Slashdot Mirror

It will not be BLueGene/P.

BlueGene/P will go online at Argonne this year. The NSF sustained petascale machine is targeted for 2011. We can safely assume that IBM won't get away with proposing to get $200 million to use today's technology for a machine 4 years in the future. Which means it is either BlueGene/Q or something from the IBM PERCS line.

The NSF solicitation can be found here http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2006/nsf06573/nsf06573.htm l

One controversy is that the NSF has already created supercomputer centers across the country which have enabled NSF funded scientists to do significant research. But this solicitation was not confined to them. It allows for significant NSF grant funding to be diverted to institutions not beholden to NSF, and not aligned with the interests of NSF funded scientists, such as the DOE funded labs. This engenders suspicion that the resources might be diverted from NSF's fundamental research towards the DOE's much narrower agenda.

I suppose you're now going to try and say that the programs aren't underpopulated but that the US still can't produce enough graduates.

You didn't read it carefully enough. "The US" hasn't been able to produce enough CS graduates, which is why it has been bringing in foreigners to fill its CS programs. So, CS programs are full, but only because 50% of its graduates are foreigners, foreigners that need H1B visas in order to work in the US computer industry when they graduate.

Note that even with foreign students, the number of CS graduates in the US is ridiculously small; the total number of grad students in CS is similar to each the total number in psychology or political science, fields which don't exactly have thriving commercial industries.

So, for the third time, according to whom?

Since you seem to be incapable of doing a Google search, here are the NSF numbers:

http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf06321/

In 2004, total new CS grad students are made up of 3651 US residents and 4243 foreigners. CS enrollment declined 6.3% that year alone, a trend that's been going on for several years, and I suspect the figures for 2005, 2006, and 2007 are worse.

Here's a nice graph:

http://www.nafsa.org/_/Image/_/presidents_graph.gi f

Here's a comparison with other nations:

http://mwhodges.home.att.net/science_undergrad_int l.gif

Here is undergraduate CS majors over time:

http://www.computer.org/portal/cms_docs_computer/c omputer/homepage/0306/r3dive01.jpg

There is no shortage of qualified native born American scientists and technology workers--no matter how much you might wish it to be so.

Well, that's an unsupported assertion by you that flies in the fact of facts.

But even if you were right, so what? What economic, social, or moral imperative do these companies have to hire you instead of someone in India or China?

It's interesting; for possible contributing factors, see these conclusions from a related study.

According to this figure, you're right: the U.S. S&E workforce increased by almost 20% from 1993 to 2003, but the publication count was roughly constant. Funding per researcher actually increased by 70% or so (in constant dollars). The report is here.

According to this figure, you're right: the U.S. S&E workforce increased by almost 20% from 1993 to 2003, but the publication count was roughly constant. Funding per researcher actually increased by 70% or so (in constant dollars). The report is here.

In the context of this article, "U. S. publication" is supposed to mean "science and engineering (S&E) articles published by U.S.-based authors". For example, if a researcher is a green-card-holding Norwegian research scientist employed at a US institution, doing work supported by the US government, then the benefits of the research accrue somewhat more to the US scientific research establishment than to other countries.

So far as US research is concerned, it doesn't matter whether the individual scientists are from the US or Colombia or Italy. What you'd want to know is how much research is being done by US institutions like Berkeley or Princeton, and how much is done outside the US, at places like Oxford or l'École Polytechnique de Paris.

See the 'Methodological Issues' section of the report for more details on how the counting is defined.

American workers aren't investing in R&D education at least in part because of the low wages to be expected from it.

Importing foreigners or outsourcing the work, on the grounds that there aren't enough PhD's is a bit of a lie. Rather, there aren't enough CHEAP PhD's.

Then you miss the point of the PRAM concept. It is designed to evaluate concurrency and to identify parallel-friendly routines. Part of this project is funded by the NSF and includes developing compiler modifications and an API.

Looks like the NSF has kicked in $59 million:
http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=1080 51&org=NSF&from=news

The NSF program manager Stephen Meacham who ok'd the grant was probably appointed because of this article from 2000:

Low-Frequency Variability in the Wind-Driven Circulation
Volume 30, Issue 2 (February 2000)

(last paragraph of the abstract)
"In the baroclinic model, these fluctuations occur on a decadal timescale and are sufficiently large that they must be considered a potential component mechanism for some of the decadal climate oscillations seen in the extratropics."

