Slashdot Mirror
The Year in Technology
bedessen writes "It's that time again, when we look back on the year in summary. New Scientist has an article "2002, The Year in Technology", as well as "The Year in Medicine and Biology." Popular Science brings us "The 15th Annual Best of What's New.""
That might be #1 for this decade, yes?
Is this truly the only Earth I can live on?
I found it kind of funny that this ad (mirror) was displayed at the top of this page when I reloaded it to refresh the comments.
..The vast majority of the world doesn't really give a fsck. ..The final solution of whether one is prime or not will probably lead to a technological revolution the likes of which we haven't seen since the Rennaisance. :p
;)
Physicists? Biogeneticists? Cloning? Those don't scare me.
Mathematicians scare me.
It hasn't been confirmed, so it wouldn't be responsible to put it on the list. The claim is rather dubious. Anyway, there was no technological hurdle which was crossed. Other mammals have been cloned.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free
"The endlessly versatile carbon nanotube was then shown also to have an explosive side in April. A laboratory accident revealed that a bundle of carbon nanotubes will explode when exposed to an ordinary camera flash." Just in time for New Years!
Isnt 1 or 0 being a prime number unimportant? Perhaps my math isnt high enough yet (Math Analysis (Trig) in High school currently). Isnt it being a prime number just a label? Whats the significance? Its an interesting argument anyway. I like this kind of stuff, Im just wondering if it changes anything or is an argument for the sake of knowing.
They switched the face link with the penis link in the article, not my fault, really! Try this one.
I taught computers to learn nouns and verbs based on visual perception this year. See here for more info.
So that's why we don't WANT 1 to be a prime.
I don't want 11 to be prime, either. Would you mind doing some of that math work and fixing this, please?
Remember "Bring 'em on"? *sigh
They can never have too much coffee (caffeine is only good in some professions), and if they run Windows you have an easy-to-win malpractice suit that benifits yourself as well as the open source community!
True, I didn't RTFA but that's what posts are for!
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
Anyone else caught this from the new scientist article?
My word! They make bikinis that size?
Based on upvotes, Ageism is the only "-ism" Slashdotters care about and think isn't SJW
a mouse, not a man. . . .
KFG
Sadly, the article on technology describes nothing that can really be described as a breakthrough. There were some more little steps towards quantum computing, but this journey did not start in 2002 and certainly did not reach fruition in 2002.
...
An honest title for the article would have been "No technology breakthroughs in 2002", but that wouldn't have sold any magazines
Clone, clone, I engage,
And she sits and she comes when I say,
And seldom is heard,
You're a troll you fucking nerd,
And my hands are not swatted away
Is this truly the only Earth I can live on?
Heh, just seems like the usual happened. Things were improved, more ideas were thought up, transistors got smaller, Microsoft got dumber, and linux got better. It doesn't seem like anything really remarkable happened this year that would count as a breakthrough. Next year, maybe?
NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
--I agree with the editors at popular science, the ibm product is COOL. The modular computing system-at work, it's a desktop, cruising around the core stays with you as a PDA or wearable rig, once home slide it into the laptop. This is a GREAT idea, although the price is medium sucky. I hope the concept catches on and more companies provide similar "modular computing" platforms. Reminds me-same concept-as what I got for Christmas from my girlfriend, a black and decker 12 volt cordless multitool, quite a nifty gadget, has a common battery and electric motor, but you can replace the head for a drill/driver, a jig saw or a sander. Slickness.
Youve got to be kidding me. This comment should not have been modded up in the first place.
m l
The message text is at:
http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/58723.ht
I remember having a distinctly similar conversation with my third grade teacher when we learned about things like long division and prime numbers.
Prime numbers are *extremely* significant in mathematics. Prime numbers are one of the most fundamental ideas in set theory. It turns out that it doesn't matter what base number system you use, or if you even use numbers or finite sets, you will end up with some form of prime numbers (or prime cardinality).
The idea of primality is a very basic concept in mathematics and it lies very close to the fundamentals of logic and set theory. You mention that you are in high school, but if you are interested in reading more, I suggest reading something from an Abstract Algebra website or text book. Abstract algebra is a college level math course, that could be understood easily by an interested and motivated high school student. No calculus or prior college math is necessary to understand Abstract Algebra, although a highschool geometry course might help you with the concepts of theorems and proofs.
Keeping
Amazing. The news is, first of all, that a number of ethical cretins are trying to clone a human baby, and next that proposed treatments for serious diseases have failed disastrously, next that a couple of nasty diseases turn out to be more dangerous than expected, and finally that research continues in areas that can not be expected to produce anything to ease suffering for years, if not decades. Where is the good news?
/. posters. Ye gods....!! If this is an indication of how the public reacts to questions of health and science, we are in for a rough century.
Next look at the smartass, off-topic, smutty reactions of lots of
It seems IMHO time to question seriously the basic approach the scientific community is taking toward biomedical research. What, exactly, is the cost/benefit ratio these days?
Further, how sensible is it to buy into the article of faith that all we have to do is continue to pour billions into basic research, expecting that sooner or later we will all lead longer and better lives as a result? It could be that we are wasting tons of money. It would be an excellent idea to re-examine how we allocate scarce resources in the pursuit of knowledge. I'm not a Luddite, but I am very disappointed that our progress has been so slow. Consider, for example, when you last saw any statistics showing how much money has been spent researching cancer (both on basic research and in the development of clinical tools), and how the suvival rates for the disease have changed over the last half-century. I think you don't see these figures because they are grim, indeed.
Maybe thirty years ago a physician told me that childhood leukemia was "almost not fatal any more." Where is it today? "Not fatal?" Are we chasing a will-o'-the-wisp, or have we really got a grip on where we want to go, and how to get there? How uncoordinated and goofy are our efforts? Should we not be further along by now??
My argument is not against science, basic research, or knowledge. It is simply that it would be better--more efficient--if we spent our money more wisely, that is, according to rational plans that consider results and costs when deciding where to put our efforts. Are we in this to learn things, or to save human life? Can we do both? Sometimes it appears that there IS a very real difference between two camps: one pushing for more labs and money for whatever it wants to pursue, the other genuinely concerned with saving lives. Consider:
Long ago the Nixon administration tried to shift funds to the implementation of widespread early detection programs, in the sure knowledge that certain cancers (not all) can be cured if detected when small. The scientific community howled like a stuck pig. Sure, Nixon was a jerk, but his priority was the saving of lives, now. As a result of intensive lobbying, the early detection approach was scrapped, and who knows how many lives have been lost because of that? I could not criticize this if it could be shown that pressing on with expensive basic research had saved even an equivalent number of lives, but I am sure no such result was obtained. Those who argued against Nixon's approach were willing to sacrifice hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of human beings in order to be able to carry on programs whose results could only be speculated about. I do not call that ethical--it seems more like selfishness, and inhumane selfishness at that.
We ought to have another look, ask some hard questions, and consider whether the scientific establishment has taken the bit in its teeth. Poor results for 2001 are a hint that I might be right.