Nature can be a cruel mistress. The combination of chance, accidents, and selection had shaped this world and its inhabitants for eons. If something ceased to exist (not by our doing) would it be well for us to bring it back? Or would it be playing God for us to interfere in the course of nature? 

Keith McLachlan parallels this conundrum in his story.

Nuclear chemistry is a field that straddles both physics and chemistry. This holds no surprise as chemistry is, in a way, a subset of applied physics. Therefore things that are usually linked to physics (radiation, and subatomic particles) can and will affect things we interact with in our lives - thing that are ultimately chemicals.

Just don't press your luck on becoming the Incredible Hulk.

With artificial intelligence being the next bog thing in tech circles, industrialist are looking at its applications in the next wave of the past successive industrial revolutions - tentatively called "IR 4.0". But what about its application onto the other side of the human condition - aesthetics and beauty - may they be in the form of words, sounds or sights?

Can robot be truly creative? To create, and even appreciate, beauty? Because that would truly be revolutionary!

IFSA alumnae Dr Clarissa Lee has published a book. Here is the link to the online book store of Gerakbudaya, the book's publisher.

How do we define everything around us? By it's shape, colour, or texture? Defining a chair as 'medium sized' and 'brown' may be useful in the subjective art of interior decoration, but to an objective eye they're not very helpful. Imagine then if we are to describe the motion of planets, the orbit of satellites, the flow of water through a hydroelectric dam, or the flow of electricity in a microprocessor. Subjectivity is not an option, and any impreciseness or subjectivity in standards may spell disaster.

It's a good thing we figured that out in the 19th century, as without it it would not make the 20th and 21st centuries possible.