In simplifed terms it says we can blame hurricanes in the gulf on something other than humans.

Cheney's cronies probably had a hay-day with the report and put the pressure on to appoint him.

Very funny. Maybe you're right with regard to your grandpa's job making pig iron or automobiles, but the big money and growth is in high-technology manufacturing, and we are BURYING the rest of the world in that.

The EU held about 34% of the world's high-technology manufacturing market in 1980, and now accounts for less than 20%.

The Japanese provided about 14% of hi-tech manufactured goods in 1980, peaked in the early 90's at about 25%, and now make about 12%.

The Chinese have climbed from essentially nothing in 1980 to provide about 9% of hi-tech manufacturing today.

And the obese, burger-flipping, Oprah-watching morans of the USA? We built 24% of the world's hi-tech manufactured goods in 1980, and now produce about 43%.

We'll do even better in the future as the population of Europe ages and the culture decays under the Mahometan onslaught. Your gross national product in fifty years will be measured in terms of how many Muslim nurses are wiping how many elderly white arses in nursing homes, as all your smart and hard-working youth will have fled for the shores of America. Your grandchildren will beg on their knees for the privilege of immigrating to the United States.

I'm sure there was a time a hundred years ago when some preening Euro-trash looked down his nose and sneered about the falling market share of American buggy-whip makers and whale-oil refiners. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. It's pitiable and will only get worse as time goes by. The future will be American for at least the next hundred years.

and your currency is worth so little that your value as customers is steadily dropping.

But our value as suppliers grows ever more formidable. Sounds like you need to ask your pals at Airbus for a basic lesson in the macroeconomics of international trade.

-ccm

>On the other hand, Americans could do worse than adopt the French election system. A genuine, fair two-round election, an 85% voter turn-out, a clear majority for the winner, and the election over at election night --- not bad, isn't it?

I don't know... considering 25% of Americans think that the Sun goes around the Earth, and 40% of Americans believe using the zodiac to predict the future is at least somewhat scientific, it makes me kind of scared to think about that kind of turnout.

Although, by the same poll, 53% of Europeans think astrology is rather scientific, and a whopping 33% said the Sun goes around the Earth. So much for a better education.

Funding for the physical sciences (among others) in the United States has been facing a lot of difficulties lately as well. Failure of the congress to pass the new budget has caused a crisis in science funding from agencies such as the NSF and NIH that supply much of the money for taxpayer funded research in the states. This threatens to close major facilities*, delay new projects and leave thousands of government scientists out of work.

Concerned citizens are encouraged to write to their congressmen to not forget the cause of advancement in the US. Instead of bemoaning the loss of the US edge in the sciences , speak up!

It seems hardly a coincidence that the US and UK are allies in the misguided Iraqi Invasion, as well as the fight against adequate science and research funding. With all the money diverted into these misguided efforts, no wonder science funding is suffering all over (There's only so much of it to go around!)

* Example from the nytimes.com article:
"Among the projects at risk is the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider at the Brookhaven National Laboratory in New York, on Long Island. The $600 million machine -- 2.4 miles in circumference -- slams together subatomic particles to recreate conditions at the beginning of time, some 14 billion years ago, so scientists can study the Big Bang theory. It was already operating partly on charitable contributions, officials say, and now could shut down entirely, throwing its 1,069 specialists into limbo."

If you're talking on the order of a 6 month embargo, I could see that. If you're talking two years, I'd have to say that's too long.

I may be biased on the matter, as one of my duties is to distribute some public research data. The data that we generate is released immediately, except for new missions, which have had embargos until they could finish testing the instruments. The data we get from other locations may be embargoed for a few months.

For those who are new to the topic, I'd suggest you take a look at the OpenScience Project, the Science Commons, the NSF's 2003 Cyberinfrastructure Report, the NSB's Government Funding of Scientific Research and the Astronomer's Data Manifesto for a bit of background (specifically, see Ray Norris's Can Astronomy Manage its Data?).

If you're talking on the order of a 6 month embargo, I could see that. If you're talking two years, I'd have to say that's too long.

I may be biased on the matter, as one of my duties is to distribute some public research data. The data that we generate is released immediately, except for new missions, which have had embargos until they could finish testing the instruments. The data we get from other locations may be embargoed for a few months.

