First, Wired has an excellent list of cyborg-related videos. My favourite is the final one featuring the latest in awesome prosthetic arm technology.

Second, there have been significant advances in biodegradable implant technology, including the possibility of LED tattoos. I'm looking forward to the consumer applications.

And finally, Swindon is apparently going to be the first UK town with complete, free WiFi coverage. Seems like it might actually pan out, as it's going to be funded by the option of paying to get a faster connection. Depending on how much it costs, I'd be seriously tempted to upgrade so I could watch YouTube videos anywhere in the town.

Another three scientific members of the Advisory Council for the Misuse of Drugs have quit after meeting with Alan Johnson and, apparently, deciding that the Home Secretary is full of shit. This puts the council in a rather untenable position as it's now missing a rather significant array of scientific expertise. Not only that, but considering the abysmal way this row has been handled by the Home Office, it's unlikely that they'll be able to attract replacements of anywhere near the same calibre as the exiting scientists.

Also, do take a look at my recent post on a new collaborative blog run by members of an IRC channel I frequent (#BTC on irc.sorcery.net). It's a response to this post which argues that the world might be better off without technology.

According to a Times Online post, the firing of Professor Nutt wasn't even legitimate by the standards set by the government's own guidelines, which basically state that advisers are free to say what they like in a professional capacity provided they don't do it under their title as council member. The lecture that Nutt gave last week was advertised as being given by an Imperial College Professor of Neuropsychopharmacology, not by the chair of the ACMD.

According to Nutt himself, if the planned discussions between what's left of the ACMD and the Home Office fail, he's going to start his own advisory panel, only this one will have hookers and blackjack. Also, y'know, actual independence and freedom to speak up when the government screws up drug policy yet again.

Something that really amuses me about this whole debacle is that had Alan Johnson just ignored Nutt's extra-council activities, there wouldn't be nearly as much negative media coverage, and the whole issue of drug policy and how the government treats science would remain on the back-burner, probably at least until after the election. As it is, their attempt to silence a critic has blown up in their faces. Gotta love that Streisand effect.

The Mail has published an astonishingly idiotic opinion piece regarding the sacking of Professor Nutt, accusing scientists of acting like "arrogant gods". Apparently, Nutt was angered because the government "refused to acknowledge his infallibility" and "the scientific establishment is in an uproar of self-pity and self-importance". The piece then goes on to basically accuse science of supporting Hitler, and says that "worship of science is the great superstition of our age". Clearly, the author has no idea how science is conducted- with constant questioning of assumptions- something that the Spanish Inquisition could hardly claim.

Their "news" piece isn't much better. The page is entitled "Sacked adviser Nutt wrong about risks of drugs, sat scientists", which is really rather misleading as none of the experts questioned actually said they thought his views were incorrect, simply that they had concerns about how his views were being portrayed in the media.

Then again, what do you expect from The Mail?

Good news today- two members of the ACMD resigned in disgust at the way that Professor David Nutt has been treated by the Home Office, threatening the continued existence of the advisory group.

Of course, this issue goes far deeper than just drug policy- it strikes at the heart of how government interacts with science, and how science influences policy. To fire a supposedly independent adviser for taking a legitimate academic viewpoint simply because that view doesn't gel with the party line destroys the credibility of all state-sponsored scientific advice and sets a dangerous precedent for future issues where government policy isn't supported by evidence (of which there will undoubtedly be many). It's extremely encouraging to see that the other scientists in the ACMD (and outside of it) are unwilling to take this level of interference from the Home Office. With any luck, this will lead to a serious re-think of how we deal with drugs, and at very least significant change in the current "A, B, C" method of classification.

In response to Alan Johnson's massively misguided firing of David Nutt, a Facebook group has been set up. Also related is this Number 10 petition aimed at reversing the government's current slide towards ever-increasingly misleading drug information. The Home Office always says that legalisation or decriminalisation would "send the wrong message", but just what message are they trying to send? That they have no understanding of the concept of an independent adviser? Perhaps the message is "looking at evidence scares us, so we'll base our decisions on wildly inaccurate preconceptions".

And staying with self-serving, deluded politicians- there's a good opinion piece by Cory Doctorow in The Times explaining why Peter Mandelson's plans to introduce removal of 'net connections without trial for suspected copyright infringement is immoral and unworkable.

