Get people predict the important stories of 2007 and then come back in a year to compare predictions. That'd sort out the real gurus and pundits from the wannabes.
Then we can have a poll of the top five, to let the readers decide which one is the top story of 2006.
Why don't we just pick the top 5, and they can dupe them to get the top "10"? - too much work. Why not just let me decide that the best story is the one I submitted (and which was rejected,) and then dupe it 9 more times and be done?
Well, to be honest, I never got the whole "first post". That, and I never thought I would actually get that "honor".
But thanks for noticing anyway, not that it matters to me much. Now, can we actually dig up suggestions for Top Ten/. stories so that a slasheditor can compile a slashback and poll?
People have stopped caring about fundamentals, all they care is about their own shiny new gadget.
I'd not be surprised if the average intellect of the population has also decreased, thanks to our wonderful media. Not to mention our educational system that cares more about getting better grades and a job than in making you understand the basics.
Wow. What a cranky old man. And one that replies to an unrelated post just to get to the top of the comment list.
Why don't you read the article? There are plenty of examples of messing around with fundamentals in the article. Try reading the one about "beginning to see the light". Two dimensional light waves able to take pictures smaller than the wavelength of the originating light. Quite amazing stuff.
Hate to break this to you, but fundamental shifts in science don't happen every day. If they did, they would not be so amazing. Often they come on the back of generations of hard work.
I was referring to pure sciences (e.g. theoretical physics and mathematics). All the ones out there are applied science/technology.
There is a difference. I would imagine that folks like Grigori Perelman who solved the Poincare conjecture would be in there, but instead I find Al Gore in that list. Nice.
You think Perelman should have won "Policy Leader of the Year"? Why?
It's kind of like complaining that the plane taking major celebrities to the Superbowl should have contained Matt Damon but instead it had the pilot and a bunch of stewardesses. I think you're nit-picking...
I'm complaining about the absence of true contributors to science, folks that have done groundbreaking work across various domains. If there is a category for folks that make business and policy decisions, don't you think that there should at least be a category for folks that make contributions to the pure sciences?
Almost everything out there is for applied sciences and technology. Observational sciences (astrophysics), theoretical sciences (physics), pure mathematics, applied mathematics etc. are no less i
Umm, I am a physicist (though yet to be done with my PhD). Large parts of physics are theoretical. Recent breakthroughs are experimental because that's what you hear about. Experimental physics is always playing catch-up with theoretical physicist. Maybe you should look at the list of theoretical physicists [wikipedia.org] out there. Here is a list of 20th century theoretical physicists -- Albert Einstein, Max Born, Niels Bohr, Erwin Schrodinger, Louis de Broglie, Satyendra Bose, Wolfgang Pauli, Enrico Fermi, Ettore Majora
Amen. And Al Gore hasn't contributed one iota. All he is doing is pumping the current Climatology Zeitgeist. Too often, we just go on blindly accepting traditional notions without ever bothering to actually put them to the test. [americanscientist.org]
And yes, Scientific American in general has been going downhill, IMO. It's not yet as bad as Popular Science, but it's getting there.
Al Gore is communicating climate science to lay people, sure he is not as good at it as Carl Sagan was with cosmology but he does deserve some recognition for his efforts.
This list is Scientific American's list of Technology Leaders. The article summary failed to mention that, which is leading to a lot of unnecessary discussion.
On the other hand he does sound like a cranky old man.
That's rather short-sighted. Boolean logic was invented a long time before the practical use of it in computers came about. And even computers did not have much economic benefit at first.
Does anyone else find it slightly *amusing* that a certain segment of the population uses the word "intellectual" as an insult? News flash: not all activity needs to generate financial profit to be important or meaningful. Just because unimaginative people can't see an immediate means to cash in on research they don't understand doesn't mean that people shouldn't do it anyway.
Even after reading the article, it's rather difficult to say what it is a top 50 of... Scientific American calls it "Scientific American 50: Trends in Research, Business and Policy". What a mishmash. Looks like they originally wanted to have 3 top 50s and couldn't think of enough to fill all the slots, so threw what they had into one.
I just got my copy of the actual magazine yesterday, and I still haven't given it the time to do more than scan it in general. It IS much too long for a summary, even if only two or three were briefly highlighted. Of course, if you wish to read the whole shebang online, it's there. I don't think it is the natural meat & potatoes of typical slashdot fare.