For those who are new to the topic, I'd suggest you take a look at the OpenScience Project, the Science Commons, the NSF's 2003 Cyberinfrastructure Report, the NSB's Government Funding of Scientific Research and the Astronomer's Data Manifesto for a bit of background (specifically, see Ray Norris's Can Astronomy Manage its Data?).

NSF (The National Science Foundation) recently put out a proposal to address the problematic issue of software design (all aspects) because it's recognized that lack of thought in this area 30 years ago is what led us to where we are.

http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=12 766&org=CCF&from=home

Hopefully it will bring in fresh ideas.

What I see on the provided 26-page vita in the category of refereed publications are just 5 refereed journal publications between 1980 and 1990, in areas far removed from detection of filesharing activity. There is a smattering of NSF grants related to supporting students with scholarships, training of faculty, a planning grant for a center and later funding for that security center, which does not seem to have research experience on issues relevant to the issues likely to arise in a filesharing trial.

Do you know of anyone better qualified than yourself, possibly with experience developing and using filesharing tools, developing and using rootkits, spyware, and IP spoofing techiniques, who is willing to serve as the RIAA expert?

I have been labled as a troll in the past for daring to suggest that all these junk scientists would never create scary situations that need to be studied in order to get funding. I went ahead this time and created a trail. The National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) gets its funding from teh federally funded National Science Foundation (NSF). The link here http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/piSearch.do;jsessio nid=83F4C1F20457F86AF555A5B06DE33BB5?SearchType=pi Search&page=1&QueryText=NCAR&PIFirstName=&PILastNa me=&PIInstitution=&PIState=&PIZip=&PICountry=&Sear ch=Search#results Shows a list of all of the grants the NCAR has received from the NSF. This one in particular: http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward.do?AwardN umber=0612388 Shows that they got a half million dollars to come up with this scare. $436200.00 to be exact. Agencies like this must be funded in order to stay in existence. In order to get funded, they must create a need. What better need that the the whole North Pole melting! The truth is, we have not been collecting data long enough to know what normal is as far as greenhouse gasses or the temperature of the earth. The Climate is going to do what it is going to do. Why waste millions of dollars of taxpayers money to come up with unsubstantiated scares created just to get more funding.

I have been labled as a troll in the past for daring to suggest that all these junk scientists would never create scary situations that need to be studied in order to get funding. I went ahead this time and created a trail. The National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) gets its funding from teh federally funded National Science Foundation (NSF). The link here http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/piSearch.do;jsessio nid=83F4C1F20457F86AF555A5B06DE33BB5?SearchType=pi Search&page=1&QueryText=NCAR&PIFirstName=&PILastNa me=&PIInstitution=&PIState=&PIZip=&PICountry=&Sear ch=Search#results Shows a list of all of the grants the NCAR has received from the NSF. This one in particular: http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward.do?AwardN umber=0612388 Shows that they got a half million dollars to come up with this scare. $436200.00 to be exact. Agencies like this must be funded in order to stay in existence. In order to get funded, they must create a need. What better need that the the whole North Pole melting! The truth is, we have not been collecting data long enough to know what normal is as far as greenhouse gasses or the temperature of the earth. The Climate is going to do what it is going to do. Why waste millions of dollars of taxpayers money to come up with unsubstantiated scares created just to get more funding.

NSF budget FY 1983 - just over $1 billion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Science_Foun dation
NSF budget FY 1990 - just over $2 billion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Science_Foun dation
NSF budget FY 1995 - $3.270 billion http://mathforum.org/social/articles/nsf.budget.in fo.html
NSF budget FY 2000 - $3.747 billion http://www.nsf.gov/about/budget/fy2000/overview.ht m
NSF budget FY 2005 - $5.6 billion

Those numbers are higher as time goes forward.

Deny whatever you like--decreased science funding...

I see increased science funding.

It's not exactly hard to type "NSF budget FY 1995" into Google. Anyone can do it. Even you.

It's a deception intended to mislead.

Okay, I never accused you of being a liar. I would argue that using unadjusted dollars is less honest, since adjusted dollars is what matters, and it's the standard way of comparing amounts of money over time.

However, even if that weren't true, the NSF web site says that their budget did decrease by $105 million (unadjusted dollars) between FY 04 and FY 05:

http://www.nsf.gov/about/congress/108/highlights/c u04_1123.jsp

What you're doing is pointless debate about details of how budgets are calculated. No one denies that the amount of science getting funded has decreased over recent years, and that's the point. Accusing other people of pernicious lies based on technicalities of the claims is missing the point completely.

