Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

San Diego Zoo Creates Biomimicry Incubator

samzenpus posted about 2 years ago | from the float-like-a-butterfly-literally dept.

Biotech 76

waderoush writes "The San Diego Zoo has built a world famous reputation as a tourist destination, for helping to rescue the California Condor, and maybe (if you're old enough) for Joan Embery's appearances with Johnny Carson. Now the zoo is using its expertise to drive innovation by establishing a new 'Centre for Bioinspiration.' While the Anglicized spelling of 'center' might seem pretentious, the zoo has a down-to-earth goal of innovating through the emerging field of biomimicry, which is exemplified by Qualcomm's Mirasol display technology (the displays generate colors using the same type of interference between light waves that causes iridescence in butterfly wings). The center includes an incubator for developing new bio-inspired products and technologies, where ideas would be advanced to a proof of concept or working model, and then licensed. The incubator also intends to help develop bio-inspired ideas from outside the zoo."

cancel ×

76 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

wtf... (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41175869)

While the Anglicized spelling of 'center' might seem pretentious

You must be American to believe words can have social standing, I mean damn I guess that is why you had a war on "terror".
I am glad I am not a word in the dictionary, sounds like a very oppressive place to be. :-/

Re:wtf... (4, Informative)

norpy (1277318) | about 2 years ago | (#41175963)

The interesting thing is that "center" is actually the anglicised version of "Centre" which is a french word used in it's original form by the UK/Australia/NZ and others.

Re:wtf... (3, Insightful)

freetard (2718961) | about 2 years ago | (#41177113)

And those 'others' include all the Commonwealth countries, and former French colonies. Really, only the Americans spell it 'Center'- so they're the pretentious ones, going around making up their own 'special' version of English. Pretentious gits.

Re:wtf... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41179621)

Pronounce "center" as it is written: sent er. Pronounce "centre" as it is written: sent ree. We're more correct. Same thing for for math: 1+1=2 not boingy zoom frog pants or whatever the hell else the extraneous Brit "maths" say. Likewise sane people have sports while the Brits have only one sport named footcrickethockeytennispolorugbybadmintonball.

Re:wtf... (1)

camperdave (969942) | about 2 years ago | (#41179761)

Exactly. Center=middle. Centre=a place or building. eg. The center of town is the home of the Town Centre mall.

Re:wtf... (1)

fm6 (162816) | about 2 years ago | (#41180163)

Actually, Brits spell it "centre".

Re:wtf... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41176589)

maybe he is just an arse.

Re:wtf... (1)

fm6 (162816) | about 2 years ago | (#41180147)

Words don't have social standing? Try saying "what the fuck" next time you go for a job interview. If you live in the UK, the way you use language is a major class signifier. I remember mentioning the movie "Educating Rita" to a British colleague, and wincing at his characterization of the title character.

I agree that the whole concept of a "war on terror" is bogus. But that's not strictly an American thing. To quote George Orwell, "Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind."

The center/centre thing is interesting. Lots of words that end in "re" in British English end in "er" in American English, mainly because in the early 1800s Americans thought it was patriotic to use their own spelling rules. Since Canadians use British spelling, and a Canadian accent sounds pretentious to an American ear (as a member of a Canadian family who grew up in southern California, I have first-hand experience of this), using "centre" does indeed sound pretentious to many Americans But I suspect that in many cases (including this one) people just think that "centre" is the correct spelling.

stone crusher (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41175895)

Shanghai Shunky Machinery Co.,ltd is a famous manufacturer of crushing and screening equipments in China. We provide our customers complete crushing plant, including cone crusher, jaw crusher, impact crusher, VSI sand making machine, mobile crusher and vibrating screen. What we provide is not just the high value-added products, but also the first class service team and problems solution suggestions. Our crushers are widely used in the fundamental construction projects. The complete crushing plants are exported to Russia, Mongolia, middle Asia, Africa and other regions around the world.
http://www.sandmaker.biz
http://www.shunkycrusher.com
http://www.jaw-breaker.org
http://www.jawcrusher.hk
http://www.c-crusher.net
http://www.sandmakingplant.net
http://www.vibrating-screen.biz
http://www.mcrushingstation.com
http://www.cnstonecrusher.com
http://www.cnimpactcrusher.com
http://www.Vibrating-screen.cn
http://www.stoneproductionline.com
http://www.hydraulicconecrusher.net

Pretentious? (0)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 2 years ago | (#41175897)

Do Americans really see using centre instead of center as pretentious? We see people trying to use center in a misguided attempt to be cool or latch on to US culture as kinda lame.

