thanks all viewers because in this minute i have 600 views in my blog ... i appreciate That and i will keep work in this blog 24/7but i want to know which kind of posts do u want ! sport / technology / political / games / Hollywood movies ...etc
Please comment to improve this blog to be larger
thanks all again :)
Monday, June 29, 2015
Dino-Chicken Gets One Step Closer
Given these obstacles, how close are scientists to creating a dino-chicken?
"From a quantitative point of view, we're 50 percent there," said Jack Horner, a professor of paleontology at Montana State University and a curator of paleontology at the Museum of the Rockies. [See Images of the Chicken Embryos with Dinosaur-Like Snouts]
Horner has long supported the idea of modifying a chicken to look like a dinosaur, and unlike the researchers on the latest study, he actually wants to raise a live one. And why stop there? By understanding how and when to modify certain molecular mechanisms, countless changes could be within reach. As Horner pointed out, a glow-in-the-dark unicorn is not out of the question.
There are four major modifications needed to make a so-called chickenosaurus, Horner said. To turn a chicken into a dinosaurlike beast, scientists would have to give it teeth and a long tail, and revert its wings back into arms and hands.
The creature would also need a modified mouth — a feat accomplished by the researchers who did this latest study, he said.
"This dino-chicken project — we can liken it to the moon project," Horner told Live Science. "We know we can do it; it's just there are … some huge hurdles."
Challenges ahead
One of those "huge hurdles" was cleared in the latest study, published May 12 in the journal Evolution, in which researchers turned chicken beaks into dino snouts. But even that seemingly small step involved seven years of work. First, the researchers studied beak development in the embryos of chickens and emus, and snout development in the embryos of turtles, alligators and lizards.
It's likely that millions of years ago, birds and reptiles had similar developmental pathways that gave them snouts, but over time, molecular changes led to the development of beaks in birds, the researchers said.
It's difficult for scientists to get embryos of present-day animals, such as crocodiles, to compare because they have to find farms that raise them. And then, the molecular work — determining exactly which developmental pathways are different, how they're different and what controls them — can take "countless hours and hundreds of experiments for a few successful ones," said the study's lead researcher, Bhart-Anjan Bhullar, a paleontologist and developmental biologist currently at the University of Chicago and cross-appointed at Yale University, where he will be starting as full-time faculty. "It's kind of the same as fossil finding."
For their "fossil finding," the researchers needed an extensive fossil record of birds and their ancestors to see what birds looked like at different stages of their evolution.
"You have to understand what you're tracing before you try to trace it," Bhullar told Live Science.
Bhullar; his doctoral advisor Arkhat Abzhanov, a developmental biologist at Harvard University; and their teammates focused on two genes that are active in facial development. Each gene codes a protein, but the proteins — which carry out the work of genes — showed different activities in modern-day chicken and reptile embryonic development, the researchers found. When the researchers blocked the activity of these two proteins in chickens, the birds developed structures that resembled snouts, not beaks.
Unexpected find
And then there's the unexpected finding that revealed the complex task at hand: When the group transformed the beaks of chicken embryos into snouts, they also inadvertently changed the chicken's palate, or roof of the mouth.
In contrast, the palates of the bird embryos were broad and flat, and connected "to the rest of the skull in a way that ancestral reptiles' palatines did, but bird palatines do not," Bhullar said.In birds, "the palatine bone is really long and thin, and it's not very connected with other bones of the skull," Bhullar said. In fact, birds can lift up their top jaw independently of their lower jaw — an ability not seen in most other vertebrates.
So, by changing the beak, the researchers also changed the palate. When the researchers went back to the fossil record, they found that the snout and palatine bone appeared to change together throughout evolution. For instance, an 85-million-year-old fossil of a birdlike creature that had teeth and a primitive beak also had a birdlike palate, they said. [Infographic: How to Make a Dino-Chicken]
However, in an even older fossil, the palatine was not transformed, and neither was the beak, Bhullar said.