What the fuck is the point in having scientific advisors if you sack them when they disagree with you?

This is a question that the Home Secretary should really be asking himself in light of his decision to fire the head of the Advisory Council for the Misuse of Drugs, Professor David Nutt.

Many issues involve careful weighing of scientific evidence, and drugs are no exception. Society needs to have a considered, rational debate about the relative harms of different recreational (and medical) drugs and, in order to have that debate, we need scientists to be unafraid of voicing potentially controversial opinions. Firing them when they disagree with the party line is hardly conducive of the sort of debate we need and smacks of a Stalinist approach to the interface between science and public policy.

Nothing that Professor Nutt has said in public has been contradicted by any real empirical evidence, to the best of my knowledge, and his calls for the removal of the separation between alcohol/tobacco and illicit drugs are a breath of fresh air in the stale world of drug legislation. Why is it, then, that the government are so threatened by what he has to say that they feel it necessary to sack the man? Could it, perhaps, be the realisation that the current drug policy is based on no evidence whatsofuckingever? If the whole point of the ACMD is to advise government on drug policy, and they fire people who give them advice they don't like, why even bother having an ACMD? Why even bother with the idea of evidence any more? Let's just take everything that Alan Johnson says as scripture rather than asking people who might actually have a goddamn clue what they're talking about!

Had a great, albeit brief, time in Cork. Lost the debate by 4 votes but it was a rewarding experience none the less, and I have to credit Steven Best with being a very engaging speaker (even if I did disagree with most of what he had to say).

So, I was going through Gatwick airport security and grumbling to myself as usual about the absurd steps one has to go through just to board a plane. Passport checked, photo taken, shoes off, laptop out of bag, jacket off, pocket contents in tray, step through metal detector hoping that I haven't forgotten to put keys on the tray, wander to other side of X-ray conveyor belt to stand in my socks waiting for the return of my property. After 30 seconds or so of boredom I notice that a rather disconcerting number of security staff are staring at the X-ray screen, and I don't have my personal effects back yet. A wave of terror flashes through my mind, instantly obliterating any thoughts of defiance with images of cavity searches and weeks in jail with no charge. Had I forgotten to remove a craft knife from my bag in my haste to pack? Surely I didn't allow that old gun-shaped lighter to get in there? My heart starts racing and I go even paler than usual. This, of course, makes me worry more. Are these government stooges trained to recognise guilty-looking facial expressions? Am I looking guilty right now? If I try to compensate, am I just going to end up looking more guilty? Slowly, the security guard brings the bag over to me, looking solemn. I get the feeling that another one is standing behind me, no doubt ready to incapacitate me should I turn out to be Bin Laden wearing an elaborate disguise.
"Did you pack this bag yourself, sir?"
I think I have. Perhaps I've been the victim of some horrible prank?
"Uhh, yes I did"
"And where are you going today?"
Shit. Ireland and political activism? Surely that's not going to go down well with The Man.
"I'm flying to Cork to, uh, to participate in a debate"
"Is there any reason you'd be carrying firearm ammunition in your bag?"
Bullets? I've never even fired anything but a shotgun. Could they have mistaken the pile of batteries I carry around for ammo?
"I don't think so..."
The guard starts rummaging around in my backpack, and suddenly I realise what the whole fuss is about. I guide him to the bottom and there it is- a decommissioned rifle bullet I bought as a souvenir from some military museum five years ago. He gives me a short telling off and confiscates the offending article, briefly criticises the messy nature of my bag and lets me on my way. I wander out of the security area, now paranoid that I've been put on some kind of watch list and wondering how many actual terrorists the whole elaborate system manages to catch.

In other news, take a look at one of my mates' new art blog which already has some rather cool, pretty weird and delightfully geeky stuff on there.

I'm flying off to Ireland tomorrow for a debate at Cork University's Philosophy Society over animal rights. Been arranged at rather late notice as the Pro-Test speaker previously planned had to pull out, but it seems I've got all my travel arrangements in order.

Cool link- the iPhone has some new Augmented Reality apps which have actually tempted me to buy one of the infernal, ludicrously overpriced apple contraptions. Luckily, though, these sort of programs and even better ones will no doubt be along in cheaper mobile devices over the next couple of years, which I look forward to.