Re:Pretentious? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41176005)

No.

Re:Pretentious? (3, Insightful)

Kreigaffe (765218) | about 2 years ago | (#41176225)

It's a bit idiotic to spell it as "centre", yes. That's not how it's spelled in the States. Do we consider it pretentious...? ... absolutely, yes. While you can get away with theatre for theater when your subject is legit theater, you'd get mocked as pretentious if your "theatre" was in reference to a street puppet show.

But.. Centre? That's nothing but elitists trying to distance themselves from the low-brow American and aping the erudite and superior European -- neither stereotype, of course, is accurate. It is what it is, though, and pretentious Americans tend to latch on to European spellings, habits, etc etc etc, in an effort to appear more fancy and sophisticated.

It's shallow, trite, and pointless -- and those who made the choice did so intentionally to affect an air of elegance and nobility. That's pretentious, yes.

Re:Pretentious? (1)

biodata (1981610) | about 2 years ago | (#41176865)

Maybe they aspire to make their centre international, rather than a local US center.

Re:Pretentious? (1)

fm6 (162816) | about 2 years ago | (#41180219)

Centre? That's nothing but elitists trying to distance themselves from the low-brow American and aping the erudite and superior European

Oh gawd. Not everything is about "elitists". When you see two spellings used, it's hard to remember which one is correct for your country. Probably most people who say "centre" think that that's the correct spelling when you talk about a building as opposed to a geometrical concept.

This is why I don't watch cable "news".

Re:Pretentious? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41182383)

Not everything is about "elitists".

True. But in this case, it is.

Re:Pretentious? (1)

Kreigaffe (765218) | about 2 years ago | (#41183631)

What? Um, no. Hard to remember which one is correct? Give me a break -- this is American English 101. Words don't end with -re, over a century ago they were changed to "-er". The ONLY time you'll see "centre" is on foreign-sourced and non-localized media.

Any Americans who use "centre" over "center", excepting those who have immigrated from an English-speaking nation that uses English-English, is doing so purposefully to affect a European feel to whatever it is they're saying or labeling -- because in their opinion, European means fancier. That's pretentious.

Re:Pretentious? (1)

fm6 (162816) | about 2 years ago | (#41183753)

Right, because everybody in the U.S. is so good at spelling.

We you one of those people who claimed that Obama was an elitist because he was heard asking for Poupon mustard for his burger?

Re:Pretentious? (1)

Kreigaffe (765218) | about 2 years ago | (#41183951)

You're reaching for fucking straws. Do you think they ACCIDENTALLY misspelled center as centre? It was *absolutely* a conscious decision.

I love how you're painting me as a right-wing whacko, though, merely because I'm not such an idiot to excuse away pretentiousness as a simple accident or misremembrance. No, asking for a type of mustard you like is not pretentious. Don't be a fucking idiot any more than you already have been.

Calling this place a "Centre" as opposed to "Center" is pretentious. It's a US institution masquerading as European. Ask yourself why that would be done. Seek the most simple explanation. People in the US often consider anything European to be superior to anything American, and it's horribly common to find little brats online who think they're better than their peers distinguishing themselves from the vast unwashed masses by using English rather than American spellings. The 15 year old from Nebraska who insists on spelling it "colour" because they've the opinion that using that spelling will make them appear more sophisticated than using the American spelling "color".

This is simply choosing the English-English spelling of a word in order to appear fancy.
That's pretentious.

This has nothing to do with politics, so kindly fuck right the hell off with that bullshit.

Re:Pretentious? (1)

fm6 (162816) | about 2 years ago | (#41184597)

Maybe you're not a right wing wacko, but the way you angrily and obsessively motives into a simple spelling error is pretty wacky.

Of course, I don't really know what's going on in other people's brains. And neither do you.

Re:Pretentious? (2)

1u3hr (530656) | about 2 years ago | (#41176343)

"Centre" is pretentious"??

At least it's actually a real word, if not the spelling you may prefer, unlike "Bioinspiration".

Re:Pretentious? (1)

flimflammer (956759) | about 2 years ago | (#41176837)

Er, what? Is this like a modern day "Television isn't a real word" type of deal?

