"Ultrasound waves" is incorrect usage (source = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultrasound_(disambiguation) ). Starting with "ultrasonics" or "ultrasonic waves" would have been more apt.

I love that slashdot is pushing articles on ultrasonics. Ultrasonics seems like the field of the future to me. I remember my first encounter with ultrasonics in gradeschool. I had a friend that broke his arm skateboarding]. His doctor prescribed an ultrasonic bone massager that was intended to increase the rate of bone growth (he had a cast as well, the doctor was not some new-age psuedoscientist). Fast forward into college, when I was interning at a consumer goods manufacturer. They used ultrasonics to bond together nonwovens! Totally sweet. The process used a very specifically shaped piece of metal, called a horn, which flexed in a very specific manner when subjected to ultrasonic frequencies (ultrasonic transducers can perform this electric to mechanical energy conversion). It requires a whole lot less energy than what was done before, which was more like hammering nails - you have to smash super hard, and the whole ordeal is more of an art than a science). Nowawdays they are beginning to use ultrasonic waves to benefit the flow of polymers in injection molding. Oh yah, and like you already mentioned, magnetic storage. This field is just skyrocketing.

Here's a better idea. Let's put files in folders ***over the internet***. You can store unlimited files (at a hefty price)! We can market it with a sweet name, like "The human brain," "the human network," or "water vapor storage."

Q: And what do I do when I don't have an internet connection?

A: Nobody doesn't always have an internet connection!

Using "created jobs" as a statistic was one of the most nefarious plays by the Obama administration. I say Obama administration not because I hate Obama (I voted for him, and waited 2 hours to do so), but because they are the ones who set the standard for the political arena.

Warren Buffet has explained the issue before, but it was in terms of GDP (as opposed to JOBS). He said that he could pay a painter millions of dollars to paint his portrait. The GDP would be increased by that amount. However, there's no actual value being created - no produce worth value (save the portrait). The same works for creating jobs. Not only are you just shuffling around money to appease the statistic watchers, but you are forgoing the opportunity of investing in something else.

Like you said - no reason to test the mouse-toxic drugs on human beings before chimpanzees. I'm guessing you wouldn't have to match the sample size, or kill the same amount of chimpanzees, compared with testing on mice.

I'm confused with the resistance on drug testing in animals. Like Bastiat said, you always have to consider the "unseen." If you aren't drug testing on animals, you are forgoing the knowledge received from said testing. Would you stop killing thousands of mice per day via drug testing if it meant killing 5 more humans per day? I also think we, as a human race, need to sack up when it comes from testing dangerous, yet potentially game changing, drugs. I'm sure some cancer patients might willingly "sacrifice" themselves by taking said drugs, if they thought it could help preventing others in the future from suffering from their disease.

On a separate note, if it were up to random chance, the LD50 would be higher in mice than humans for 50% of all drugs. I am not sure if this is the case. For example, if you look at the LD50 of nicotine in animals, it is 50 mg/kg for rats and 3.3 mg/kg in mice (not sure what LD50 for nicotine is in humans - could be greater than 50 mg/kg, less than 3.3 mk/kg, or anywhere in between).

Last time I checked, drug testing on(in?) mice wasn't the only step in passing a drug through the FDA. Actually, I haven't done much checking, but I do believe big pharma has to perform clinical trials on humans before giving the "OK GO" to manufacture & mass distribute drugs for general public

From a pharmacology perspective, it would be a good thing to know that mice react differently from humans. More importantly - how do they differ, and for what reasons? For instance - maybe some drugs have severe side affects in mice, but none in humans. Failing a test with mice wouldn't necessarily mean the drug was worthless for humans.

I agree that these escapist type are the last people that should be using drugs. However, I don't think they make the largest portion of the drug-seeking population. Drugs are like life-enhancers (I'm using that term "enhance" with a neutral connotation). They can enhance your ability to party, they can enhance your ability to study, enhance your ability to have sex. Watch out curious folk, sometimes the intended consequence is reversed and you will be left with the notorious "bad trip," or perhaps even death.

IMHO this escapist anecdote is promoted simply to turn away the curious. If you haven't noticed, we (society) don't actually a good job helping these people - no one can show these people that they matter to society or themselves.