"Part of that is verifying experimentally whether the molecular changes we see are actually able to change the anatomy in the ways we predicted," Bhullar said. "In a way, that recapitulates the change we see in the fossil record."
But his goal "is simply to understand, in as a deep a way as possible, the molecular mechanisms behind major evolutionary transitions," he said. He's not interested in making "a more nonavian, dinosaurlike bird."
Will it work?
But Horner is interested in making a so-called chickenosaurus. His group is currently working on giving the chicken a long tail— arguably, the most complex part of making a dino-chicken, he said. For instance, they just screened genes in mice to determine what types of genetic pathways block tail development. This knowledge could help them figure out how to switch on tail growth, he said. [Real of Fake? 8 Bizarre Hybrid Animals]
But it remains to be seen how chickens would react to tails, arms, fingers and teeth, Bhullar said.
But, on the other hand, chickens may be resilient creatures."Just because you changed one part doesn't mean that the animal will be able to use it or be able to use it correctly," he said. "You could perhaps give a chicken fingers, but if the fingers don't have the right muscles on them, or if the nervous system and the brain are not properly wired to deal with a hand that has separate digits, then you may have to do a considerable amount of additional engineering."
"People also sometimes underestimate plasticity [flexibility] of the body," Bhullar said. "It's amazing how much compensation goes on, and the nervous system, in particular, is very plastic."
Bhullar said that, if dinosaurlike features, such as a snout and teeth, were to be restored, he wonders "whether the brain wouldn't rewire itself in some way that would permit these animals to use these features."
Horner likened giving a chicken a dinosaurlike tail to breeding a wolf into a Chihuahua, except that it was on an accelerated timescale.
"We've got all sorts of genetically modified animals already just from breeding," he said. "We [could] make a dino-chicken, and we [could] make a glow-in-the-dark unicorn. Basically, we can make anything we want, I think, once we understand the genes.
"And the question is, 'Why would anyone care if they don't care about a Chihuahua?'" Horner added.
For him, the chickenosaurus is about answering the biggest question of all.
"Any of us that have any curiosity about how we all got here and where everything came from has to be interested in evolutionary biology," Horner said. "It's basically the blueprint of life on this Earth."
Surviving 42 Minutes Underwater…How Boy Beat the Odds
The 14-year-old boy, identified only as "Michael" by the Italian newspaper Milan Chronicle, reportedly dove off a bridge into a canal with some friends last month and never resurfaced. His foot became caught on something underwater and it took firefighters and other first responders nearly an hour to free him from the depths. Though Michael remained on life support for an entire month, he recently woke up and seems to be doing fine, Time reported.
While Michael's story is certainly unusual, it's not unheard of for people to survive prolonged stints underwater, according to Dr. Zianka Fallil, a neurologist at North Shore-LIJ's Cushing Neuroscience Institute in New York. Fallil, who called the teenager's recovery "quite remarkable," told Live Science that there are two physiological processes that may come into play when a person is submerged underwater for an extended period of time with no oxygen. [7 Common Summer Health Concerns]
"The body protects the most efficient organs — the brain, the heart, the kidneys — and pulls the blood away from the extremities and other, not-as-essential, organs," Fallil said.
The diving reflex is often cited as the thing that saves people from nearly drowning. However, it's difficult to study this reflex in humans (likely because of the obvious dangers of recreating near-drowning experiences in a lab), said Fallil, who pointed to another, less controversial explanation for how people survive long stretches underwater — the selective brain cooling hypothesis.
"The selective brain cooling hypothesis [states] that, the quicker the brain cools, the more likely it is to survive," she said.
When you're immersed in cold water for a prolonged period of time, your body may carry out several processes that allow cooled blood to enter the brain, according to Fallil. One of these processes, hypercapnic vasodilation, occurs when the body retains carbon dioxide as a result of not breathing. This extra carbon dioxide causes blood vessels in your brain to dilate (become wider), which in turn allows more cool blood to enter the brain.
