What it is: A new kind of question-answering system.

Examples

• Math: “2+2″ and then a few simple math questions: “integrate xsin^4xdx”, “what is the square root of 18″ etc.
• Business: “gdp france” showed amount and graph of how it changed over time. “gdp france/germany” showed graph with both amounts and the ratio
• “internet users in Europe”: Showed total, and a chart of usage by country in Europe, at the current time, specifically highlighting the biggest and smallest
• “ISS”: generates a graphic rendition of the international space station orbiting earth and updating in real-time
• “tides in san Francisco”: showed a graph of tides over time, where the times were listed in the local time regime current in the late 19th century for those data points. “tide NYC 11/12/1922” gave a single answer.
• “weather”: showed graph of average temperature in Cambridge, MA (where Stephen was when doing the demo). Based on reverse IP lookup.
• Computational fluid dynamics: typing in the name of a specific aerofoil produced a picture of that aerofoil along with its differential equations.
• stock prices: “MSFT CSCO” showed comparison chart
• chemicals: Substances at temperature or pressure, got physical properties calculated. “H2SO4” showed a diagram and chemical properties. “5 molar h2s04″ did something cool, I don’t know what.
• genome sequences: “AGTAG” shows sequences from the human genome that match that pattern
• data about people: “How old is Barack Obama” gives his age now. “When was Alan Turing born” gives the answer. “How old is Alan Turing” (a trick question) gives an error message with no human-readable explanation (True Knowledge, by contrast, tells you exactly why this is a trick question).

Coverage of data: It answers questions over the following types of structured data:

• static tables and databases (e.g. a database of internet usage by country by year)
• dynamic data feeds (e.g. historical stock market data, position of space shuttle, weather)
• numerical inference (e.g. math questions)
• numerical computations and simulations (e.g. tides, astronomy, chemistry)

In an analysis of the images appearing today in The Journal of Neurophysiology, researchers in New York and New Jersey argue that romantic love is a biological urge distinct from sexual arousal.
It is closer in its neural profile to drives like hunger, thirst or drug craving, the researchers assert, than to emotional states like excitement or affection. As a relationship deepens, the brain scans suggest, the neural activity associated with romantic love alters slightly, and in some cases primes areas deep in the primitive brain that are involved in long-term attachment.
In a series of studies, researchers have found that, among other processes, new love involves psychologically internalizing a lover, absorbing elements of the other person’s opinions, hobbies, expressions, character, as well as sharing one’s own. “The expansion of the self happens very rapidly, it’s one of the most exhilarating experiences there is, and short of threatening our survival it is one thing that most motivates us,” said Dr. Aron, of SUNY, a co-author of the study.

For a fascinating related book on the subject of neuroscience and romantic love, I recommend A General Theory of Love , by Thomas Lewis, Fari Amini, and Richard Lannon.

A pair of NASA scientists told a group of space officials at a private meeting here Sunday that they have found strong evidence that life may exist today on Mars, hidden away in caves and sustained by pockets of water.

The scientists, Carol Stoker and Larry Lemke of NASA’s Ames Research Center in Silicon Valley, told the group that they have submitted their findings to the journal Nature for publication in May, and their paper currently is being peer reviewed.

What Stoker and Lemke have found, according to several attendees of the private meeting, is not direct proof of life on Mars, but methane signatures and other signs of possible biological activity remarkably similar to those recently discovered in caves here on Earth.

These two scientists are colleagues of mine at NASA Ames. I am sure they are not happy to have this information leaked out of context of their journal article.  And in fact, NASA has issued a correction stating that while their research suggests where to look for life on Mars, there is no data from Mars as yet to support any conclusions. 

Whether or not they have really found evidence of life on mars, the article underscores a bitter irony facing NASA today. In order to support the new Exploration initiative (sending humans to the moon, and eventually to Mars), NASA is redirecting large portions of its funding away from science to pay for the construction of a new Crew Exploration Vehicle.  The NASA research centers (including Ames, where I work) are being hit hardest by these cuts. The same scientists and technologists who have dedicated decades to support understanding and exploration (NASA Ames has been the center of excellence for Astrobiology and Intelligent Systems, among other things) are now faced with deep cuts to their research programs and the possiblity that the entire center will be closed.  When I spoke with one researcher today, he said: “This is what I love, and what I want to do with my life.”  But given the dissolution of his world-class research group, he might just have to go work at google instead (joining several other NASA Ames alumni).

Wouldn’t it be ironic if NASA finally sends humans to Mars, only to find that the experts to tell them where to look for life have all moved on to new jobs?  Maybe this headline will be an alarm call to the new NASA Administrator to save the world-class institution before it is too late.