I rember seeing an article about this in Chemical and Engineering News. The article (subscription required) discusses the globalization of science in terms of NSF count of scientific papers and publication in ACS journals. To make a long story short, the article concludes that the U.S. is still the leader in scientific output (as measured by publications), but it is decreasing as global competition heats up.

There are at least two very credible schemes that allow you to determine whether your vote was counted correctly (although perhaps not from a 'published result'). Two of them are David Chaum's Punchscan system, and Ron Rivest's Triple-Ballot System. There are another three or four I could mention, but the authors lack the immediate name recognition of Chaum or Rivest.

Please do basic research before making statements like this in the future.

(Why, yes, I am an NSF-funded voting security researcher. Obligatory disclosure: I know both Rivest and Chaum. They're part of the voting security research group I'm on.)

Go to college and get paid several thousand dollars to do a Research Experience for Undergraduates program each summer. Or do a coop program with a tech company. If you go the REU route, you can try a different type of research in a different location each summer. If only there were more students like you in the United States. I find that most of my students are anything but motivated. Despite what the REU application forms say, they sometimes do take people after their freshman year, especially in the less exotic locations like Oklahoma, Kansas, and upstate New York. The culture of academic work is very different from industry work. You should get a feel for both.

The US government cares about maintaining the competitive position of American firms in foreign markets. This is hardly new. Intellectual property is one of the areas where the US maintains a positive balance-of-trade with the rest of the world. US policymakers have worked for years to develop international systems that protect American rightsholders around the world.

"Foreign sales account for fifty percent of the revenues of the US record industry," according to this statement by an RIAA spokesperson before Congress. The figures for movies aren't very different; nearly half of all movie revenues come from countries outside the US and Canada.

I don't think there's any conspiracy here to impose US DRM solutions on foreigners. There is a concern to ensure that US firms receive compensation for the use of their copyrighted works overseas. If DRM helps American rightsholders preserve their revenue streams, then US policymakers are going to support it.

The DOE runs our system of national laboratories,

There are 36 FFRDCs (Federally Funded Research and Development Centers), nearly half are Department of Energy, but there are many others to consider

http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf05306/

Just thought that list might help some college and high school students when they are looking to go into science and engineering. These places combined employ many tens of thousands of people in Math, Sciences and Engineering.

I don't know of a good general reference, but here's the general history: the Baby Bells were subject to common carrier regulations--first the "computer inquiries" of the 1960s-80s, and later the "local loop unbundling" regime that the FCC imposed after the '96 telecom act. These weren't regulations of the Internet as such, but rather were designed to prevent the Bells from using their non-Internet monopoly position to give them an unfair advantage in the Internet market.

The rest of the Internet--including cable providers like Comcast, Tier 1 providers like Global Crossing and Level 3, and providers of business-class Internet service--have never been subject to any kind of common carrier regime. The cable companies were declared to be "information services" exempt from most regulations soon after the 1996 Telecom Act was passed. And other non-residential Internet providers (AFAIK, anyway) has never been subject to the FCC's jurisdiction at all.

I've never heard of the FCC putting conditions on NSFNet's privatization of the backbone. The NSF web page summarizing the hand-over doesn't mention it. I can't prove it didn't happen, but I've never seen any evidence that it did. Perhaps "ProfDumb" can enlighten us.

Anyway, here's a list of FCRCs. Maybe you'll find a home with one of them. Personally, I think you'd do better to rethink your position on academia. http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/fedfunds/pubs/ffrdc/ ffrdc.txt

Tell them that critical free software is important to you. Tell them that you appreciate the work being done by the OpenBSD and GNU teams to support you with the software you need in your life but that if cheapskates keep refusing to contribute to the projects, ensuring people like Theo are not forced to hold down proper jobs, you will be forced to use less and less secure and intelligently designed alternatives. Explain the concerns you have about freedom, openness, and choice, and how a lack of money for Free Software harms all three. Let them know that this is an issue that effects YOU directly, that YOU vote, and that your vote will be influenced, indeed dependent, on their policies on funding Free Software.

There is an organization that does that. The NSF. But it wouldn't matter. Theo is not an American he is very unlikely to get the grant.

Now's a good time to evaluate your goals.

