Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
It's funny.  Laugh. Medicine Science The 2000 Beanies

2010 Ig Nobel Winners Announced 111

Velcroman1 writes "Having trouble breathing? Try riding a roller-coaster. Really. A pair of Dutch researchers who discovered that the symptoms of asthma can be treated with a roller-coaster ride are among this year's winners of the Ig Nobel awards, the infamous annual tribute to scientific research that seems wacky — but also has real world applications. FoxNews.com has interviews with several award winners, who are all ecstatic to win, despite the fact that they're all gently being poked fun at."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

2010 Ig Nobel Winners Announced

Comments Filter:
  • by line-bundle ( 235965 ) on Thursday September 30, 2010 @09:57PM (#33755156) Homepage Journal


    And finally, a project at the University of Catania in Italy was awarded the management prize for demonstrating mathematically that organizations can improve efficiency by promoting people randomly.

    This research deserves a far better prize than the Ig Nobel. Just look at the management in companies! An algorithm far worse than random is being used to select the worst of the worst to run companies.

    I believe most institutions run in spite of management.

    And don't mod this funny.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 30, 2010 @09:58PM (#33755160)

    Wrong! Only if it has been spun like a roller coaster.

  • by sznupi ( 719324 ) on Thursday September 30, 2010 @10:29PM (#33755302) Homepage

    From their site: "The Ig Nobel Prizes honor achievements that first make people laugh, and then make them think. The prizes are intended to celebrate the unusual, honor the imaginative -- and spur people's interest in science, medicine, and technology." Certainly fits; contrary to what many people think it's not about "stupid" research. After all, the prizes "are physically handed out by genuinely bemused Nobel laureates" - would perceiving the whole thing only as harmless fun be enough to get them so easily aboard?

    PS. Also, you jump too quickly to conclusions - the effect might as well be, for example, that when people know the promotions will be random, they don't care too much / there's no infighting / the random ones aren't worse enough (but with other positive effects it pays off) / etc.

  • by ceoyoyo ( 59147 ) on Thursday September 30, 2010 @10:39PM (#33755354)

    Ig Nobels are not really an insult. They CAN be, but they aren't necessarily.

  • by clang_jangle ( 975789 ) on Thursday September 30, 2010 @10:42PM (#33755368) Journal
    Actually yes, pretty much. Using Fox News as a source for a story is like using Encyclopedia Dramatica as a source. It may have amusement value, but as far as finding literal truth you're probably out of luck. Of course, this is also at least partly true of nearly all the mainstream media outlets nowadays, but Fox is by far the worst. It's where people go to have their belief systems affirmed, not where they go for actual news.
  • Re:Woah missread (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 30, 2010 @11:04PM (#33755478)

    Why would the name of a company that is universally written as LG (note the CAPITAL letters) suddenly show up as lg (lowercase)? Even slashdot isn't that sloppy. Don't be an idiot.

  • by arth1 ( 260657 ) on Friday October 01, 2010 @12:10AM (#33755738) Homepage Journal

    It may have amusement value, but as far as finding liberal "truth" you're probably out of luck.

    That's a tautology. All truth is liberal.
    Unless free from prejudice and narrow-mindedness, i.e. liberal, it can't progress from an opinion or a belief to the independent verification that truth survives.

  • by arth1 ( 260657 ) on Friday October 01, 2010 @12:37AM (#33755862) Homepage Journal

    Indeed -- no group has monopoly on narrow-mindedness; there is just a higher proportion of liberals among progressives than many other groups, but each individual progressive can be as close minded and prejudiced as a trailer park reverend.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 01, 2010 @02:41AM (#33756296)

    Don't ignore that "or for a portion thereof." at the end. They certainly did manage to maximize gain and minimize financial risk for certain members of the economy. It's actually a simple equation. The way it works is, you take money from someone who trusts you to invest it and make a return for them, then you use various kinds of complex accounting tricks to give that money to yourself. Voila, financial gain for you at no risk, because you gave all the risk to some sucker. True genius.

  • Re:Socks (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 01, 2010 @02:58AM (#33756348)

    The role of science has always been either to experiment on what everybody knows or on what nobody ever guessed.

    And hey, now your common knowledge is backed up by a scientific study meaning people can't call it anecdotal anymore.

  • by uglyduckling ( 103926 ) on Friday October 01, 2010 @07:42AM (#33757228) Homepage
    By stating that '"1x1=1"' is 'true' you're interpreting the meanings of the symbols '"', 'x', '=,' and '1' in a very conservative manner.

The moon is made of green cheese. -- John Heywood

Working...