Its gotta start somewhere. In this case, I've seen "Bioinspiration" used a number of times already.

Re:Pretentious? (1)

1u3hr (530656) | about 2 years ago | (#41179307)

Er, what? Is this like a modern day "Television isn't a real word" type of deal?

No, it's like the old days, when words were in "books", such as "dictionaries".

Its gotta start somewhere. In this case, I've seen "Bioinspiration" used a number of times already.

I don't read lot of zoo press releases, so I guess I'm out of the loop on this.

So is Google apparently [google.com]

Re:Pretentious? (1)

flimflammer (956759) | about 2 years ago | (#41181631)

No, it's like the old days, when words were in "books", such as "dictionaries".

New words come into use all the time. How many things do we say now that has no entry in a dictionary yet? Bioengineering wasn't in dictionaries until ~1955. Before that, I suppose we had cynics like you trying to mock it since it's a newer concept? Give me a break.

Correct English is pretentious? (5, Funny)

captainpanic (1173915) | about 2 years ago | (#41175901)

while Anglicized spelling of 'center' might seem pretentious

How is it pretentious to use correct spelling? Should they have called it the "Can I has Bioinspiration Centr, LOL"?

Re:Correct English is pretentious? (2)

Markizs (674865) | about 2 years ago | (#41175913)

Boinspraton centr, pls

Re:Correct English is pretentious? (2)

Kreigaffe (765218) | about 2 years ago | (#41176259)

It would be correct if this was in the UK, or Australia. Maybe Canada, I'm actually not sure how they spell it.. but here in the States nobody spells it that way. Here, it's tire, not tyre. It's jail, not gaol. Center, not centre. Color, not colour.

The other spellings are recognized, and not incorrect.. but not correct, either.

But hey, I'm sure the English don't mind one bit when the English-English spelling of a word is discarded for the American English spelling of a word, right?

Re:Correct English is pretentious? (2)

zakkie (170306) | about 2 years ago | (#41176647)

American English is a fallacy. There's English, and there's wrong.

Re:Correct English is pretentious? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41176703)

It would be correct if this was in the UK, or Australia. Maybe Canada, I'm actually not sure how they spell it.. but here in the States nobody spells it that way.

Nobody said it was wrong, we just can't understand why it's pretentious.

From Dictionary.com: Adjective:
Attempting to impress by affecting greater importance, talent, culture, etc., than is actually possessed.

How does using the accepted UK spelling imply that they're bluffing about their level of talent/importance?

Re:Correct English is pretentious? (1)

flimflammer (956759) | about 2 years ago | (#41176907)

It's practically the definition of pretentious. There is no reason to use the UK spelling in the states outside of marketing purposes, unless you're all from the UK and can't drop the habit. They're just using the centre spelling opposed to center to appear more sophisticated because that's often an image Joe Random here tends to get in their heads when we think about European culture, regardless of its grounding in reality. It's nothing more than a marketing tactic.

Re:Correct English is pretentious? (1)

freetard (2718961) | about 2 years ago | (#41177143)

Canada, yes. We try as much as possible to use the correct spelling of words we've stolen from other languages- it at least gives a nod to the original owners. Americans are like 'Pfft, this old word? Hell no, we made it up! Sure, it sounds just like yours, and means the same, but we totally made it up ourselves- look! It's not even spelled the same! We've got "color", "advertize", "monetize", "monopolize", "bastardize", and "center", just to mention a few! And they're spelled proper, too!'

only pretentious thing is the article summary (4, Informative)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | about 2 years ago | (#41175919)

1. Too, many, commas;

2. "(if you're old enough)" is redundant - we can work out our own ages and guess why we may not have heard of something;

3. Never use the phrase "drive innovation" unless you're writing a management speak generator;

4. British English is still spoken by far more people than American;

5. What is the purpose of biomimicry? Don't give me an example - give me some idea of why it's useful so I want to read more;

6. The display "generate colors" - submitter was clearly so proud of being able to insert a non-pretentious Americanised spelling that he forgot his gramma;

7. (don't explain things in brackets like this);

8. For "products and technologies, where ideas would be advanced to a proof of concept or working model...", see 3. Too much babble. How about "An incubator will develop proofs of concept or working models for licensing";