If you want to pursue the "software life" ... that is, you want to go after the apple/microsoft/ibm/novell brass rings and be a career programmer, then you're on the right track ... hunt for programming internships, if you can't find them, hunt for programming jobs, and if you can't find them either then polish your skills by adopting a favorite open source project and working on it. Developing your abilities with real-world production code is definitely a plus, and a nice resume-builder if nothing else.

On the other hand, if you want to aim for an academic's path (ie: you want to go on to grad school pursuing a doctorate degree and doing research in the field), internships are pretty useless. Look for research opportunities. I know at my university, we've got an REU program (research experiences for undergrads) that are very popular, and both meet the suggested "don't spend the summer doing nothing" and "get experience" goals. It's a program sponsored by the NSF, and is apparently pretty popular around the country, and comes highly recommended. Oh, and the pay isn't terrible, as an extra bonus.

The nice thing about the academic paths -- undergrad research for a prof, REU programs, etc -- is that they end up working toward either goal. Getting an internship or getting a normal job may work toward the couple years of experience most places want for their better positions ... but it's not going to get you into the PhD program at very many places, or enrich the depth and breadth of your knowledge and interest in the subject by a whole lot either. After all, when you spend a summer making copies and getting coffee ... it doesn't really amount to _real_ work experience.

Anyway, think about things from the perspective of what doors they open. But be quick about it ... there's a LOT of summer REU deadlines that are coming up in the next 3 days or so!

(REU Program: http://www.nsf.gov/crssprgm/reu/ )

The award recipients for 2005 have not yet been named.

1986 awards presented on Mar 12, 1986
1987 awards presented on Jun 25, 1987
1988 awards presented on Jul 15, 1988
1989 awards presented on Oct 18, 1989
1990 awards presented on Nov 13, 1990
1991 awards presented on Sep 16, 1991
1992 awards presented on Jun 23, 1992
1993 awards presented on Sep 30, 1993
1994 awards presented on Dec 19, 1994
1995 awards presented on Oct 18, 1995
1996 awards presented on Jul 26, 1996
1997 awards presented on Dec 17, 1997
1998 awards presented on Apr 27, 1999
1999 awards presented on Mar 14, 2000
2000 awards presented on Dec 1, 2000
2001 awards presented on Jun 12, 2002
2002 awards presented on Nov 6, 2003
2003 awards presented on Mar 14, 2005
2004 awards presented on Feb 13, 2006

1986 awards presented on Mar 12, 1986
1987 awards presented on Jun 25, 1987
1988 awards presented on Jul 15, 1988
1989 awards presented on Oct 18, 1989
1990 awards presented on Nov 13, 1990
1991 awards presented on Sep 16, 1991
1992 awards presented on Jun 23, 1992
1993 awards presented on Sep 30, 1993
1994 awards presented on Dec 19, 1994
1995 awards presented on Oct 18, 1995
1996 awards presented on Jul 26, 1996
1997 awards presented on Dec 17, 1997
1998 awards presented on Apr 27, 1999
1999 awards presented on Mar 14, 2000
2000 awards presented on Dec 1, 2000
2001 awards presented on Jun 12, 2002
2002 awards presented on Nov 6, 2003
2003 awards presented on Mar 14, 2005
2004 awards presented on Feb 13, 2006

1986 awards presented on Mar 12, 1986
1987 awards presented on Jun 25, 1987
1988 awards presented on Jul 15, 1988
1989 awards presented on Oct 18, 1989
1990 awards presented on Nov 13, 1990
1991 awards presented on Sep 16, 1991
1992 awards presented on Jun 23, 1992
1993 awards presented on Sep 30, 1993
1994 awards presented on Dec 19, 1994
1995 awards presented on Oct 18, 1995
1996 awards presented on Jul 26, 1996
1997 awards presented on Dec 17, 1997
1998 awards presented on Apr 27, 1999
1999 awards presented on Mar 14, 2000
2000 awards presented on Dec 1, 2000
2001 awards presented on Jun 12, 2002
2002 awards presented on Nov 6, 2003
2003 awards presented on Mar 14, 2005
2004 awards presented on Feb 13, 2006