How does using an on-site 3D printer solve this problem? Last time I checked, you need input materials. Unless you're harvesting those materials in outer space, they're going to be sourced from earth. In my opinion, you're trading manufacturing quality on earth for the cargo volume difference between a more spacious pre-asssembled part and some amorphous bag of resin

Also, if this thing is never going to be used by humans, let's just make a monument for humanity. My best suggestion is Daft Punk's set from their Alive 2007 Tour http://www.google.com/imgres?hl=en&safe=off&sa=G&tbo=d&biw=1364&bih=683&tbm=isch&tbnid=YQxV3ckNYEiclM:&imgrefurl=http://www.vibe.com/photo-gallery/daft-punk-signed-columbia-records-daft-punk-photographic-history&docid=ePpe3tP66xYfyM&imgurl=http://www.vibe.com/sites/vibe.com/files/photo_gallery_images/2007%252520%25252522Alive%252520Tour%25252522.jpg&w=650&h=365&ei=kQsMUf6iEJO-9QTZv4GYBg&zoom=1&ved=1t:3588,r:2,s:0,i:91&iact=rc&dur=2097&sig=112557253512712023348&page=1&tbnh=168&tbnw=300&start=0&ndsp=18&tx=117&ty=10

This whole article is about deep sleep improving short term memories. It had nothing to do with rapid eye movement sleep, the so-called fifth stage of sleep.

I will allow for partial blame to be placed on the article's author, for writing the statement "Healthy adults typically spend one-quarter of the night in deep, non-rapid-eye-movement (REM) sleep." IMHO, 'non-rapid-eye-movement' should never be acronymized into 'REM.' I searched "sleeping stages" and came across an artcile which used the acronym NREM to refer to all the other stages. Although I've never HEARD any PEOPLE use the term, I am not involved with sleep studies, sleep psychology, etc etc. I sincerely believe that those with common sense will understand a term like NREM, although it may not be common usage.

My pet peeve: People that use acronyms when there are others that potentially may not know what the acronym means, and I'm not just talking about this article - I'm talking about real life situations. Last meeting I had to ask what "P&L" means. I'm not an accountant, and I don't read financial statements all day. Just say the words "profit and loss"one time and you won't be leaving the engineer scratching his head. Oh yes, if by P&L you actually mean sales receipts or revenue, then yes by all means, continue to say P&L.

Why would you abbreviate something that you are only using once in an article? If you are going to write "rapid eye movement" maybe fiften more times, it could be justified, but if there are only a few instances, just TYPE IT OUT for baby jesus christ's sake.

I'm not sure. I live in a duplex, and I never have had to dig underground. I'm more talking from experience, when my father had to dig a large hole in our back yard, and he pointed out to me that you better be damn sure you don't damage any natural gas, not only for the safety reasons, but also for the fact that you could be financially responsible for the damages.

Good to know services like those do exist, in case I ever purchase a house, and decide to do some digging.

You're missing my point. Someone else drew the comparison between a house with a mortgage and a cell phone. That was ridiculous. I drew a comparison between a house with a mortgage, and an apartment or a duplex. I never said rental implied ownership. In fact, I went so far as to say that the contractual agreement of a mortgage is different enough from actually owning a house (i.e. having a mortgage paid off entirely), that I wouldn't even consider it "owning."

My point was obvious. Read the contract. You have already made an agreement on whether or not you can modify something. If it's not in the contract, you can probably get away with it by saying "but it wasn't in the contract!" Warning: I am not a lawyer, and if you didn't realize that from my last statement, don't take my legal advice.

Now, if you think it was illegal to put something in the contract, for instance, if your mortgage said "no modifications to the house," then you better get a lot of more money, or a lawyer that has nothing better to do with their time, because you my friend, are going to court.

Read your contract?

I've lived in apartments where you could make some modifications, some apartments where you could not. I live in a duplex, and I can make modifications. True, I do not own the these dwellings, but so have you pointed out - you don't actually "own" a house if you are paying a mortgage.

Also, you can't (or shouldn't) go digging deep holes around your house. Even if you have a deed and pay taxes, I believe you can get in trouble if you damage municipal sewer/electric/ natural gas lines.

Apple's "original" design process ended with the first iphone. They had a unique design, a super smooth UI, great marketing, great skew management. Everything that has come after is quite a natural progression (albeit better than some other cell phone manufacturing companies), like basic hardware upgrades that could be outsourced to Chinese manufacturing companies that can do things of that nature at a reasonable price.

I don't think IMHO is required when my comment is OBVIOUSLY subjective.