9. What is "bioinspiration"?

Why, yes, I did get out on the wrong side of the bed this morning, but that doesn't excuse this summary.

pretentious vs pedantic slop (3, Interesting)

Penurious Penguin (2687307) | about 2 years ago | (#41176003)

I'll take the trace-elements of pretentiousness and excessive punctuation allegedly within the article-summary gladly before I'll tolerate another narcissistic frothing comment from another hissing pedant of trivialities. Lighten up folks. Why not be satisfied that other slashers are trying. As if the NSA couldn't find some old POS you wrote somewhere along the path of life. And the same for anyone else too. Also, don't take this personally -- it was an opportunity to address multiple grouches at once. At least you provided what could possibly be argued as constructive criticism.

I didn't get up on the wrong side of the bed; I just aint gotten into it yet.

Re:pretentious vs pedantic slop (5, Interesting)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | about 2 years ago | (#41176029)

The art of communication is the art of being understood.

The art of rhetoric is the art of convincing others.

Primary source authors can often get away with doing neither well - their readers know the field and can fill in the gaps. But the only purpose of a site like Slashdot, pointless comment threads excepted, is to effectively communicate on what is reported elsewhere.

The same problem is apparent in Wikipedia. There are clearly many Wikipedia authors who either know the established parts of their field well or who know where to find relevant information. But it is so rare to find people who are good at presenting information. There is, alas, a modern notion that it is sufficient to merely know something but unnecessary to be able to understand and articulate your factoid. I have have never seen people more angry at me than when I ask them to explain themselves.

Re:pretentious vs pedantic slop (2)

Penurious Penguin (2687307) | about 2 years ago | (#41176073)

Beautifully said and even informative; but I still think the 'community' could use a little less venom and bit more positive input. The comment directly below says a lot. Not only do superfluous vilifications of the author distract from the article, many are oft no more eloquent than what they strive to belittle.
Now on to Biomimicry?

Re:pretentious vs pedantic slop (1)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | about 2 years ago | (#41176327)

Yeah, I know. Like I said, I got out on the wrong side of the bed.

I intend to use this thread this morning to distract myself and release my inner minor irritation.

Re:pretentious vs pedantic slop (1)

1u3hr (530656) | about 2 years ago | (#41176369)

. Not only do superfluous vilifications of the author distract from the article

The author invited it with his superfluous vilification of the use of the word "Centre" right at the top of the summary, and it has had the effect of turning the enter focus of discussion away from whatever the hell "bioinspiration" is to debating the degree of pretentiousness of an inoffensive word.

Re:pretentious vs pedantic slop (0)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | about 2 years ago | (#41176903)

So, you're a deleter, then. Wikipedia groans under the weight of pricks like you. Who else would have even made the connection to Wikipedia? We weren't talking about it...you just...brought it up apropos of nothing, for some strange reason known only to yourself.

Re:pretentious vs pedantic slop (1)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | about 2 years ago | (#41177089)

So, you're a deleter, then.

So far all we've established is that I don't like bad writing. Maybe I make it better. Maybe I just sit back and mock it. Maybe I was Willy on Wheels. When you conjecture, you might as well conjecture big.

Wikipedia groans under the weight of [people who you think make it lighter]

Now that was just funny all by its lonesome.

Who else would have even made the connection to Wikipedia?

When discussing the art of communication in the context of summarising existing information, it seems relevant to mention the biggest effort in summarising existing information that the world has ever seen.

For you, I shall aim lower next time.

Re:pretentious vs pedantic slop (0)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | about 2 years ago | (#41177161)

In other words, you spoke up regarding what you constantly think about. And yet...deny it, and say it's obvious if you were only as smart as me. Lesser beings deserve to be mocked. Yup, wikipedia deleter all the way.

Re:pretentious vs pedantic slop (1)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | about 2 years ago | (#41177325)

I barely involve myself in Wikipedia and I've never deleted a thing from it. It would be akin to burning a bunch of schoolkids' rough class notes: not very warming.

But I remark on it because it's so popular and guaranteed to elicit unwarranted passion from some dork.

Also, you may be frothing internally. The NHS can help with that.

Re:pretentious vs pedantic slop (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | about 2 years ago | (#41178967)

The same problem is apparent in Wikipedia. There are clearly many Wikipedia authors who either know the established parts of their field well or who know where to find relevant information. But it is so rare to find people who are good at presenting information. There is, alas, a modern notion that it is sufficient to merely know something but unnecessary to be able to understand and articulate your factoid. I have have never seen people more angry at me than when I ask them to explain themselves.