While the selective brain cooling hypothesis has also not been widely tested in humans, it's considered a more likely explanation for how the brain might be protected during episodes of prolonged submersion than the diving reflex, Fallil said. And there have also been several other studies conducted to see what factors, besides the body's reflexes, can help you survive underwater.
"There are a few studies that have looked at near-drowning victims to see if age, the duration of submersion or the temperature of the water had anything to do with survival," Fallil said. "And the one thing that they did find a correlation with was time of submersion."
One study, published in the journal Resuscitation in 2002, found that submersion time serves as a predictor of survival for near-drowning victims. The average amount of time spent underwater by the 61 patients in the study was 10 minutes. But, the patients who spent less time underwater (just five minutes) had the least amount of neurological disability after the incident. The victims who didn't survive spent an average of 16 minutes underwater. A similar study, conducted in 2013, found that there was a very low likelihood of a "good outcome" following a submersion lasting longer than 10 minutes.
However, neither of these studies found a strong correlation between the likelihood of survival and the temperature of the water in which a person was submerged, or a person's age. So while several news reports about the Italian teenager's harrowing 42-minute ordeal have concluded that his survival was a result of his youthor the relatively cold temperature of the Milanese canal in April, these are actually just guesses. It's just as likely that he survived because he received excellent medical attention, including the use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, or ECMO (a form of life support that removes carbon dioxide from the blood and oxygenates red blood cells), Fallil said.
Charlie Charlie Challenge: Can You Really Summon a ghost?
That is the seemingly innocent question that begins a new "spirit-summoning" game that is taking the Internet by storm. The so-called Charlie Charlie Challenge is based on shaky science (the objective is to summon a malignant spirit from beyond the grave), but there are some real and powerful forces behind this parlor game, according to one expert.
Here's how the Charlie Charlie Challenge works: players balance one horizontally aligned pencil on top of a vertically aligned pencil (essentially, in the shape of a cross). Both writing utensils sit atop a piece of paper divided into four quadrants. Two of the quadrants are labeled "yes" and two are labeled "no." Players then invite a spirit, Charlie, to play with them. If the spirit is feeling playful, the top most pencil will allegedly spin until it points to "yes." Then the players can ask Charlie other yes or no questions and wait for the pencil to move again. [The Surprising Origins of 9 Common Superstitions]
"Trying to balance one pencil upon another results in a very unstable system," said Christopher French, head of the anomalistic psychology research unit at the University of London in the United Kingdom. "Even the slightest [draft] or someone's breath will cause the top pencil to move."
And the precariously placed pencils will move around regardless of whether you summon a demon after balancing them, French told Live Science. This proves that there's no demonic force necessary for the pencil-moving effect to occur, he said.
Of course, pencils that move without anyone touching them might seem spooky in the right setting (i.e., in a candlelit room in the middle of the night), but as French pointed out, the situation is really no more threatening than a curtain blowing in the breeze.
Mind games
To be fair, gravity is not the only force at work in the Charlie Charlie Challenge. It's also possible that another formidable power, the power of suggestion, has a role to play.
A 2012 study published in the journal Current Directions in Psychological Science found that people often employ a "response expectancy" in certain situations. In other words, by anticipating that something will occur, a person's thoughts and behaviors will help bring that anticipated outcome to fruition. In the case of this spirit-summoning game, it could be that players expect a certain result and their actions during the game help bring it about (for instance, a well-timed breath or a subtle wave of the hand).
This hypothesis is similar to one suggested by French, who pointed out that many forms of recreational divination — like Ouija (the board game where you put your hands on a piece of plastic that allegedly moves of its own accord to answer your questions) or table turning (an old-school parlor game where people put their hands on a table and wait for the table to turn of its own volition) — involve the subconscious actions of participants. [Really? The World's Greatest Hoaxes]
The "magic" behind the Ouija board and turning tables, along with pendulums and dowsing rods (two other popular forms of divination), has been scientifically explained through something known as the "ideomotor effect," French said.
