have an atavistically dense eyelash-per-linear-inch count!" or physically harmful, like putting tacks on someone's chair.
Imagine a person is leaving flyers all over a neighborhood that say, "there is no so thing as red/green colorblindness because there's no difference between red & green! I've lived my whole life & never saw any evidence that red & green are actually different colors!"
...Would it be bullying to come along 5 minutes later - late enough that they never saw you actually following them - and left flyers that said, "actually, there's plenty of difference that there is a difference between red light & green light. Here are some scientific articles that demonstrate how light has different wavelengths, opsins in the eyes have several different chemical compositions, different opsins are sensitive to different wavelengths & finally that in experiments some people are able to distinguish numbers in a field of red & green & some aren't & it appears the difference is that some see it all as one color, but most see the green dots separately from the red, which allows them to see the green dots form a number"?
This is the behavior we're talking about.
he's even scrupulously honest in telling everyone that it's "AI" doing it.
Your definition would make it immoral to simply state that someone saying 2+2=78 is wrong.
Tomato Addict
- Today
- 11/03/2010
- 1 Comment
Re: Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense
Cripdyke's comments should be added into the chatbot's program for the next time someone misuses "ad hominem".
There was a recent XKCD comic on a related topic: http://xkcd.com/810/
Essentially, if people are not capable of making comments that can't be addressed by an automated system, they might deserve to be filtered out as "not helpful". Even Answers In Genesis - the source of many really bad arguments about evolution - has a list of arguments that should never be used.
danlgarmstrong
- Today
- 11/03/2010
- 21 Comments
Re: Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense
Interesting concept. I wonder if it could be used politically.
One *good* use might be a supercomputer scanning websites for *standard* jihadist propaganda, and replying with a quote the koran to rebut the poster.
Probably more examples where this could be put to *bad* use.
dcpalmer
- Today
- 11/03/2010
- 1 Comment
Proponent of Anti-Science Chatbot
Has the author's chatbot encountered an anti-science crackpot chat-box? Did they get into some kind of 24-7 infinite loop argument? It would serve them right.
Come to think of it, such a chat-bot could someday replace Rush Limbaugh or Rachel Maddow. That would be progress.
nigel.leck
- Today
- 11/03/2010
- 3 Comments
Re: Proponent of Anti-Science Chatbot
The answer would be no as it records what it has already said and will not repeat it.
omnologos
- Today
- 11/03/2010
- 1 Comment
Re: Proponent of Anti-Science Chatbot
All you'll need is another chatbot clever enough to disguise repetitions, and there you'll get the 24/7 infinite chatloop.
=========
My impression of this whole affair is that the joke will ultimately be on the bot's creator. If you can be replaced by a mindless machine, what does that tell people about your reasoning skills?
If a bot can sustain your argument despite being devoid of critical thinking, what should one conclude about your own critical thinking?
Yes, there is a vast literature in favor of AGW, and one can go around fishing for whatever pro-AGW statement one could ever wish for. There is even a website cataloging everything that is supposed to be linked to AGW, and that means literally everything, and its opposite. What has that _quantity_ got to do with proper science, I will never understand.
Remember Einstein..."wieso hundert Autoren?"...
Amazon Web Services Blog: What Can I Say? Another Amazon S3 Price Reduction!
What Can I Say? Another Amazon S3 Price Reduction!
We've reduced the prices for Amazon S3 storage again. As is always the case, the cost to store your existing data will go down. This is markedly different than buying a hard drive at a fixed cost per byte and is just one of the many advantages of using cloud-based storage. You can also count on Amazon S3 to deliver essentially infinite scalability, eleven nines of durability (99.999999999%), and your choice of four distinct geographic locations for data storage.
So, starting November 1, 2010, you'll see a reduction of up to19% in your overall storage charges on a monthly basis. We've created a new pricing tier at the 1 TB level, and we have removed the current 50 - 100 TB tier, thereby extending our volume discounts to more Amazon S3 customers.
