Ten Young Geniuses Shaking Up Science Today

I enjoyed the article, but was disappointed at first, because whomever posted (or wrote) it, did not bother to proof read it. The subject person featured, is introduced as "Michael Strand (also under the photo), but the whole article is about Michael Strano. I assume, for research purposes, the latter is accurate.

I know how!
When I was litle saw Star Wars too, but I was impress from the flying machines and now I'm able to make "Snow-Speeder" for example!!! And I have some ideas for new materials and way for fly including revolutionary engines...
Need only MONEY!!!

Lextir: These are called "typos" in the language of writers. "Typo" stands for typographical error. Errors are often defined as "common mistakes". Mistaking the name Strano for Strand by someone writing headings and captions, (as opposed to the individual who wrote the report and, hopefully, did research sufficient to get the subject's name right) is not impossible. They are similar, and Strand is somewhat more common that Strano. Nor does it require an arrogant and supercilious response. Somebody made a mistake. We humans, most of the rest of us being mere mortals, do that on occasion.

Lextir, Observer is right. It was probably a typo. An example of poor proofing was kindly provided by Observer when he said, "We humans, most of the rest of us being mere mortals, do that on occasion."
If proofed, that statement would have benefited from hyphens rather than the use of commas to express his thoughts.

Well, typos aside, I enjoyed it. As a university teacher of writing and myself a writer, I can observe that the choice in the instance cited between commas and hyphens is a toin coss, really; not all rules of punctuation and grammar were written on the backside of the 10 Commandments, after all! ;-) A little individual choice is stilly permissable, even in, say, the MLW Stylesheet and the Chicago Manual of Style.

While realizing these young people are genuinely exceptional, they do provide encouragement that not *all* of us are lazy sloths (as I tend to be, so I'm looking in the mirror!).

Part of the excitement about the areas in which these folks are working is that any of those areas could yield applicable results in the wider world at lightening speed. (Of course, it may turn out that none of them work out for years or decades to come, or maybe not at all.)

But consider something I read online just yesterday: about 10 of today's better work fields didn't EXIST -- just six years ago. (No, I didn't do the research to verify that.)

Then there's the exponential growth in knowledge; call it "Moore's Law Writ Large," if you will. A desktop computer I bought in 1997 had more processing power than the entire Mission Control in Houston had when we landed the first men on the Moon -- and that's from NASA, which happened to have an article using my exact computer as a comparison, not from the manufacturer. And that's stunning.

Further, the people who are the subjects of this article will undoubtedly inspire even younger young, bright sparks who will light their own torches.

Sigh. Who am I to talk? MLA Stylesheet, not MLW!!!

I wish these fascinating articles would have more detail such as components of the robot and what the robot in the picture can actually do.

Me too. Unfortunately this site is more about making money, and itwould cost more to hire competent writers that are willing to flesh out a story with facts, pictures (useful ones not taken by Vinny), and explanations. Yes it is harder than regurgitating facts, but it is what people come here to read.