Same goes for many things, software included. There's lots of technically brilliant pieces of software (e.g., Linux), but they tend to "speak" only to those in the field (i.e., Linux users). Attempts to try to "explain" it to others leads to complaints of "dumbing down" and "too different" (see all the comments about people replacing X with Wayland or other window system, Unity, etc).

Or hell, everytime Apple comes up - how their stuff is not technically very advanced, as Apple concentrates more on the presentation of said technology to those outside the field (i.e., user interface).

The real problem is that those in the field believe they are the ones who are so important because they do the work, disrespecting those who merely "parrot" their work as doing nothing (as in, it's easy to communicate said work to the general public). Of course it's never that simple (it just appears that way) as the communicators have to be both fluent in the field and able to relate the subject matter to those outside the field, which is actually an extraordinarily difficult job that everyone thinks is easy. (Try UI design, for example - software engineers think it's easy, but creating a good UI is actually exremely complicated - it is simple enough to toss a few buttons and text fields on a screen, but it's hard to properly figure out where and how each button and field has to be arranged).

It's also the reason why science journalism typically sucks. The people doing the research think they can talk to the press and the press understands the entire field of research that was their life-long project, but the journalist's only experience they can relate to is their own and details end up being reported incorrectly (usually big ones too because they get understated). The flip side also happens - said jouralists avoid the communicators because they're scripted and "dumb down" the information (even though they explain it clearer), and want to get to the source, thinking they can understand it all).

Re:pretentious vs pedantic slop (1)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | about 2 years ago | (#41179079)

Well said.

Re:only pretentious thing is the article summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41176051)

Bioinspiration is a refinement of the older term biomimicry. Which sounds familiar because it was used in the very next sentence that described what the center does.

Also, you could have realized it's a new word for you and googled it to make it one you know. Look up "self improvement" and "self respect" while you're at it.

And yeah, you already bitched about "biomimicry". That was in the same item where you whined about wanting more ass-licking to get you to lift your incredibly heavy fingers to do that incredibly difficult mouse-click to find out more.

You're not a nerd. You're a fucking couch potato.

Re:only pretentious thing is the article summary (1)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | about 2 years ago | (#41176107)

Bioinspiration is a refinement of the older term biomimicry.

How has it been refined? Why has it been refined? Why isn't this indicated in the summary?

Also, you could have realized it's a new word for you and googled it

Yeah, I also could follow other passive news aggregators or read domain-specific news sites or perhaps wait for the centre to find something worth publishing in an academic journal. All of these things are possible without visiting Slashdot.

to make it one you know.

And that's another problem with the Internet - people feel that you can learn something just by using a layman's search engine like Google and checking a site or two. Google is great for getting me a hundred non-authoritative responses to any question I may feel like posing, many of which will be wrong at best and misleading at worst. I have in neither mathematics nor law ever found anything remarkable with a Google search.

Look up "self improvement" and "self respect" while you're at it.

I would like to see Slashdot be as good as it can be, or at least as good as it once was, therefore I have no self respect.

And yeah, you already bitched about "biomimicry"

What?

That was in the same item where you whined about wanting more ass-licking to... blah blah keyboard warrior

Like most clever people, I learn best from straight answers to straight questions, not from jock sarcasm. Thanks for teaching me almost nothing.

Re:only pretentious thing is the article summary (-1, Troll)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | about 2 years ago | (#41176197)

As an American who's coming up on his tenth anniversary of being overseas full-time, I can say only this: respect your heritage. Say center and truck and elevator and for fuck's sake don't say 'cheers mate'. Be who you are, without apology. Only the douchiest Americans abroad have a hard-on for British English. Don't Britishize yourself - the first people to ridicule you will be the Brits themselves. And as for Americans who are still in America desperately trying to prove how internationally aware they are by self-consciously pointing out how they're using British spellings...well there's a chart out there somewhere similar to this [wordpress.com] with this sort of American ranked as one of the furries.

Re:only pretentious thing is the article summary (2)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | about 2 years ago | (#41176237)

Be who you are, without apology.

The polar opposite of "When in Rome...", this is exactly why everyone abroad merely tolerates the American guest.