The new prices for standard storage in the US Standard, EU - Ireland, and APAC - Singapore regions are as follows:
Old New First 1 TB $0.150 $0.140 per GB Next 49 TB $0.150 $0.125 per GB Next 50 TB $0.140 $0.110 per GB Next 400 TB $0.130 $0.110 per GB Next 500 TB $0.105 $0.095 per GB Next 4000 TB $0.080 per GB $0.080 per GB (no change) Over 5000 TB $0.055 per GB $0.055 per GB (no change) Reduced Redundancy storage will continue to be priced 1/3 lower than standard storage in all regions.
The full price list can be found on the Amazon S3 page. We'll continue to work relentlessly to drive our costs down so that we can pass the savings along to you!
We've got several more announcements related to S3 coming up in the near future, so stay tuned.
The S3 team is hiring Software Development Engineers, a Technical Program Manager, System Engineers, Administrators, and Product Managers. More information and instructions for applying can be found on the Amazon S3 Jobs page.
-- Jeff;
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c534853ef0133f53fcf08970bListed below are links to weblogs that reference What Can I Say? Another Amazon S3 Price Reduction!:
Comments
Thank you so much. Any plans to lift 5 GB upload limit for individual files?
Posted by: Pavel | November 01, 2010 at 12:38 PM
Verify your Comment
Previewing your Comment
Posted by: |
This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another commentThe letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.
Implanted chip allows blind people to 'see'
Published on Science 2.0 (http://www.science20.com)
Implanted chip allows blind people to 'see'
By HankCreated Nov 3 2010 - 6:25pm
A man with an inherited form of blindness, retinitis pigmentosa, has been able to identify a coffee mug and various shades of gray using a retina implant, according to work published in Proceedings of the Royal Society B.The Retina Implant AG is a sub-retinal chip placed in the central macular area behind the retina. Their chip works by converting light that enters the eye into electrical impulses which get fed into the optic nerve behind the eye. It requires an external battery which was connected to a cable that protruded from the skin behind the ear.
It's not ready for prime-time just yet and they're not the only ones working on a solution. The BBC notes that a rival chip by US-based Second Sight sits on top of the retina and has already been implanted in patients, but the Second Sight version requires the patient to be fitted with a camera fixed to a pair of glasses.Citation: Eberhart Zrenner, Karl Ulrich Bartz-Schmidt, Heval Benav, Dorothea Besch, Anna Bruckmann, Veit-Peter Gabel, Florian Gekeler, Udo Greppmaier, Alex Harscher, Steffen Kibbel, Johannes Koch, Akos Kusnyerik, Tobias Peters, Katarina Stingl, Helmut Sachs, Alfred Stett, Peter Szurman, Barbara Wilhelm, and Robert Wilke, 'Subretinal electronic chips allow blind patients to read letters and combine them to words', Proc. R. Soc. B published online before print November 3, 2010, doi:10.1098/rspb.2010.1747 (free to read)
NASA - Decade
Decade
From 220 miles above Earth, the Expedition 25 crew aboard the International Space Station shot this night time image of the northern Gulf coast. Mobile Bay and the city of Mobile (top left, beneath one of the solar panels of a docked Russian Soyuz spacecraft), New Orleans and Houston are visible as the view moves southeastward. The Interstate Highway 20 cities of Jackson, Shreveport, Dallas and Fort Worth are also visible further inland. The view extends northward (left) to Little Rock and Oklahoma City.
Since Nov. 2, 2000, humans have lived and worked in space continuously on board the station.
Image Credit: NASA
Toughest body armor developed by scientists
Click the image to view the article. Note that the armor may be "printed" using 3D printer tech for faster production.
Study: Rural Teens Are More Likely to Misuse Prescription Drugs | TIME Healthland
Contrary to what the pill-popping kids on Gossip Girl would have you believe, city-dwelling teenagers are actually significantly less likely than their rural counterparts to use prescription drugs such as painkillers and tranquilizers for non-medical reasons.
Researchers from the University of Kentucky surveyed 17,872 teens aged 12 to 17; about half of the kids lived in an urban setting and 17% lived in rural environs. The study found that 10% of city teens said they had experimented with prescription drugs they didn't need, and 13% of rural kids reported doing the same — overall, that amounts to a 26% increase in risk in rural areas. (More on Time.com: Addiction Files: Recovering From Drug Addiction, Without Abstinence)
When it came to illicit drugs like cocaine and marijuana, however, geography mattered less: all teens reported experimenting with these drugs at about the same rate. The researchers suggest that kids' drug-taking behavior may more to do with access than attitude. Urban adolescents are more likely to be able to acquire a wide variety of drugs, but rural teens are more often forced to source what's around them — typically that means leftovers in Mom and Dad's medicine cabinet.
Still, the study finds that several factors may reduce the risk of drug experimentation in rural teens: kids in two-parent households were 32% less likely to misuse prescription drugs than kids in homes with only one parent, and teens who stayed in school, had better physical and mental health and did not use other substances were also less likely to experiment with prescription drugs. (More on Time.com: What Is Causing that Musty Smell in Recalled Pills?)
"Much research has shown that young teens with health and mental health problems that are not being treated adequately are likelier to turn to addictive substances, that prescription drugs are there for the taking in medicine cabinets across the country, and that parents are the greatest influence — for better or worse — in whether a young person turns to these drugs," Susan Foster of Columbia University's National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse told CNN. "Early intervention is key though, since in most cases addiction has its origin in the teen years."
The new study was published in the Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine.
More on Time.com:
Federal agency moves to close Kentucky mine
Federal agency moves to close Kentucky mine
By the CNN Wire StaffSTORY HIGHLIGHTS
- Mining agency seeks injunction over failure "to follow basic safety rules"
- It wants to close Kentucky mine until corrections are made
- Company says it does not believe the mine is unsafe
- Massey Energy owns mine where 29 miners died in April
(CNN) -- The federal government, in an action that it says is the first of its kind, filed a lawsuit Wednesday to close a Kentucky coal mine until its owner can make it safe for workers.
The Mine Safety and Health Administration, filing in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, seeks a preliminary injunction against the Freedom Energy Mining Co. mine No. 1 in Pike County. The mine is owned by Massey Energy Co.
"Freedom Energy has demonstrated time and again that is cannot be trusted to follow basic safety rules when an MSHA inspector is not at the mine," Joseph A. Main, assistant secretary of labor for mine safety and health, said in a statement. "If the court does not step in, somebody may be seriously injured or die."
Massey Energy also owns a coal mine in West Virginia where 29 miners died in an explosion April 5, the industry's worst disaster in 40 years. The mine had a spotty safety record before the explosion, with three deaths reported in the past 12 years.
Massey Energy has faced harsh criticism since the disaster.
The federal mine agency said Massey has failed to safeguard the Kentucky mine for proper coal dust levels, roof protection, ventilation and maintenance of electrical equipment.
Inspectors, during inspections from 2008 to 2010, issued 1,952 citations and 81 orders to Freedom Energy.
The company said Wednesday that it may idle the Kentucky operation until it meets current federal standards.
"Massey does not believe the mine is unsafe," it said in a statement. Freedom Mine No. 1 is an "older mine with extensive underground workings," the Richmond, Virginia-based company said.
"The operation has struggled to comply with newer MSHA standards," Massey said, adding that Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Don Blankenship recently visited the mine for a safety review. "During the safety stand-down, all underground Massey operations .... gave their miners additional safety training, and took steps to identify and correct mine hazards."
According to the MSHA, seven miners have been injured as a result of falling roofs in the past two years. Six major roof falls have occured there since August 11, the agency said.
The request for a preliminary injunction said the mine should stay closed until conditions are improved. Freedom must establish a health and safety management program, the agency said.
"Massey does not believe the mine is unsafe,..." Its just how we roll...