Of course, movies have known for years that this was possible–it’s just taken reality a while to catch up.  Yes, science can see images in your brain, although for now it’s seemingly mostly proof-of-concept, and fairly limited.  (No full color perfect simulacra of your dreams, yet.)

“Researchers from Japan’s ATR Computational Neuroscience Laboratories have developed new brain analysis technology that can reconstruct the images inside a person’s mind and display them on a computer monitor, it was announced on December 11. According to the researchers, further development of the technology may soon make it possible to view other people’s dreams while they sleep.”

(Via Pinktentacle via Monocrom; also, the complete journal article is available online in PDF format: Neuron: “Visual Image Reconstruction from Human Brain Activity using a Combination of Multiscale Local Image Decoders” by Miyawaki et al. [11 Dec 2008])

Two tidbits from NewScientist:

1. Robots have made their first independent scientific discovery (i.e., made its own hypotheses based on data it was given, and then tested those hypotheses);
2. The internet might soon (or already) be self-aware.

Particularly when it includes things like this.

(via BoingBoing)

“I actually hate cotton candy,” Bellan said. “It’s disgusting. I won’t eat it.”

But on the other hand, the stuff’s apparently got potential as far as the growing human tissue goes.  (And, no, it’s not exactly new.  Not super-new, anyway.)

(via Monochrom)

Nothing I see or read does anything but convince me that Neil DeGrasse Tyson is even more awesome than I’d suspected.

p.s. although what is the square root of a pork chop?

(via monochrom)

Quote:

“One might be able to envision potential applications ranging from medical interventions to use in video gaming or the creation of artificial memories along the lines of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s character in ‘Total Recall.’ Imagine taking a vacation without actually going anywhere?

“Obviously, we need to conduct further research and development…”

(via io9, via EurekAlert: “Ultrasound shown to exert remote control of brain circuits” [29 Oct 2008])

After reading an article on 10 extinct beasts that might conceivably be reintroduced as living, breathing animals on planet earth, is it wrong that the thing I most fiercely crave is to watch a sci-fi movie where the phrase “it might be possible to boot up the moa genome in an ostrich egg” is used?

NewScientist examines 10 extinct species, and looks at the conveniences and difficulties of bringing back each one.

(For the impatient, the beasts are: sabre-toothed tiger, neanderthal, short-faced bear, tasmanian tiger, glyptodon, woolly rhinoceros, dodo, giant ground sloth, moa, Irish elk, giant beaver, and gorilla — which isn’t extinct, yet.)

(NewScientist, via Monochrom)

Say what you will of Lockheed-Martin’s take on Terminator: Sarah Connor Chronicles-as-documentary; this proof-of-concept (if that’s the right phrasing) test video is eerily captivating.

(References: http://www.mda.mil/mdalink/html/mdalink.html, http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/12/killing_robot_b.html, http://www.thirdeyeconcept.com/news/index.php?page=336)

(via Ectoplasmosis)

(2003) dir Jean-Paul Rappeneau – w/ Isabelle Adjani, Virginie Ledoyen, Gerard Depardieu, Yvan Attal, Peter Coyote, and Gregori Derangere as the hapless writer.  Starring some jugs of water as Heavy Water.

Synopsis: A scientist and his assistants, an actress, a writer framed for murder and his fellow escapee, a minister… and of course a Nazi spy.  In France, on the eve of World War II.

Review: I watched the preview for this movie, and knew I had to see it.  Then, months later, the movie in front of me, I read the description and was completely baffled.  I wanted to see this movie?

As it turns out, I did.

The movie has a richly textured plot — as it opens, a famous actress calls on a childhood neighbor and sweetheart to help cover up a murder (or was it?), which, in the middle of a rainstorm in the middle of a night, ends with him being stopped by the police, and arrested as a dead man falls out of his trunk.  Simple enough.  Throw in chance encounters, friendships formed over adversity, a looming war, political machinations of the rich and powerful, science, and you’re on a roll.  But the best thing about “Bon Voyage” is undoubtedly its characters.  They’re compelling, absurd, and full.  They’re awkward and uncertain and, even in the least likely scenarios, believable.  The brisk pace of the movie and the cartwheeling plot only helps things along.

Rating: [••••] out of [•••••]

As we become too lazy to do our own work, we send technologically augmented turtles and seals to be our detectives and scientists.

(via BoingBoing and NewScientist)

How long would Bruce Wayne have to train to become Batman?

In some of the timelines you see in the comics, the backstory is he goes away for five years—some it’s three to five years, or eight years, or 12 years. In terms of the physical changes (strength and conditioning), that’s happening fairly quickly. We’re talking three to five years. In terms of the physical skills to be able to defend himself against all these opponents all the time, I would benchmark that at 10 to 12 years. Probably the most reality-based representation of Batman and his training was in Batman Begins.

An interesting interview in Scientific American with a professor of kinesiology and neuroscience, tying into “The Dark Knight” and promoting a forthcoming book, Becoming Batman: The Possibility of a Superhero.

(And then of course there’s the question of who would win, in a universe of superheroes.  The battles have already been played out in the comicsverse, but of course not in the context of a rigorous, double-blind study.  Rigorous isn’t the right word, but HowStuffWorks looks at unlikely superhero match-ups in a vaguely science-y sort of way.  Starting off, quite naturally, with Superman vs. a Jedi.)

(Scientific American: “Dark Knight Shift: Why Batman Could Exist — But Not For Long,” by J.R. Minkel in conversation with E. Paul Zehr [14 Jul 2008]; and How Sutt Works: “Battling Blockbusters,” by Tracy Wilson and Robert Valdes [)

Your stomach will explode in fiery brilliance.

And yes, red gummy bears being excellent is scientific fact.

(via MAKE Blog)

Sort of.

The (terribly informal) verdict:

Believable: Iron Man, Batman

Unbelievable: The Incredible Hulk

Quote:

Now, many people are aware that the most incredible thing about the Hulk is the way his pants always stay on when he expands to ten times his original volume.

But did you also know:

The good superhero stories require only one miracle exemption from the laws of nature.

Oh.  You did?  Well then.

(via SciFi Scanner)