The ideometer effect was first described in the 19th century by the English doctor and physiologist William Carpenter. It suggests that it's the involuntarily muscular movements of the people using the plastic planchette in Ouija, or the people sitting around the table in table turning, that causes these objects to move. The ideometer effect doesn't completely explain the Charlie Charlie phenomenon, because players don't touch the pencils used in the game. However, the game is similar to these other examples because it involves what French calls "magical thinking," or the belief that a random event (the spinning of a pencil) is related to some unconnected, and in some cases imaginary, force or energy (a spirit).
"Often the 'answers' received [in divination games] might be vague and ambiguous, but our inherent ability to find meaning — even when it isn't there — ensures that we will perceive significance in those responses and be convinced that an intelligence of some kind lay behind them," French said.
The Charlie Charlie Challenge is magical thinking at its finest, according to French, who explained that this sort of thinking may have played an important role in human evolution. It made sense for our human ancestors to see "sentience and intention" in unexplained everyday events, he said, because these events may have represented real threats that needed to be avoided.
"The cost of avoiding a threat that wasn't really there was far less than that of missing a threat that was really there," French said.
This tendency to attribute a deeper meaning to meaningless or unrelated events persists in modern brains, French said. He added that this innate tendency could help explain why so many people believe that the random responses in the Charlie Charlie Challenge really are coming from an intelligence that is trying to send them a message.
Python Eats Porcupine, Regrets It Later (Here's Why)
On June 14, a cyclist riding along one of the mountain bike trails at the Lake Eland Game Reserve in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa, spotted a very engorged snake. The cyclist snapped a few photos of the gluttonous python and posted them to social media, where they quickly attracted the attention of locals who wanted to see the python themselves. Lots of people came to the park in the following days just to view the swollen snake, according to Jennifer Fuller, general manager at the game reserve.
At the time the photos were taken, no one knew what the snake had eaten, just that it must have been something fairly large. On the Lake Eland Game Reserve Facebook page, park staff and visitors speculated as to what the snake may have swallowed for dinner, suggesting everything from a small warthog to a baby impala to an errant child (that last one was posted as a joke). [See Images of the Engorged Python Dining on Porcupine]
But on Saturday, June 20, park rangers found the python dead near the bike trail. They decided to cut it open and have a look inside. What they found was one heck of a snack: a 30-lb. (13.8 kilograms) porcupine.
It isn't unusual for pythons to eat porcupines, Fuller told Live Science in an email. In fact, many species of snakes eat porcupines and other horned or quilled animals, according to a study published in 2003 in the Phyllomedusa Journal of Herpetology. And while a 30-lb. meal might sound like too much to digest, it isn't if you're a python.
As Fuller noted, pythons in the Lake Eland Game Reserve have been spotted consuming even larger prey, including adult oribi antelope, which can weigh nearly 50 lbs. (22.7 kg). Pythons possess the incredible ability to alter their metabolism, as well as the size of their organs, after a meal. This allows the a python to digest prey that is much larger than the snake is, according to a study published in 2013 in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
It still isn't clear if this python's spiky meal was actually responsible for the predator's death. Rangers found the snake underneath a rocky ledge, where it had apparently fallen. On impact, the quills inside its engorged belly may have pierced the python's digestive tract, which could have killed the animal, Fuller said.
In the 2003 study, entitled "Prickly food: snakes preying upon porcupines," researchers found that when a snake eats a porcupine, the animal's quills are left undigested and are easily detectable in the snake's gut. Sometimes, the quills will even pierce all the way through the snake's body, according to the study. But there's no word yet on whether this particular snake died because it was pierced by quills or because it fell off a ledge (or because it was pierced by quills as a result of falling off the ledge), Fuller told the Australian news website News.com.