OBL was being who he was without apology on 9/11.

Anyway, Britain's heritage forms part of America's heritage.

Re:only pretentious thing is the article summary (1)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | about 2 years ago | (#41176583)

Uh, yeah, "be who you are" does not mean mass murder. I see what you did there.

Without a doubt, the douchiest Americans I have ever met were the ones who went out of their way to show how un-American they were. When you live in a virtual UN of people, you learn to appreciate humans for who they are. You're from outer Farkistan? Rock on man, do your thing. You're from Iowa? Let's see you throw a party with barbecued corn. You're from the UK? Cool man, that's your wife in the burka. You just do what you do, and people respect you for being true to your own culture.

Re:only pretentious thing is the article summary (0)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | about 2 years ago | (#41177391)

"be who you are" does not mean mass murder

OK, it means "be who you are except when DNS-and-BIND disapproves".

When you live in a virtual UN

You live among a bunch of upper-middle class humdrum bureaucrats waving around their Laissez-passers like they own the world?

for being true to your own culture

My spidey-stats-sense says that being true to your culture means staying in the USA.

Of course, what you're implying is that people should behave like their ancestors rather than learn and adapt. And that's just awful.

(Thanks for giving me a target for my morning grumpiness. You are proving unchallenging, however.)

Re:only pretentious thing is the article summary (2)

19thNervousBreakdown (768619) | about 2 years ago | (#41176351)

You pick up the speech patterns of people you hang out with. I can't say I've picked up much, if any, but I hang out with and talk to a lot of British folks every day, and if something came out, I wouldn't try to suppress it. That's being who you are. Hanging on to the same way you talked yesterday and ridiculing anyone who doesn't do the same is just part of being a bitter old ... douche.

By the way, where do you suppose "for fuck's sake" started?

Re:only pretentious thing is the article summary (1, Funny)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about 2 years ago | (#41176213)

1. Too, many, commas;

It's comas, and yes, the article, might have caused, a few to menny.

2. "(if you're old enough)" is redundant

Unless you're too old to realize you're old enough, or are suffering from a recent coma...

3. Never use the phrase "drive innovation"

What if it's the drive you're innovating? Blanket statements are typically wrong; Never say never again.

4. British English is still spoken by far more people than American;

Yes, by all the pretentious people. It's quite a problem if you ask me.

5. What is the purpose of biomimicry?

Obviously to Mimic Life, you ignorant twit.

6. The display "generate colors" - submitter was clearly so proud ... he forgot his gramma;

It's grammar, and yes the submitter already remarked he was proud of being both old enough and American. Fortunously us US citizens utilize our amazing organic information processing units and thus can forgive a few errors, unlike the pretentious strictly structured mechanizations that trip up if you so much as add an erroneous semicolon.

7. (don't explain things in brackets like this);

Why (the hell) not? Are parentheticals out of style now? Fucking hipster.

8. ... Too much babble. How about "An incubator will develop proofs of concept or working models for licensing";

Pot, meet kettle. How about, "An incubator helps gets shit started." Oh, but then we wouldn't need the sentence at all, because that IS what Incubator means!

9. What is "bioinspiration"?

Inspired by life. Are you Daft?

Why, yes, I did get out on the wrong side of the bed this morning, but that doesn't excuse this summary.

Let me get this straight, you got out of bed on the wrong side, and instead of taking a power nap to right things you ranted some useless drivel on Slashdot? For fuck's sake man, seek medical attention. Like I said before, you have an amazing organic computer atop your shoulders. We get it. We've got 'em too! That the communication was sufficient for you to understand it should be satisfactory. You might want to ask your doctor about a subscription to porn and blood pressure meds...

Re:only pretentious thing is the article summary (2)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | about 2 years ago | (#41176315)

Yes, a real response, bravo.

What if it's the drive you're innovating?

It's "innovation" that really gets my goat - "drive" is just yellow icing on the turd. But your suggestion would produce the most degenerate adjectival phrase. A phrase is more than a sequence of words, except in the dictionaries which try to claim otherwise.

Obviously to Mimic Life, you ignorant twit.

That's the meaning. I might as well have asked you, "What's the purpose of a cat?" and received the response, "To have four legs and a tail," you armpit-smelling bureaucrat.

