Postcards From The Edge (Of Science)

mcadam writes: "As my graduate school thesis deadline approaches, I find myself looking for increasingly ingenious ways of wasting time. One of my favourites is reading through Edge.org. Edge is a meeting place for some of the most interesting people working in AI, the cognitive sciences, anthropology, cosmology, and pretty much everything else you're likely to read about on this site. Over recent months, contributors such as Daniel C. Dennett, Rodney Brooks, Stephen Jay Gould, and Ray Kurzweil have left the commentaries and contributions to the site in either text form or streaming video. Everything you find here is as important as it is fascinating. Kurzweil comments on theories of the singularity, the late Ken Kesey advises us about God, Freeman Dyson is there in video to ponder whether life is analog or digital. Why do I bring this up now? Because each year the site's users send in postcards from their various summer retreats, this year's postcards are in and they are fascinating without exception."

Gould?

[random735]

The dead are rising and posting on internet forums!

(with apologies to the simpsons, of course)

Great Idea!

[n-baxley]

This site a is a great idea and seems to be pulled off very well. I only have one concern. Are sites like this, with no advertising, bound to be drowned in their own success? The more popular they become, the more their cost of existence goes up. They may become more popular and respected, but they may eventually have to close because they are serving too many people. Maybe this is too synical a view, and I've forgottent that as they become more popular, they will also recieve more donated support and thereby expand through the combined resources of all the interested parties.

Thoughts?

Re:Great Idea!

[RevAaron]

I don't think it's synical at all. Cynical, perhaps. :P

But seriously, since these are real scientists doing (mostly) good science, with real funding from organizations like the NSF, I wouldn't be surprised if the primary contributers used parts of their budgets for the site. Other than that, there are plenty of ways to get money for non-profit science sites.

Have a look around, there are quite a few scientific organizations without banner ads. That's because, unlike a lot of sites with banners, they're doing something of some real value. :)

It doesn't take a lot of grant money to keep a page like this going for a year. The contributers and webmaster(s) probably contribute their work for free. Having a machine or two and a decently fast line doesn't take $10k a year.

Daniel C. Dennett

[tswinzig]

I think Mr. Dennett has a secret. His friend on the left in this picture [edge.org] is trying to record the secret for posterity.

Re:W00T! P057C4RD5 from the edge!

[ZahrGnosis]

Shouldn't that be (Q/P)A? The A is the only thing that stuck around in her name; it's the Q and P that were interchanged.

I mean, really.

Thank you!

[Sgt York]

I'm sitting for my candidacy exam next month, and I am in the throes of writing & re-writing my proposal. I therefore have allowed my inner-procrastinator to come forward & take the helm. After visiting this place He has taken full control.

Great. I'm screwed.

Where's Wolfram ????

[Raiford]

I have never seen a contribution from Steven Wolfram on this site. There are quite a few from Danny Hillis whom I would feel would be just as much shunned by the purist as Wolfram. Although Hillis doesn't claim to have developed a scientific structure for explaining everything. This seems to be a conspicuous absence.