Maybe there are newsworthy items in the list, but many compilations of "things achieved" necessarily have that Yesterday's News feeling. And no, you aren
It's a list of 50 scientific accomplishments from 2006 that the Scientific American editors feel are noteworthy. You can probably get a better idea of this from the introduction [sciam.com] to the article/list.
I thought it was interesting that the section on green cars ("on the road to green" [sciam.com]) mentioned GM and DaimlerChrysler for their work on new Hybrid technology, and HyMotion for their new plug-in Hybrid conversion kits, but didn't mention any of the advances with pure electric car designs. For example, the Tesla roadster [wikipedia.org] has sold a couple hundred sports cars that perform well (0-60 in 4 seconds) with excellent range (250 miles). This achievement in a production auto certainly seems worthy of their top 50. While it's not exactly for your average consumer (it costs $100K), the company plans to offer family cars for their homepage.
I think the reason to keep the "Tesla" off the chart is this simple, anyone can make an unaffordable solution. They key to success there is marketing it properly. The "automakers" work under the constraint that its affordable to the majority of the drivers out there (think 12-25k), its cheap to maintain (think just change the oil and rotate tires), and its reliable (we don't want it back 15 times).
Of course some are going as far as looking down the road "Will we be liable for the technology in this if someo
Just a minor nitpick but asbestos has been known to cause lung problems for about 100yrs now. The only thing that changed was someone proved it in court in order to get those responsible to "cough up" (bad pun intended).
Exactly... until I see them actually in production and tested by Consumer Reports or some other independent body, their claims smell like pure marketing hype to me. In fact, the name for the company couldn't be more apt: Nikola Tesla's many great inventions were only eclipsed by his tendency to exaggerate his other, less-real inventions (death rays, anti-gravity machines, mind-reading devices, etc.) I wonder if we'll actually see the claims by Tesla Motors born out, or whether this incredible car will remai
So, is there a reason that advances in pure sciences (e.g. Theoretical Physics and Mathematics) are not mentioned in these lists?
While some of those projects are science, most seem to be technology projects. The irony of this of course is that business and policy makers are given recognition, rather than some scientists and mathematicians, who probably make more significant contributions (e.g. Grigori Perelman [wikipedia.org]).
What's ironic, of course, is that these magazines are called Scientific American and Popular Science./Rant
Over the past 20 years SciAm seems to have moved more towards technology/applied articles than pure science. I remember a much higher number (per issue) of pure mathemetics/physics/anthropology/etc articles.
Maybe there's something to the position some have taken is that there is nothing left to discover;-)
An alternative view might be that the number of "pure science" (i.e. academic) journals keeps growing and it's more important for the already strapped academics to keep churning out articles in the pe
you make a fine point of-course, but it is offset somewhat by the fact that at least one of these magazines is called "Scientific American", and Perelman is a Russian Jew.
Yeah. It's because of the sad, indeed tragic, decline of Scientific American to just another science mag. At least New Scientist hasn't changed, but the two together were fantastic. NS gave news and gossip and speculation and fun. SA gave deeply thought out sometimes pioneering articles that you could use as references. They balanced each other.
...why the Segway isn't on there. Wasn't the Segway supposed to the the "IT" that everyone was talking about? Hehehe.. I remember that when some rumours were leaked about what "IT" was, and the word transporter showed up, people started thinking transporter technology like on Star Trek. That WOULD have truly made it to this list, had it been the case. But it wasn't. However, considering how poorly the average American eats, and how fat those people are getting, I see a future industry for Segway. Imagine the day when Americans believe it's their right to enjoy the culinary delights of KFC, McDonalds, Burger King and the like and weigh 5000 pounds and have tons of health problems. To deny them the pleasures of these great dining experiences would rank up there with communism and gun control. So, Segway could then introduce the surgical leg replacements as most limbs would be unsuitable to move the typical American fatass. So people will voluntarily have their legs removed and replaced with industrial strength Segway devices so that they can easily maneuver their way into the next fast food joint down the street.;P
His book and movie An Inconvenient Truth [imdb.com] was released. Thus, why he's filed under policy. Maybe some people disagree with his views but at least he's trying (at personal-image risk I might add).