1986 awards presented on Mar 12, 1986
1987 awards presented on Jun 25, 1987
1988 awards presented on Jul 15, 1988
1989 awards presented on Oct 18, 1989
1990 awards presented on Nov 13, 1990
1991 awards presented on Sep 16, 1991
1992 awards presented on Jun 23, 1992
1993 awards presented on Sep 30, 1993
1994 awards presented on Dec 19, 1994
1995 awards presented on Oct 18, 1995
1996 awards presented on Jul 26, 1996
1997 awards presented on Dec 17, 1997
1998 awards presented on Apr 27, 1999
1999 awards presented on Mar 14, 2000
2000 awards presented on Dec 1, 2000
2001 awards presented on Jun 12, 2002
2002 awards presented on Nov 6, 2003
2003 awards presented on Mar 14, 2005
2004 awards presented on Feb 13, 2006

1986 awards presented on Mar 12, 1986
1987 awards presented on Jun 25, 1987
1988 awards presented on Jul 15, 1988
1989 awards presented on Oct 18, 1989
1990 awards presented on Nov 13, 1990
1991 awards presented on Sep 16, 1991
1992 awards presented on Jun 23, 1992
1993 awards presented on Sep 30, 1993
1994 awards presented on Dec 19, 1994
1995 awards presented on Oct 18, 1995
1996 awards presented on Jul 26, 1996
1997 awards presented on Dec 17, 1997
1998 awards presented on Apr 27, 1999
1999 awards presented on Mar 14, 2000
2000 awards presented on Dec 1, 2000
2001 awards presented on Jun 12, 2002
2002 awards presented on Nov 6, 2003
2003 awards presented on Mar 14, 2005
2004 awards presented on Feb 13, 2006

1986 awards presented on Mar 12, 1986
1987 awards presented on Jun 25, 1987
1988 awards presented on Jul 15, 1988
1989 awards presented on Oct 18, 1989
1990 awards presented on Nov 13, 1990
1991 awards presented on Sep 16, 1991
1992 awards presented on Jun 23, 1992
1993 awards presented on Sep 30, 1993
1994 awards presented on Dec 19, 1994
1995 awards presented on Oct 18, 1995
1996 awards presented on Jul 26, 1996
1997 awards presented on Dec 17, 1997
1998 awards presented on Apr 27, 1999
1999 awards presented on Mar 14, 2000
2000 awards presented on Dec 1, 2000
2001 awards presented on Jun 12, 2002
2002 awards presented on Nov 6, 2003
2003 awards presented on Mar 14, 2005
2004 awards presented on Feb 13, 2006

1986 awards presented on Mar 12, 1986
1987 awards presented on Jun 25, 1987
1988 awards presented on Jul 15, 1988
1989 awards presented on Oct 18, 1989
1990 awards presented on Nov 13, 1990
1991 awards presented on Sep 16, 1991
1992 awards presented on Jun 23, 1992
1993 awards presented on Sep 30, 1993
1994 awards presented on Dec 19, 1994
1995 awards presented on Oct 18, 1995
1996 awards presented on Jul 26, 1996
1997 awards presented on Dec 17, 1997
1998 awards presented on Apr 27, 1999
1999 awards presented on Mar 14, 2000
2000 awards presented on Dec 1, 2000
2001 awards presented on Jun 12, 2002
2002 awards presented on Nov 6, 2003
2003 awards presented on Mar 14, 2005
2004 awards presented on Feb 13, 2006

1986 awards presented on Mar 12, 1986
1987 awards presented on Jun 25, 1987
1988 awards presented on Jul 15, 1988
1989 awards presented on Oct 18, 1989
1990 awards presented on Nov 13, 1990
1991 awards presented on Sep 16, 1991
1992 awards presented on Jun 23, 1992
1993 awards presented on Sep 30, 1993
1994 awards presented on Dec 19, 1994
1995 awards presented on Oct 18, 1995
1996 awards presented on Jul 26, 1996
1997 awards presented on Dec 17, 1997
1998 awards presented on Apr 27, 1999
1999 awards presented on Mar 14, 2000
2000 awards presented on Dec 1, 2000
2001 awards presented on Jun 12, 2002
2002 awards presented on Nov 6, 2003
2003 awards presented on Mar 14, 2005
2004 awards presented on Feb 13, 2006

