Here's what set me off this time:
R. sent me this because he thought it was funny. I guess, in a variety of ways, it is funny. I hope that the participants intended it to be funny. I'm worried, tho.
The short form: some Microsoft guys wanted a new way to kill mosquitos, you know, to help those poor people in Africa. They thought a laser might be a good idea. Some inventors at something called Intellectual Ventures Management came up with what they call a "photonic fence". Look, I checked the date, because I was wondering the same thing, too, but the date seems to be May 2010.
"If it could be done cheaply enough, this might offer the first really new way in many years to combat malaria, as well as other diseases transmitted by flying insects, such as West Nile virus and dengue fever."
I'll grant the "it's new!" part. I'm not gonna argue with that. But the "cheaply enough"? Seriously? If we can't afford to get everyone bed nets, you think you're going to install a bunch of computers, sensors and eye-safe lasers?
Turns out not. The eye-safe laser option that would kill mosquitoes is sufficiently unavailable and/or expensive that even these idiots balked at the price tag for their own backyard, much less those poor people in Africa (assuming they had remembered the nominal beneficiaries. Because let's face it, _no one_ is going to be sympathetic to this as a bunch of rich nerds trying to avoid getting bit during their backyard bbq. They'll just tell them to fork out for the propane-powered skeeter eaters.). Rather than abandon the idea, they suggest goggles all around.
I thought the whole golden rice thing was a crock, given the amount of rice that would have to be eaten, vs. the benefits of, say, having a few greens with the rice -- if you are too poor to afford the greens, you cannot possibly afford the golden rice. But this makes golden rice look downright reasonable.
I don't know whether there's a moral here.