Rangers at the reserve stripped off the python's skin after removing the porcupine from the predator's digestive track. They also took measurements of the snake's massive body, which was 12.8 feet (3.9 meters) long. Special attention was paid to the animal's head, which features a highly flexible jaw that allows the animal to open its mouth wide to swallow prey whole.
Despite popular belief, a python's jaw does not actually dislocate when the snake is eating. The two lower jaws move independently of one another, and the quadrate bone at the back of the head attaches the jaw loosely to the skull, allowing the jaw to move around freely.
Solar Plane Takes Off on Record 120-Hour Flight Across Pacific
The Solar Impulse 2 took off from Nagoya Airfield at 3:03 a.m. local time in Japan (2:03 p.m. EDT on June 28). The flight, which is expected to take five days and five nights, is part of an ambitious attempt to circumnavigate the world using only solar power.
"This flight will be demanding and challenging particularly given its duration and the fact that no immediate landing is possible and will be a feat never accomplished before in the world of aviation," Solar Impulse officials said in a statement. [See more photos of the plane's round-the-world flight]
"Now fully into the flight to Hawaii. Very strong emotions as I passed the point of no return: exploration starts here," pilot Andre Borschberg, who is also the CEO and co-founder of Solar Impulse, wrote in an update on Twitter. Borschberg included a photo of the Solar Impulse 2 soaring over a bed of fluffy clouds.
Bertrand Piccard, the chairman and founder of Solar Impulse and its other pilot, will support Borschberg from the Mission Control Centre in Monaco. Borschberg and Piccard have been alternating being at the controls of the single-seater plane.
Staying alert for such a long solo flight poses many challenges, but Borschberg plans to take 20-minute naps and meditate to keep his blood moving and his muscles relaxed. Piccard previously told Live Science that he uses self-hypnosis to keep focused during long flights. Piccard is expected to pilot the solar plane on the next leg of its journey, from Hawaii to Arizona.
The Solar Impulse 2 is powered by 17,000 photovoltaic cells on its wings, which drive propellers during the day and charge batteries that power the aircraft at night. After arriving in Hawaii, the plane will continue to Phoenix, with a stop planned in the middle of the U.S., before the pilots head to New York City. Following these stops in the U.S., the plane will fly to Europe, and eventually will return to Abu Dhabi to complete their round-the-world expedition. There will be 13 flights in total, if all continues as planned, according to Solar Impulse officials.
Art-ificial Intelligence? Algorithm Sorts Paintings Like a Person
From assembly-line work to self-driving cars, computers are taking over
many tasks once performed by humans. Artistic jobs, however, have been
relatively safe — until now.
A team of researchers has developed an artificial intelligence (AI) program that can classify famous works of art based on their style, genre or artist — tasks that normally require a professional art historian.
The AI program classified approximately 80,000 works of art with unprecedented accuracy, and revealed surprising connections among different artists and painting styles, stated the study, which was posted to the preprint server arXiv on May 5. [Super-Intelligent Machines: 7 Robotic Futures]
"We're definitely not replacing art historians, but with a growing number of paintings in online collections, we need an automatic tool" for organizing them, said study researcher Babak Saleh, a computer scientist at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New Jersey.
The field of computer vision has advanced significantly in recent years, but AI still lags far behind humans in basic tasks. A human can look at a painting and easily draw inferences from it, such as whether it's a portrait or a landscape, whether the style is impressionist or abstract, or who the artist was.
"The average person can tell these things, but that's very challenging when it comes to a machine," said study researcher Ahmed Elgammal, who is also a computer scientist at Rutgers. "Our goal is to push what machine intelligence can do."
To create a machine capable of classifying art, Saleh and Elgammal used a database of more than 80,000 paintings by more than a 1,000 artists across 15 centuries, spanning 27 different styles.