Fortunously us US citizens utilize our amazing organic information processing units and thus can forgive a few errors

It's true - Americans forgive the minor errors and give their full support to all the major ones.

Inspired by life. Are you Daft?

I refer the sewer-dwelling evangelist to my previous answer.

You might want to ask your doctor about a subscription to porn and blood pressure meds.

Long live the NHS!

Re:only pretentious thing is the article summary (1)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | about 2 years ago | (#41176359)

8. ... Too much babble. How about "An incubator will develop proofs of concept or working models for licensing";

Pot, meet kettle. How about, "An incubator helps gets shit started." Oh, but then we wouldn't need the sentence at all, because that IS what Incubator means!

This is a wonderful illustration of the hamster wheel turning in a yankee brain when pushed gently. You are either more expressive than I give Americans credit for, or an observant Englishman.

Re:only pretentious thing is the article summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41176667)

Beautiful.

Re:only pretentious thing is the article summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41177885)

5. What is the purpose of biomimicry? Don't give me an example - give me some idea of why it's useful so I want to read more;

The purpose is to tell to the world: "I can't spell 'biomimetics' !"

Re:only pretentious thing is the article summary (1)

mcgrew (92797) | about 2 years ago | (#41178869)

British English is still spoken by far more people than American;

Not where this museum is located -- in America, as others have commented above.

What is "bioinspiration"?

That's easy enough to figure out just by dissecting the word. Bio Inspiration; e.g., inspired by biology.

Why, yes, I did get out on the wrong side of the bed this morning, but that doesn't excuse this summary.

I've redefined "aliterate" to mean not someone who can read but doesn't (the real meaning) to someone who reads nothing but the internet. I think the "editors" fall into this group. When you see "thing's(like this)in they're" comments so often, it seems most slashdotters don't read books, either.

Re:only pretentious thing is the article summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41183707)

I'm with you on those complaints. I thought I was the only one who got to the end of the summary and still had no idea what it was talking about.

How to avoid a discussion of TFA (-1, Flamebait)

asc99c (938635) | about 2 years ago | (#41175935)

Point out a spelling oddity to the slashdot crowd. So far, not a single comment about TFA...

Re:How to avoid a discussion of TFA (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41175955)

Yeah and the first person to talk about the article has to hand in their geek card.

Re:How to avoid a discussion of TFA (1)

Penurious Penguin (2687307) | about 2 years ago | (#41176105)

*Hands in geek card* Would it be offensive to suggest the Chinese are going to be super-badass in the field of Biomimicry in the future? They sure are getting a lot of experience in reverse-engineering.

Re:How to avoid a discussion of TFA (1)

DarwinSurvivor (1752106) | about 2 years ago | (#41176111)

I think it's time for the person that hands them out in the first place to hand THEIRS in!

Re:How to avoid a discussion of TFA (1)

fredrated (639554) | about 2 years ago | (#41177541)

Wow, your'e 'flamebait' for pointing out that the whole of slashdot is distracted from an interesting concept by a gnat that flies accross the screen!

What was the subject again? (1)

ukoda (537183) | about 2 years ago | (#41176135)

I'm guessing there will be more discussion on the correct spelling of 'Centre' than the actual topic at hand...

Re:What was the subject again? (3, Insightful)

ciderbrew (1860166) | about 2 years ago | (#41176165)

Nothing to discuss. Centre = correct. Center = correct. English English, English being more correct :)

Re:What was the subject again? (1)

Inda (580031) | about 2 years ago | (#41176697)

We call it The Queen's English and it is the true form of English.

Sumit ta do wiv dat Shakingspear bloke, me finks.

Re:What was the subject again? (2)

Penurious Penguin (2687307) | about 2 years ago | (#41176243)

There have been some pretty impressive biomimicry innovations in adhesives through beetles. By skipping to minute 45:50 of this pretty neat BBC documentary, Plastic - How it Works [youtube.com] , you can see a cool example.

Now about that spelling....

Re:What was the subject again? (1)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | about 2 years ago | (#41176429)

The intelligentsia are increasingly detached from the needs of the people. Those who follow them are even less relevant. It would be as productive for us to talk about either.

Innovation? (2)

Covalent (1001277) | about 2 years ago | (#41176481)

According to the next article, this apparently means that this new center won't really do anything. After reading how "buzz-wordy" the summary was, I can see why the authors feel that way. All this summary said to me was "zoo buzzword buzzword buzzword' which translates to "zoo overpriced dull ill-advised".

