Interesting Articles: Sep 12th-18th 2005

* People with malaria attract more mosquitoes (Science News). A disturbing and odd effect that increases the transmission rate of this disease. If you can't read the Science News article, the abstract of the paper Malaria Infection Increases Attractiveness of Humans to Mosquitoes (PLoS Biology, on which the Science News story was based) pretty much summarizes the experiment.
* Does the Truth Lie Within? (New York Times). On the neat things one can learn from self-experimentation.
* Movies put smoking in a bad light (Science News), based off the article Smoking in Contemporary American Cinema (American College of Chest Physicians). The real question is whether this having lower socioeconomic class characters (especially villains) more likely to smoke in movies (than protagonists or middle or upper class characters) deters or encourages smoking? And how does the characters-in-R-movies are more likely to smoke than the generate population play into it?
* Robotic Vehicles Race, but Innovation Wins (New York Times). A good narrative introduction to DARPA's Grand Challenge (though the article is definitely Stanford-focused).

* Under Pressure (New York Times). An interesting tale about how cryovacking (a.k.a. sous vide) is changing dishes at (high-end!) restaurants (for the better).
* No Heat Doesn't Mean No Sweat (New York Times). The author's experience as she attempts to prepare many raw food dishes and her reaction to whole craze.

Politics and Law:
* Tip-line bind: Follow the law in U.S. or EU? (Post Gazette). An example of (possibly) conflicting international laws. And notable because the EU realizes (rightly) that anonymous speech isn't necessarily all good and the US law (or at least Sarbanes-Oxley) doesn't (necessarily) reflect this observation (at least the same degree).
* March of the Conservatives: Penguin Film as Political Fodder (New York Times). The title says it: the article is about a take on the film (which I haven't seen) that I'd've never imagined.
* Confirm John Roberts. A clear and well-reasoned Washington Post editorial.

No comments: