I've been getting the print version of ScienceNews (bi-weekly) for 40 years. The online version http://www.sciencenews.org/ is just as good. There are many other good sites out there of course. This is one I can vouch for as a scientist without hesitation.

Agreed 100%. As an undergrad I majored in psychology and did a CS major on the side. Psychology has been huge for me as far as developing user interfaces, understanding reasonable assignment of function to human vs. computer in larger systems, and most importantly for my research in artificial intelligence. My philosophy classes as an undergraduate, especially those focusing on formal logic, automata theory and epistemology have been very useful. I could go on and on. If you want to be a technician, a computer programmer, then you don't need a CS degree. If you want to really understand WHY you do what you do when you design, develop, and deploy systems, then a broader grounding in sciences and humanities is required. Frankly, there is more to having a Bachelor degree than simply qualifying for a job -- it means you have a certain breadth of education to enable you to go on to further study, and more importantly, it educates you as a citizen of the world to a level you are very unlikely to reach in any other way. That said, if college is not right for you, don't do it. Too many people go to college thinking that is what they have to do. Most undergraduate programs are crappy and far too many people drop out of school. Go to school only if you have a hunger to learn.

It sure isn't going to use that fancy new heat shield to enter Mars atmosphere either, much less land with parachutes! That PR picture of it in Mars orbit is really one of NASA's more egregious lies.

So here is the story: inside NASA, "Deep Space" used to mean (prior to 2003) anything beyond the orbit of the Moon. This was intended to be the domain of work for science and telecommunications ops of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), an FFRDC operated by Caltech as a NASA center. Inside the Moon's orbit was the domain of scientific work for NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC). This included Earth observing science and telecom as well as astrophysics spacecraft. During the Constellation program, when simply returning to the Moon was not enough justification for the program and seeking a way to justify control of the design of deep space telecom for manned spaceflight, the Constellation Program Office at NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) and NASA GSFC sought to redefine deep space as anything beyond HEO. This was also an attempt by GSFC to put JPL's Deep Space Interplanetary Network (aka "DSN) on the sideline of the design process for Constellation deep space telecom. (Furthermore, GSFC at the time was lobbying to get new Earth orbiting telecom spacecraft launched and needed additional justification, ergo "they are good for Constellation"). I don't think the issue was every resolved one way or another as far as "official" definitions go and in the end, not much changed before Constellation was cancelled. The lesson is this: Words like "deep space" can mean a lot when government research centers are fighting to protect their charters and business base. I'm glad I'm out of that biz!

This is simply a rebranded Orion capsule. I worked on Constellation (from inside NASA) for years and helped the program get started. There is no rocket to launch the capsule. There is no mission for it. Nothing on the books, nothing remotely near ready for approval. Just how "deep" into space will it go with a mission time of 21 days? Hint: The Moon is not "deep space". Mars is deep space. Mars is at least 6 months away - one direction. Finally, how many times (altogether now) have we heard "advanced avionics"? That means they are up to Web 0.42 now, maybe. Bottom line: This is pure pork for Lockheed-Martin (Lockheed HQ is in Maryland; Dem. Senator Mikulski is on the Appropriation Committee). It is a multiple billion dollar gift. It will never fly. Ever. I'll bet a fair share of the related jobs go to Houston and to Huntsville, AL (Rep. Sen. Shelby, also on the Appropriations committee).

No they won't. g-mod organisms, stem cell research, cloning, synthetic biology, ethical treatment of robots ... none of these issue will ever be something that comes before voters. No decisions by voters matter. Scientific advance and technological engineering HAPPENS. All this will simply be part of the emerging future. The tragedy is the danger of a populace ill equipped to deal with it.

I totally agree. Worse yet, they are actively opposed to it in their ignorance.

It depends on what you want to do. If you want to communicate with other people nearby in the city, then peer-to-peer networking is the way to do it. Set up mobile hotspots with open access. With VoIP you can even use your mobile handsets. Vulnerable to jamming, snooping and RDF. If you want to reconnect with the global network, then a satellite link is one way, or packet data over ham freq, maybe bounced off the ionosphere.

There are upward of 70 microprocessors, 20 million lines of code (if you include multimedia tech) and hundreds of I/O ports in a typical upscale modern car. Manufacturers are moving towards in-car wireless networking to replace the enormous amount of cabling that current exists. Researchers have already demonstrated to seize control of the engine and brakes by hacking a couple of 2009 model year cars. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18901-modern-cars-vulnerable-to-malicious-hacks.html Considering that they won't let me use my ipod on an aircraft during takeoff and landing because IT MIGHT CRASH (tell me about it), yeah, count me worried about automobiles and other transportation as well.

Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation of the brain using induced currents has been around for quite a while. Google it. TMS of certain regions of the brain can induce spiritual feelings (in the religious sense). That said, TMS is a procedure for studying the brain, and uses sophisticated and precisely calibrated equipment you are unlikely to find in a haunted house!