The researchers used a variety of machine-learning algorithms to pick out particular features in a subset of the paintings, including low-level attributes, such as colors and edges, as well as more abstract ones, such as what an object is — whether it's a horse or a human, for example. One approach they used is known as deep learning, a method employed by Google and other companies in image searches and translation tools.
Then, the researchers tested their algorithm on a set of paintings the machine had never seen, and it performed remarkably well. The program was 63 percent accurate at identifying the artist, about 60 percent accurate at figuring out the genre and about 45 percent accurate at determining the style.
It's difficult to compare the AI's performance to that of an art historian, because the historian has a lot of prior knowledge, Elgammal said. However, he estimated the algorithms would "do much better than the average human," though "not as good as an expert."
In addition, the paintings the algorithm had trouble categorizing offered insight into the influences different painters may have had on each other. For example, the algorithm had difficulty distinguishing between a painting by the 18th-century Danish painter Christoffer Wilhelm Eckersberg in the neoclassical style and one by the early 19th-century Dutch painter Cornelis Vreedenburgh in the impressionist style.
These parallels are no surprise to art historians, but are nevertheless impressive for a computer program, the researchers said.
A team of researchers has developed an artificial intelligence (AI) program that can classify famous works of art based on their style, genre or artist — tasks that normally require a professional art historian.
The AI program classified approximately 80,000 works of art with unprecedented accuracy, and revealed surprising connections among different artists and painting styles, stated the study, which was posted to the preprint server arXiv on May 5. [Super-Intelligent Machines: 7 Robotic Futures]
"We're definitely not replacing art historians, but with a growing number of paintings in online collections, we need an automatic tool" for organizing them, said study researcher Babak Saleh, a computer scientist at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New Jersey.
The field of computer vision has advanced significantly in recent years, but AI still lags far behind humans in basic tasks. A human can look at a painting and easily draw inferences from it, such as whether it's a portrait or a landscape, whether the style is impressionist or abstract, or who the artist was.
"The average person can tell these things, but that's very challenging when it comes to a machine," said study researcher Ahmed Elgammal, who is also a computer scientist at Rutgers. "Our goal is to push what machine intelligence can do."
To create a machine capable of classifying art, Saleh and Elgammal used a database of more than 80,000 paintings by more than a 1,000 artists across 15 centuries, spanning 27 different styles.
The researchers used a variety of machine-learning algorithms to pick out particular features in a subset of the paintings, including low-level attributes, such as colors and edges, as well as more abstract ones, such as what an object is — whether it's a horse or a human, for example. One approach they used is known as deep learning, a method employed by Google and other companies in image searches and translation tools.
Then, the researchers tested their algorithm on a set of paintings the machine had never seen, and it performed remarkably well. The program was 63 percent accurate at identifying the artist, about 60 percent accurate at figuring out the genre and about 45 percent accurate at determining the style.
It's difficult to compare the AI's performance to that of an art historian, because the historian has a lot of prior knowledge, Elgammal said. However, he estimated the algorithms would "do much better than the average human," though "not as good as an expert."
In addition, the paintings the algorithm had trouble categorizing offered insight into the influences different painters may have had on each other. For example, the algorithm had difficulty distinguishing between a painting by the 18th-century Danish painter Christoffer Wilhelm Eckersberg in the neoclassical style and one by the early 19th-century Dutch painter Cornelis Vreedenburgh in the impressionist style.
These parallels are no surprise to art historians, but are nevertheless impressive for a computer program, the researchers said.
Rough Roach Bots Barrel Over Obstacles
Although many research teams have designed robots that can avoid obstacles, these bots mostly do so by evading stumbling blocks. This avoidance strategy typically uses sensors to map out the environment and powerful computers to plan a safe path around the obstacles.
"This approach has been very successful — for example, Google's self-driving car," said lead study author Chen Li, a physicist at the University of California, Berkeley.