1986 awards presented on Mar 12, 1986
1987 awards presented on Jun 25, 1987
1988 awards presented on Jul 15, 1988
1989 awards presented on Oct 18, 1989
1990 awards presented on Nov 13, 1990
1991 awards presented on Sep 16, 1991
1992 awards presented on Jun 23, 1992
1993 awards presented on Sep 30, 1993
1994 awards presented on Dec 19, 1994
1995 awards presented on Oct 18, 1995
1996 awards presented on Jul 26, 1996
1997 awards presented on Dec 17, 1997
1998 awards presented on Apr 27, 1999
1999 awards presented on Mar 14, 2000
2000 awards presented on Dec 1, 2000
2001 awards presented on Jun 12, 2002
2002 awards presented on Nov 6, 2003
2003 awards presented on Mar 14, 2005
2004 awards presented on Feb 13, 2006

1986 awards presented on Mar 12, 1986
1987 awards presented on Jun 25, 1987
1988 awards presented on Jul 15, 1988
1989 awards presented on Oct 18, 1989
1990 awards presented on Nov 13, 1990
1991 awards presented on Sep 16, 1991
1992 awards presented on Jun 23, 1992
1993 awards presented on Sep 30, 1993
1994 awards presented on Dec 19, 1994
1995 awards presented on Oct 18, 1995
1996 awards presented on Jul 26, 1996
1997 awards presented on Dec 17, 1997
1998 awards presented on Apr 27, 1999
1999 awards presented on Mar 14, 2000
2000 awards presented on Dec 1, 2000
2001 awards presented on Jun 12, 2002
2002 awards presented on Nov 6, 2003
2003 awards presented on Mar 14, 2005
2004 awards presented on Feb 13, 2006

1986 awards presented on Mar 12, 1986
1987 awards presented on Jun 25, 1987
1988 awards presented on Jul 15, 1988
1989 awards presented on Oct 18, 1989
1990 awards presented on Nov 13, 1990
1991 awards presented on Sep 16, 1991
1992 awards presented on Jun 23, 1992
1993 awards presented on Sep 30, 1993
1994 awards presented on Dec 19, 1994
1995 awards presented on Oct 18, 1995
1996 awards presented on Jul 26, 1996
1997 awards presented on Dec 17, 1997
1998 awards presented on Apr 27, 1999
1999 awards presented on Mar 14, 2000
2000 awards presented on Dec 1, 2000
2001 awards presented on Jun 12, 2002
2002 awards presented on Nov 6, 2003
2003 awards presented on Mar 14, 2005
2004 awards presented on Feb 13, 2006

1986 awards presented on Mar 12, 1986
1987 awards presented on Jun 25, 1987
1988 awards presented on Jul 15, 1988
1989 awards presented on Oct 18, 1989
1990 awards presented on Nov 13, 1990
1991 awards presented on Sep 16, 1991
1992 awards presented on Jun 23, 1992
1993 awards presented on Sep 30, 1993
1994 awards presented on Dec 19, 1994
1995 awards presented on Oct 18, 1995
1996 awards presented on Jul 26, 1996
1997 awards presented on Dec 17, 1997
1998 awards presented on Apr 27, 1999
1999 awards presented on Mar 14, 2000
2000 awards presented on Dec 1, 2000
2001 awards presented on Jun 12, 2002
2002 awards presented on Nov 6, 2003
2003 awards presented on Mar 14, 2005
2004 awards presented on Feb 13, 2006

1986 awards presented on Mar 12, 1986
1987 awards presented on Jun 25, 1987
1988 awards presented on Jul 15, 1988
1989 awards presented on Oct 18, 1989
1990 awards presented on Nov 13, 1990
1991 awards presented on Sep 16, 1991
1992 awards presented on Jun 23, 1992
1993 awards presented on Sep 30, 1993
1994 awards presented on Dec 19, 1994
1995 awards presented on Oct 18, 1995
1996 awards presented on Jul 26, 1996
1997 awards presented on Dec 17, 1997
1998 awards presented on Apr 27, 1999
1999 awards presented on Mar 14, 2000
2000 awards presented on Dec 1, 2000
2001 awards presented on Jun 12, 2002
2002 awards presented on Nov 6, 2003
2003 awards presented on Mar 14, 2005
2004 awards presented on Feb 13, 2006

1986 awards presented on Mar 12, 1986
1987 awards presented on Jun 25, 1987
1988 awards presented on Jul 15, 1988
1989 awards presented on Oct 18, 1989
1990 awards presented on Nov 13, 1990
1991 awards presented on Sep 16, 1991
1992 awards presented on Jun 23, 1992
1993 awards presented on Sep 30, 1993
1994 awards presented on Dec 19, 1994
1995 awards presented on Oct 18, 1995
1996 awards presented on Jul 26, 1996
1997 awards presented on Dec 17, 1997
1998 awards presented on Apr 27, 1999
1999 awards presented on Mar 14, 2000
2000 awards presented on Dec 1, 2000
2001 awards presented on Jun 12, 2002
2002 awards presented on Nov 6, 2003
2003 awards presented on Mar 14, 2005
2004 awards presented on Feb 13, 2006