Re:Innovation? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 2 years ago | (#41177275)

When I saw "biomimicry incubator" I thought "hey cool, an incubator more like the underside of a duck's ass, will that improve incubation times or something? Or is this the first step towards axolotl tanks?" And then I found out that they were using the word "incubator" in the stupid slangy sense, not the literal one. That's what makes it a stupid cutesy name, and thus, a stupid cutesy title for the article. It's not an incubator, it's a laboratory or maybe a think tank if you want to get traditionally cutesy.

Re:Innovation? (1)

mcgrew (92797) | about 2 years ago | (#41183191)

Or is this the first step towards axolotl tanks?

I see you never finished the series. The axolotl tanks turned out to be human women. As to "incubator," that's a business term, and IMO shouldn't be used on a nerd site without explanation. I mean, you wouldn't talk about pions on a business site without explaining what they were... if an MBA could actually understand the explanation in the first place. It would be like Sheldon trying to explain something to Penny.

Re:Innovation? (1)

mark-t (151149) | about 2 years ago | (#41178639)

I'm sorry, but don't you think that your post treads dangerously close to being a bit too on-topic for this article discussion?

One story to prove another (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41177081)

This was funny because the previous story is "Is Innovation the Most Abused Word In Business?" and this one started banging on about driving innovation. I'm pretty sure other places have opened a center/centre before to try and come up with new ideas...

On the shelf (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41177209)

Biomimicry textbooks belong on the shelf next to Age of Aquarius paeans and Alchemy manuals. I've witnessed some high profile biomimicry gatherings before, and it was fruity nut cake heaven. There are germs of interesting ideas in there, but try talking to some hard-core practitioners sometime and you'll know what I mean.

Re:On the shelf (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41177271)

Actually, "practitioner" is too strong a word. Wanna-be practitioner would be more accurate. Most of the biomimicry disciples I've met spend lavish sums to attend biomimicry workshops to obtain certificates proclaiming their biomimicry expertise so that they can be the first movers in this exciting new field with explosive growth potential before everyone else catches on. So far, it seems much easier for these folks to write checks than to get checks...

WGASA Monorail (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41178455)

You'll love the name of the San Diego Zoo's monorail: "WGASA" -- short for "Who gives a shit, anyway?" http://www.snopes.com/business/names/wgasa.asp.

(Well, technically, it's the monorail at the Zoo's Wild Animal Park, which now is called Safari Park.)

A comment about the Zoo (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41179321)

Wow, 60 comments and all of them about the use of the word pretentious, "centre" vs "center", and too many commas.

Well, I am going to comment about the zoo. I am born and raised in San Diego and have always been a San Diego Zoological Society member. If you're ever in San Diego the Zoo and it's nearby contemporary the Wild Animal Park (now called the Zoo Safari park, what a stupid name) are must see places to go. You can see creatures here that you can't find anywhere else, plus they have really done some amazing things with helping endangered animals. The San Diego Zoo is the only Zoo allowed to house giant pandas on a permanent basis (they are entirely controlled by China), mostly due to the fact that they are the only place outside of China to breed them in capitivity. They have done excellent work in helping the California Condor come back from near extinction, amongst numerous other things. Their exhibits are top notch. The "Zoo Safari" has an enclosure that is about a third of the land of the entire park, and houses many animals together to simulate an African Savannah ( no predators, but quite a large variety of animals). You can take a truck safari through the enclosure and get right up to the animals and see them up close; it's fantastic.

Those two and Sea World also located in San Diego makes San Diego a really interesting location for anyone interested in conservation and protection of endangered species; you can see animals from all over the world in just one trip. All are worth going to if you happen to be in San Diego.

Re:A comment about the Zoo (1)

enilnomi (797821) | about 2 years ago | (#41180051)

I have two recollections of the San Diego Zoo, despite never having been there: the first is of Joan Embry, on Carson; the other is Jerry Pournelle, speaking as the character "Nat Reynolds," giving a shout-out to his brother George in the pages of Footfall -- George had some rhinos to house at the zoo, but he didn't know what temperature they needed their water at. So, he threw a gradient across the pool and let them figure it out.

Unfortunately, to avoid an Off-Topic mod, I don't know how many commas he mis-used in making that happen...

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>