I'd love to know more from the doctors in the house how this poor kid's been able to survive. My understanding that sleep deprivation kills a normal brain after 9-10 days. When I Googled this, I found there are claims that people have made it 18-20 days without shut-eye, but those haven't been substantiated: the actual Guinness record is 11 days. Also discovered that there is something called "microsleep" that doesn't help the parents too much but might explain how the little guy's been able to make it. Like I said, I'd love to know more.

"Curator euthanizes living leather jacket made from Lou Diamond Phillips stem-cells."

Now that's a headline.

This may be the single coolest headline I have ever read.

@25 Zombiefodder -- Now THAT'S disturbing. Excellent find.

This mashup is okay, but it's got nothing on the iconic Kikkoman commercial:

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/kikkoman-e

Apologies in advance for the NQ, but I think Mr. Chan is erroneously assuming that a Balrog is made up exclusively of measurable states of matter. Not sure how much every-day physics applies to demons of fire and shadow. Fire, as well as I can remember my physics class, is a plasma, and I'm pretty sure you can't measure the mass of a plasma by dunking it in water and then multiplying up. And I don't think current physics has figured out how to measure the mass of shadows. (If so, please correct me.)

FWIW, the Wikipedia entry says this of balrogs: "While not specifically stated by Tolkien, it seems that Balrogs were partially fixed in their fiery demonic forms in the same way. Tolkien describes them as 'spirits' of fire and 'great shadows.' As a result, it is uncertain whether the Balrogs were somewhat ethereal."

I also think using a toy model misses one important step: when scientists build scale models of dinosaurs, they are basing their models on discovered fossils. We may have to hold off on this analysis until we find a balrog femur or two.

Wait, did I miss something? The Teletubbies are Indian singing condoms now?

Just want to point out that the sentence right after the one Cory quotes is the one I found the most releaving in the article:

"Rowling, 42, said if she had known that would be the response, she would have revealed her thoughts on Dumbledore earlier."

Revealed where, precisely? In the novels, perhaps? Did she withhold this information because she thought it would be unpopular? Backs up what Dan was saying in post 2.

Also, as a side note for you Potter fans: don't you think this is precisely the sort of detail scandal-loving Rita Skeeter would have revealed in her tell-all biography?

I'm actually kinder to Rowling in my own blog post, but I won't take up more space here.

I read the first story in this cycle in one of the recent Best SF of the Year Anthologies, and thought it was pretty good, if not exactly mind-blowing. I didn't quite follow the part where, after the nants ate the world, they hatched it up again simple because they were reversed-computed. Wouldn't eaten things simply dissipate in this case? Though I admit that, existentially speaking, having people reappear after reverse-computing is much more interesting.

And the other stories sound much twistier, so my interest is piqued.

You know what would make this world a lot better? A lot more breathless hyperbole -- especially when it comes to reacting to art.

Any critic who is incapable of it, who depends instead on irony and disinterest and the jejune neutrality of an impoverished imagination, shouldn't be a critic.