For a different slant on the world, try Conservapedia, an online encyclopedia set up for those “tired of the Liberal bias every time (they) search on Google and a Wikipedia page appears”.

The site was started up in November, 2006, by with the rallying cry: “Now it’s time for the Conservatives to get our voice out on the Internet!”

In its outline of its differences from Wikipedia, Conservapedia’s editors cite the banning of citations from journalists, with obscenity, and of “liberal censorship of conservative facts”.

Commandments such as those have led to some strange meanderings. Go to the definition of “Creationism”, and you get a reasonably sober account. You have to head over to “Evolution”, to get very little about Darwin and a full blast of the Creationist argument, set up to seem as a second, equally valid interpretation of nature.

The article rounds out its argument against evolution by muttering that current scientific community consensus is no guarantee of truth, sealing the matter by bringing in some weird stuff about snakes: “In addition, Biblical creationists can point out examples where the scientific community was in error and the Bible was clearly correct,” says the writers. “For example, until the 1970s, the scientific community’s consensus on how lions killed their prey was in error and it appears as if the Bible turned out to be right in this matter. Also, for centuries the scientific community believed that snakes could not hear and the 1988 edition of The New Encyclopaedia Britannica stated the snakes could not hear but that was mistaken and is appears as if the Bible was correct in this matter.”

Those difference would seal the overthrow of Darwin! At least according to Conservapedia. Perhaps the best part is the 41 examples the editors have listed as bias in Wikipedia.

One alleged example is the sometimes use of UK English spellings instead US spellings.

“Wikipedia often uses foreign spelling of words, even though most English-speaking users are American,” the editors declare.

Still there are serious points to be made about bias in Wikipedia. So while much of Conservapedia’s list of supposed bias verges on the trivial, at least the site has set up question marks about the process of creating an encyclopedia by consensus.H<$>ere are some developments in the research pipeline that might show up in your gadget in-box some day. In this portable infomatic world, two research could spell interesting breakthroughs for those on the go.

In one, researchers at Saint Louis University in Missouri claim to have developed a fuel cell battery that runs on virtually any sugar source. This could include a can of soft drink or tree sap.

The energy source has the potential to operate three to four times longer on a single charge than conventional lithium ion batteries, they say. The new battery is also biodegradable.

Study leader Shelley Minteer notes that a few other researchers also have developed fuel cell batteries that run on sugar, but she claims that her version is the longest-lasting and most powerful of its type to date.

So far, Minteer has run the batteries on glucose, flat sodas, sweetened drink mixes and tree sap. The best fuel source tested so far is ordinary table sugar (sucrose) dissolved in water. Date to commercialisation? Three to five years, she estimates.

Another new battery that could improve portability is a paper-like, polymer based rechargeable battery made by Japanese researchers at Waseda University.

Their battery is made of a redox-active organic polymer film around 200 nanometres thick. Nitroxide radical groups are attached, which act as carriers of the charge.

Researcher Hiroyuki Nishide says the battery takes one minute to fully charge and can be recharged up to 1,000 times. Time to market? He estimates three years.

The next future gadget is a lot cooler. University of Washington researchers have developed ‘smart’ sunglasses and goggles, that let users adjust the shade and colour. The glasses are made with electrochromic materials that change transparency depending on the electric current from a watch battery in the frame.

The wearer spins a tiny dial on the arm of the glasses to change colour or shade. Changes can take from one to two seconds for different shadings or colours.

For example one might want a yellow lenses, said to enhance contrasts and improve depth perception, or rose-colored glasses, which brighten low-light scenes.

This is different from photochromic lenses, which are triggered to change shade based on the strength of incoming UV rays. When can you get them? The researchers are hazy on the date.Contact Ahmed at elamin.ahmed[AT]gmail.com.