1986 awards presented on Mar 12, 1986
1987 awards presented on Jun 25, 1987
1988 awards presented on Jul 15, 1988
1989 awards presented on Oct 18, 1989
1990 awards presented on Nov 13, 1990
1991 awards presented on Sep 16, 1991
1992 awards presented on Jun 23, 1992
1993 awards presented on Sep 30, 1993
1994 awards presented on Dec 19, 1994
1995 awards presented on Oct 18, 1995
1996 awards presented on Jul 26, 1996
1997 awards presented on Dec 17, 1997
1998 awards presented on Apr 27, 1999
1999 awards presented on Mar 14, 2000
2000 awards presented on Dec 1, 2000
2001 awards presented on Jun 12, 2002
2002 awards presented on Nov 6, 2003
2003 awards presented on Mar 14, 2005
2004 awards presented on Feb 13, 2006

1986 awards presented on Mar 12, 1986
1987 awards presented on Jun 25, 1987
1988 awards presented on Jul 15, 1988
1989 awards presented on Oct 18, 1989
1990 awards presented on Nov 13, 1990
1991 awards presented on Sep 16, 1991
1992 awards presented on Jun 23, 1992
1993 awards presented on Sep 30, 1993
1994 awards presented on Dec 19, 1994
1995 awards presented on Oct 18, 1995
1996 awards presented on Jul 26, 1996
1997 awards presented on Dec 17, 1997
1998 awards presented on Apr 27, 1999
1999 awards presented on Mar 14, 2000
2000 awards presented on Dec 1, 2000
2001 awards presented on Jun 12, 2002
2002 awards presented on Nov 6, 2003
2003 awards presented on Mar 14, 2005
2004 awards presented on Feb 13, 2006

1986 awards presented on Mar 12, 1986
1987 awards presented on Jun 25, 1987
1988 awards presented on Jul 15, 1988
1989 awards presented on Oct 18, 1989
1990 awards presented on Nov 13, 1990
1991 awards presented on Sep 16, 1991
1992 awards presented on Jun 23, 1992
1993 awards presented on Sep 30, 1993
1994 awards presented on Dec 19, 1994
1995 awards presented on Oct 18, 1995
1996 awards presented on Jul 26, 1996
1997 awards presented on Dec 17, 1997
1998 awards presented on Apr 27, 1999
1999 awards presented on Mar 14, 2000
2000 awards presented on Dec 1, 2000
2001 awards presented on Jun 12, 2002
2002 awards presented on Nov 6, 2003
2003 awards presented on Mar 14, 2005
2004 awards presented on Feb 13, 2006

1986 awards presented on Mar 12, 1986
1987 awards presented on Jun 25, 1987
1988 awards presented on Jul 15, 1988
1989 awards presented on Oct 18, 1989
1990 awards presented on Nov 13, 1990
1991 awards presented on Sep 16, 1991
1992 awards presented on Jun 23, 1992
1993 awards presented on Sep 30, 1993
1994 awards presented on Dec 19, 1994
1995 awards presented on Oct 18, 1995
1996 awards presented on Jul 26, 1996
1997 awards presented on Dec 17, 1997
1998 awards presented on Apr 27, 1999
1999 awards presented on Mar 14, 2000
2000 awards presented on Dec 1, 2000
2001 awards presented on Jun 12, 2002
2002 awards presented on Nov 6, 2003
2003 awards presented on Mar 14, 2005
2004 awards presented on Feb 13, 2006

Seems that they're REALLY filtering the science news for the masses these days...

The quote you cite is actually pretty much straight from the NSF announcement of the awards, so the dumbing down happened at that level, not from the newspaper. I had a quick skim through his recently published papers (as in titles and MathSciNet reviews) and while he is obviously doing some interesting work, apparently mostly in algebraic and differential topology, I couldn't easily discern what new fields he's created, nor what unexpected connections he's made - so it indeed would have been nice if the summary had included just a little more information clarifying that. I'm honestly curious now - can anyone provide a quick overview of his more important contributions?

Jedidiah.