The Telegraph have posted a series of movie poster mash-ups which are rather amusing indeed. They do seem somewhat familiar, though. That's some quality reporting right there. Of course, this isn't the first time that a shitty publication has taken images from B3ta with no attribution.

Plus- if you've got a spare few hours (or feel like some serious procrastination), take a look at the 50 most interesting Wikipedia articles.

I found out earlier that Nature has teamed up with Innocentive to create the "Open Innovation Pavillion" which appears to be a marketplace for solving scientific challenges. I really hope that this model becomes popular over the next decade or two- it seems like it might be a great way of being a freelance scientist.

In other good news, Jack Straw is considering prescribing heroin on the NHS for problematic opiate addicts in order to reduce some of the harm they cause to society. While it may not be the ideal way of dealing with the issue of drug addiction, the concept is certainly a step in the right direction. Perhaps more importantly, it demonstrates that occasionally real scientific evidence does manage to persuade a politician to change public policy into something slightly less irrational than before.

Plus, memristors are slowly moving closer to widespread use in electronic devices.

New Scientist also have an interesting recent article on preservation of old computers- a valuable endeavour indeed. One of the institutions fighting to keep antiquated computers alive is Swindon's Museum of Computing. I was lucky enough to attend their grand re-opening and can thoroughly recommend it. The museum isn't massive but they've got some really interesting pieces and currently have an awesome selection of video games on display.

First, on a sad note- Norman Borlaug, one of the greatest human beings ever to have lived, died earlier today at the age of 95. Hopefully his massive contribution to feeding the world's hungry won't be forgotten any time soon. Reason has coverage here.

It seems the placebo reaction is getting stronger. This interesting article suggests why, and explains the ramifications for the pharmaceutical industry.

And Penn & Teller have been taking flak over their recent Bullshit! episode on the Catholic church (the world's biggest organised group of child-fuckers and disease-spreaders) which I personally thought was one of the best of their latest series.

Craig Venter says his team is going to make artificial life inside 6 months.

Modified Atomic Force Microscope takes images of delicate organic molecules.

Yet another awesome new method of computing may be forthcoming thanks to nanoplasmonics.

Samsung release specs of their new netbook, featuring an as-yet unnamed Intel "Ultra Low Voltage" processor promising comparable power efficiency and size to the Atom except with much better performance. Certainly something I'd be interested in- my Eee PC generally does fine, but the speed can get a bit frustrating when one has more than one program open.

Scientists at Bristol uni have run an encryption-breaking algorithm on a quantum-based silicon chip.

And finally, liquid based, low-platinum fuel cells promise to be 40% cheaper, hopefully opening them up to the wider consumer market.

The organisers of Climate Camp- a meeting/protest event for environmentalists- have told the police through a really rather well done YouTube video that they won't be disclosing the location of the event because of massive police harassment at previous demonstrations. Despite the fact that I disagree with a lot of the fluffy new-age/environmentalist ideas associated with the Climate Camp, I have to sympathise with their desire to minimise police intervention at their demos. While the police were always very civil at the Pro-Test marches, they can certainly be rather hostile with legitimate protests by groups who disagree with government actions or have a reputation for misbehaviour.


UK internet users suspected of downloading illegally pirated films and music are going to be at risk of being cut off from the Internet under new powers that the government is considering granting Ofcom. Presumably that means that they're granting Ofcom the ability to screen all internet traffic, or are going to force the ISPs to do it. Wonderful.


Plus, according to a recent internal report by the Metropolitan Police, it took an average of a thousand CCTV cameras' snooping to solve a single crime. I've always thought CCTV an inefficient method of preventing crime- thousands of pounds' worth of cameras, monitors, networking and operators, all of which can be defeated by a £3 hooded top from Primark. Don't worry, though- a Home Office spokeswoman said that CCTV cameras "help communities feel safer". That's great, isn't it? We can all feel nice and safe while we piss our money and liberties down the drain.

So, the government had decided to ban a broad range of drugs such as GBL, a substitute for (and prodrug of) GHB, and BZP, a stimulant with similar effects to MDMA. Apparently, there have been deaths linked to each, although a direct causal link hasn't been established as all the linked deaths in the literature seem to have either been after polydrug use or massive intake of water. It does, however, appear that both drugs have significant negative side effects- quite possibly more dangerous than the pure forms of their illegal counterparts.