Australian air guitar t-shirt? I for one predict this to be the greatest breakthrough in modern music science. Australians, drunk, playing air guitar that makes noise...oh the stereotyping fun that one can have with that.
air guitar making noise? air guitar, by definition is.... made of air. The only sound it should actually make is the wooosh of the hand through the air.
Like I said before, not funny anymore (perhaps it never was, except in my own mind).
Not to question the integrity or sincerity of some of the "top 50" but I was expecting more of a top 50 in advancement instead of simply advocacy. While it is important that the public be informed on issues of a scientific nature to better understand there impact on the world around them I don't find it as noteworthy as people producing real solutions instead of simply putting their weight behind a movement.
Everyone always talks about RFID as it is used by the end user, i.e. Wal-Mart, toll-ways, credit cards etc. However, where better improvements are really needed is on the factory floor for all the suppliers that Wal-Mart mandates must use the technology. If a vendor wants to be a supplier to Wal-Mart, they face mandates that they must tag at some level of pallet, box, item. Suppliers can do this, but it offers no value except that Wal-Mart will buy their stuff. So how do they add value? The idea is to implement the RFID tagging higher up the line into the manufacturing process so that each supplier can track their inventory as it rolls off the line, into storage, and out the dock doors onto the truck. However, current UHF RFID technology is pretty poor at integrating in the manufacturing environment. With all the metal, hot air, dust, etc. etc., the limitation of RFID is really shown. Plus, depending on your material (hmmm beverage makers? Sorry liquid is a pain to work with), the application may be near impossible to implement. Read rates are generally good, but encoding is very very difficult. Reliability is perhaps in the 90% range if you are lucky which is very bad for processes that generally require quality results in the 99% ranges. I'd like to see RFID developed so it can be used on the shop floor with high reliability and easier implementation.
South Park makes fun of everything and everyone. So what. That's what happens when you do too much LSD in college and years-later land a show deal on Comedy Central. The former also explains why everyone dies with their head exploding, acid burnout creates some fear of head explosions? - Free Hat [wikipedia.org] (Spielberg's head explodes) - Nintendo Wii episode (Future people have guns that shoot darts. The darts cause a delayed head explosion) - Chewbacca defense [wikipedia.org] (a juror's head explodes after Cochran makes no sense)
I know people are sick of the market hype, but 2006 is the year EVERYONE could publish and view video on the web. (And damn it, everyone did!) Before that video required special players, high bandwidth, and special web servers. And I dont think we've begun to the most creative and useful applications of that media yet.
I attribute this to the high incidence of Seasonal Affective Disorder among scientists and inventors.
And clearly all of the ones in the southern hemisphere just feel sorry for their northern collegues and put off any significant discoveries until after the new year.
Slashdot's Top 10 (Score:5, Insightful)
Then we can have a poll of the top five, to let the readers decide which one is the top story of 2006.
And I want my 15 min of slashfame for suggesting it.
Much more fun... (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
With dupes: Re:Slashdot's Top 5 (Score:5, Funny)
Then we can have a poll of the top five, to let the readers decide which one is the top story of 2006.
Why don't we just pick the top 5, and they can dupe them to get the top "10"?
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Why don't we just pick the top 5, and they can dupe them to get the top "10"?
- too much work. Why not just let me decide that the best story is the one I submitted (and which was rejected,) and then dupe it 9 more times and be done?
Re: (Score:2)
How about a top ten list of the dupes from 2006? Then at least the dupes of that would be recursive.
Re: (Score:2)
But thanks for noticing anyway, not that it matters to me much. Now, can we actually dig up suggestions for Top Ten
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
People have stopped caring about fundamentals, all they care is about their own shiny new gadget.
I'd not be surprised if the average intellect of the population has also decreased, thanks to our wonderful media. Not to mention our educational system that cares more about getting better grades and a job than in making you understand the basics.
Sad, that.
Re:"Scientific American" missed one. (Score:5, Insightful)
Why don't you read the article? There are plenty of examples of messing around with fundamentals in the article. Try reading the one about "beginning to see the light". Two dimensional light waves able to take pictures smaller than the wavelength of the originating light. Quite amazing stuff.