"However, it does have limitations," Li told Live Science. "First, when the terrain becomes densely cluttered — where gaps become comparable to, or even smaller than, robot size — a clear path where robots do not hit obstacles cannot be planned, because obstacles are just too close to each other. Second, this approach requires sophisticated sensors and computers, which are often too large or heavy for small robots to carry around."
Instead, Li and his colleagues wanted to design robots that did not avoid obstacles, but traversed them. They sought their inspiration from discoid cockroaches, which are about 2 inches (4.9 centimeters) long. These roaches usually live on the floor of tropical rainforests, where they frequently encounter a wide variety of clutter, such as grass, shrubs, leaves, tree trunks and mushrooms.
The scientists used high-speed cameras to analyze how the cockroaches moved through artificial obstacle courses with closely spaced, grasslike beams made of card stock. Over the course of hundreds of runs, the insects usually completed the obstacle courses in about 3 seconds. Although the roaches sometimes pushed through the beams or climbed over them, nearly half the time, the insects quickly and effectively slipped past the beams by rolling their bodies to fit through the gaps and using their legs to push off the beams.
Then, the researchers fitted the cockroaches with three artificial shells of different shapes — an oval cone similar to the roaches' bodies, a flat oval and a flat rectangle — to see what factors influence the insects' movements. When the glued-on shells made the roaches less round, the insects were less able to perform a roll and maneuver past the obstacles, the researchers found.
Then, the scientists tested a 4-inch-long (10 cm) six-legged robot named VelociRoACH on a similar obstacle course. When it had a rectangular body, the robot had only a 19 percent chance of passing the course, since it frequently got stuck between the grass like beams. However, when it was fitted with a cockroach-inspired round shell, it had a 93 percent chance of finishing the obstacle course by rolling through the beams, in much the same way real roaches did. This move did not involve any change to the robot's programming or the addition of any sensors — it was a natural consequence of the shell, the researchers said.
"Robots can take advantage of effective physical interactions with the environment to traverse even densely cluttered obstacles," Li said.
This research shows how body shapes can help animals and robots traverse terrain, much like how the streamlined body shapes of many birds and fishes (and mimicked by airplanes and submarines) help reduce drag, Li added. "This is why we named this new concept 'terradynamic streamlining,'" he said.
Terra dynamic streamlining may prove especially useful for small, inexpensive robots in applications like search and rescue, precision farming, or military reconnaissance because it allows the bots to traverse obstacles like rubble and vegetation without having to add more sensors and computers, Li said.
"There may well be other body shapes that are good for other purposes, such as climbing up and over obstacles," Li said. In the future, the researchers plan to analyze how animal and robot body shapes affect other kinds of movement in a variety of environments.
The scientists detailed their findings online June 23 in the journal Bio inspiration & Biometrics.
Environmental Special Interests
Many Americans place a high degree
of trust in environmental special interest groups. A 2002 poll
commissioned by the Sierra Club found that 57 percent of Americans trust
environmental groups for information on environmental issues. But do
environmental groups deserve so much trust? Are they truly benign
do-gooders only out to protect the public's health and the environment?
Like any movement, there are some good
seeds and some bad seeds, but most environmental groups share some
general characteristics. First, environmental groups tend to exaggerate
and even fabricate environmental crises in order to justify their
existence and to maintain financial support. Second, unbeknownst to
their contributors, environmental groups often use their resources to
support other liberal causes and politicians that have little to do with
the environment. Third, environmental groups frame the debate as good
versus evil, which justifies nasty attacks on those with different
opinions.
As environmental groups continue to flex their muscles and influence policy, it's important to look behind the curtain to see what is really driving many organizations.
As environmental groups continue to flex their muscles and influence policy, it's important to look behind the curtain to see what is really driving many organizations.
Sunday, June 28, 2015
Poltergeist 2015 HDrip
: Trailer :
Screenshot
: Download Links :
NitroFlare
FileRio
! Hope u Enjoy !
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)