The problem with the government's plan is that these drugs are only used in the first place because of the illegality of better recreational drugs. As soon as these "legal highs" become illegal, the users will either switch back to more traditional illegal drugs, or move on to the next (possibly even more dangerous) "legal high". Recreational usage of BZP, GBL, etc is a product of prohibition, and is certainly not going to be remedied by prohibiting yet more substances. Manufacturers can come up with new chemicals that can get people high a lot faster than the government can ban them.

What does interest me is the government's choice to put both BZP and GBL in class C, whereas synthetic cannabinoids are to be put in class B alongside cannabis itself. It seems strange that cannabis, and cannabinoids in general, are considered more dangerous than BZP. Whereas there has never been a death reliably linked to cannabis, the government purports that there have been deaths resulting from use of BZP and GBL, so how the hell is something that kills less dangerous than something that doesn't?. I'm glad to see that even DrugScope, who normally seem to toe the Home Office line to the bitter end, are asking for a review of the downright moronic classification system.

Interestingly, an American magazine is planning to include video based adverts in one of its future editions next month using an embedded screen and speaker.

Also interesting (and positive) news- Mexico has made the decision to decriminalise possession of small quantities of illicit drugs. Certainly seems like a wise move, especially given Mexico's current problems with drug gangs. Hopefully it'll lead to more serious consideration of decriminalisation and, eventually, legalisation over the whole of North America.

Know the super-secure ID card system that's inexorably being rolled out? Turns out, one can clone it in about 12 minutes, allowing it to be cracked with ease. That's some impressive security. The government says that it's all fine and that they're using great encryption, honest. So that's okay, then.


Plus, there's been somewhat of a leap in quantum computing and a Canadian startup company is trying to develop affordable fusion power within a decade. Sounds tricky, but it's a very cool idea.


Also, there's been a breakthrough in engineering nano-structures using DNA. Seems that nanofabrication is becoming an increasingly realistic proposal.

UC Berkley researchers have developed an attachment for ordinary mobile phones' cameras which allows them to be used as microscopes to quickly analyze flourescent-stained samples in the third world, allowing for swift and inexpensive diagnosis of TB, Malaria and other deadly diseases. An added benefit of the design is the fact that the sample image can, of course, be sent anywhere in the world for analysis by trained professionals simply using bog-standard Multi Media Messaging technology included with pretty much every camera phone. While this is clearly a great invention for use in developing nations, I really can't wait until it's available for consumer purchase. A little bit more development, and one could carry a robust pocket digital microscope anywhere. Sure, I might not have any real professional use for it whatsoever, but it'd just be awesome to be able to look at objects one uses in daily life in a whole new light (or, more accurately, in a whole new magnification).


On an unrelated note- if you haven't already seen it, take a look at texts from last night. Sort of a cross between Bash QDB and FMyLife, only with text messages.

Plus, have a read of Ben Goldacre's latest Guardian column which takes the Home Office to task over their use of bullshit evidence that they're using to support their lumbering and intrusive DNA database. As he points out, if you're trying to make policies which seriously undermine the liberty of millions of innocent people, you really should at least have some solid stats to base them on.

Finally, non-invasive brain surgery using high-intensity ultrasound is being developed and proving to be an effective new technology.

Been a while since I updated. I have no real excuses beyond that I've been enjoying my summer break and haven't really had much to say.

A couple of links for your enjoyment:

Interesting Rock-Paper-Shotgun article on open world games.

Derren Brown's art blog. Turns out, as well as being ludicrously skilled in misdirection, psychology and sleight of hand, Derren Brown is a rather competent artist as well.

Following Obama's deft swatting of a fly, the media seemed to eagerly jump at the chance to praise what an awesome guy he is and how his farts smell of freshly mowed grass. Meanwhile, PETA hatched a cunning plan to squeeze a little publicity from Obama's shadow and so decided to complain about his mistreatment of the fly and send him a "humane" bug catching device. While the story certainly gained plenty of publicity, it's yet another of their stunts which only serves to make them look ludicrous to the general public. Again, they're conducting PR stunts which are only really convincing to those who already at least broadly agree with their goals- hardly a wise strategy. Then again, this comes from people who love Che Guevara, noted serial murderer, torturer and (ironic?) T-shirt icon, so their views are pretty suspect in general.

Thanks to h8d_bitch and jordan179 for the links.