Hate to break this to you, but fundamental shifts in science don't happen every day. If they did, they would not be so amazing. Often they come on the back of generations of hard work.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There is a difference. I would imagine that folks like Grigori Perelman who solved the Poincare conjecture would be in there, but instead I find Al Gore in that list. Nice.
Re: (Score:2)
You think Perelman should have won "Policy Leader of the Year"? Why?
It's kind of like complaining that the plane taking major celebrities to the Superbowl should have contained Matt Damon but instead it had the pilot and a bunch of stewardesses. I think you're nit-picking...
Re: (Score:2)
If there is a category for folks that make business and policy decisions, don't you think that there should at least be a category for folks that make contributions to the pure sciences?
Almost everything out there is for applied sciences and technology. Observational sciences (astrophysics), theoretical sciences (physics), pure mathematics, applied mathematics etc. are no less i
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And yes, Scientific American in general has been going downhill, IMO. It's not yet as bad as Popular Science, but it's getting there.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand he does sound like a cranky old man.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Summaries (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, if you wish to read the whole shebang online, it's there. I don't think it is the natural meat & potatoes of typical slashdot fare.
Maybe there are newsworthy items in the list, but many compilations of "things achieved" necessarily have that Yesterday's News feeling. And no, you aren
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Right automotive achievements to recognize? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The "automakers" work under the constraint that its affordable to the majority of the drivers out there (think 12-25k), its cheap to maintain (think just change the oil and rotate tires), and its reliable (we don't want it back 15 times).
Of course some are going as far as looking down the road "Will we be liable for the technology in this if someo
Re: (Score:2)
Just a minor nitpick but asbestos has been known to cause lung problems for about 100yrs now. The only thing that changed was someone proved it in court in order to get those responsible to "cough up" (bad pun intended).
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, the name for the company couldn't be more apt: Nikola Tesla's many great inventions were only eclipsed by his tendency to exaggerate his other, less-real inventions (death rays, anti-gravity machines, mind-reading devices, etc.) I wonder if we'll actually see the claims by Tesla Motors born out, or whether this incredible car will remai
Pure sciences (Score:5, Insightful)
While some of those projects are science, most seem to be technology projects. The irony of this of course is that business and policy makers are given recognition, rather than some scientists and mathematicians, who probably make more significant contributions (e.g. Grigori Perelman [wikipedia.org]).
What's ironic, of course, is that these magazines are called Scientific American and Popular Science.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. It's because of the sad, indeed tragic, decline of Scientific American to just another science mag. At least New Scientist hasn't changed, but the two together were fantastic. NS gave news and gossip and speculation and fun. SA gave deeply thought out sometimes pioneering articles that you could use as references. They balanced each other.
Sigh
Item #51 (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Slippery Internet Pipes without using PTFE [wikipedia.org]
--
Why Senator Stevens (R-AK)
can't send email for days:
http://senate.gov/~stevens [senate.gov]
I Wanna Know... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:I Wanna Know... (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So where on the top 50 is the... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone notice, this comment is redundant and an oxymoron at the same time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I can see the redundant bit, but how is this an oxymoron?
I have to ask, is English your first language?
Re: (Score:2)
Like I said before, not funny anymore (perhaps it never was, except in my own mind).
is policy/advocacy really worthy enough? (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm kinda borderline on this whole thing.
Improvements in RFID? (Score:3, Informative)
Al Gore? (Score:2)
There is very little "science" here. Some interesting engineering projects, to be sure.
But where does Al Gore have anything to do with science OR engineering?
Last I heard he was making documentaries about global warming that are being made fun of on South Park.
MANBEARPIG IS REAL!! FOR SERIAL!!
Stew
Re: (Score:2)
That's what happens when you do too much LSD in college and years-later land a show deal on Comedy Central. The former also explains why everyone dies with their head exploding, acid burnout creates some fear of head explosions?
- Free Hat [wikipedia.org] (Spielberg's head explodes)
- Nintendo Wii episode (Future people have guns that shoot darts. The darts cause a delayed head explosion)
- Chewbacca defense [wikipedia.org] (a juror's head explodes after Cochran makes no sense)
It wo
Vista (Score:2)
youtube (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And clearly all of the ones in the southern hemisphere just feel sorry for their northern collegues and put off any significant discoveries until after the new year.
Presidential and Vice-Presidential titles (Score:2)