Slashdot Mirror


2005 Scientific Highlights

Nomad37 writes "The Sydney Morning Herald has a great wrap-up of the great moments in 2005 for science. The story covers everything from evolution to space exploration, the role of genetics in brain disorder to nuclear fusion. The story provides a neat overview for those of us who haven't been checking Slashdot regularly enough!"

24 of 113 comments (clear)

  1. Why check? by grub · · Score: 5, Funny


    The story provides a neat overview for those of us who haven't been checking Slashdot regularly enough!

    The dupes make it so we don't have to check regularly, silly.

    --
    Trolling is a art,
    1. Re:Why check? by 1u3hr · · Score: 3, Informative
      The dupes make it so we don't have to check regularly, silly.

      Yes, since Zonk posted the same story yesterday. That referenced the BBC, this the SMH. A moment's searching brings you to the original story at the American Association for the Advancement of Science's Science magazine.

  2. 2005 isn't finished yet by Frequency+Domain · · Score: 5, Funny

    The authors of the article are really going to have egg on their face when the aliens land next week.

  3. Nice. by Starker_Kull · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sometimes, it's easy to forget that science is alive, well, and thriving when reading all the ID and creationist nonsense that is circulating throught the media today - it's a nice reminder that while ID is getting some press, REAL science is getting money, time, top-notch researchers, and revealing ever more about how our amazing Universe works. Happy New Year!!!

    1. Re:Nice. by Stan+Vassilev · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well ID is also getting money and research you know.

      Or you missed that CNN report where they shot that "ID museum", with Adam and Eve petting their home pets (I think it was an animatronic T-Rex and Raptor: man that's a lot of ... grass to feed such pets).

      ID has scientific prove that it all started 6000 years ago.

      God bless ignorance. Amen.

    2. Re:Nice. by Starker_Kull · · Score: 3, Interesting

      True - but all the money it gets and the research it does result in the same thing - nothing. There are no new compelling theories of ID (it really *IS* the Flying Spaghetti Monster who did it! Rivers are really the fossilized remains of his noodly apendages, filled up with rainwater! The evidence is the higher than normal quanities of starch found in riverbanks!), no large numbers of Ph.D. grads flocking to the exciting research area of ID, etc. So while ID'ers squawk on about the weaknesses of evolution, the real scientists go on discovering what makes live tick. I guess I find it inspiring and amazing to watch.

      But your point is taken - we can't let our guard down either.

    3. Re:Nice. by castoridae · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's why creationists receive media attention; media obsession with the underdog.

      How about a strong lobby with the party in power, and a well-organized, strongly coherent, and rather vocal voting bloc?

    4. Re:Nice. by jdbartlett · · Score: 4, Funny

      It was a T-Rex and a domestic cat, actually.

      Eventually, dogs replaced the T-Rex as the most popular non-feline household pet, but the name "Rex" was still kept for the sake of nostalgia.

      The cat's name was Tiddles.

    5. Re:Nice. by Floody · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I'm pretty sure God condemns ignorance. i mean really, if the whole point of existance is so intelligent beings would someday develop, ignorance is the antithesis of that. it's ungodly


      Subjectively, to any being capable of single-handedly designing everything from the fine-scale structure of the universe up to and including mitochondria and T-cells, I'm willing to bet we'd all pretty much be right around the same point at the bottom of the ignorance graph. Sorta like mold. Do you think some mold is ignorant while other mold clearly is really well educated, refined and capable of cherishing its fellow mold?
    6. Re:Nice. by bloodredsun · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I agree with you to a certain extent in that people take knowledge for granted but that is understandable. Knowledge at a certain level does become, for want of a better word, "magic".

      I have a PhD in Neuroscience and while I could tell you a load of info on biological sciences and basic science in general, I am no more able to tell you of quantum physics than anyone else. This means that I must take this information on trust from people who I know more than I do: teachers or scientists. On the surface this trust is based on faith, and is the same as listening to the Clergy, but there is a major difference.

      Newtons's phrase "standing on the shoulders of giants" was reference to the fact that all science can trace it's roots back to basic experiments that we can all do at home. This is where science differs from religion. The ability to go back to founding principles and show your proof rather than telling people that the answer is "because God said so".

      Treating subjects such as evolution as a fact is more a reflection of certainty than being closed minded. As our body of knowledge increases, patterns of data become more and more certain and we start to regard these patterns as absolute facts. It's then only natural to spend our time questioning other areas of knowledge, but in the knowledge that we can go back and re-examine our data and assumptions. This differs hugely from the average creationist where facts are given with no proof (other than "the Bible says so") and to try to question them is heresy.

      And as for the media being focused on the youth, will they are the focus of the media, the hands that hold the reins are definitely not youths.

  4. Re:Nice - oh yeah, I forgot... by Starker_Kull · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...from the article: "Not even the US President, George Bush, could ignore the historic hurricane season in the north Atlantic this year." - heh, heh, heh....

    [Ducks and applies SPF50 flame-block]

  5. Actually by Hey+Pope+Felcher+.+. · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I feel the unmasking of the fake results posted by Woo Suk Hwang could be a blessing for science, and one of the years highlights. It could be portrayed as why science works, although the community requires a basis of trust, eventually frauds will be revealed, hopefully creating more trust in the system.

    What science requires are better media relations to portray this way of viewing the discipline.

    1. Re: Actually by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2, Interesting

      > I feel the unmasking of the fake results posted by Woo Suk Hwang could be a blessing for science, and one of the years highlights. It could be portrayed as why science works, although the community requires a basis of trust, eventually frauds will be revealed, hopefully creating more trust in the system.

      The response of scientists to the revelation of this liar among their number certainly makes an interesting contrast to the response of proponents of Intelligent Design to the the revelation of liars among their number, which was also big news this week.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  6. MOD PARENT DOWN. by Virak · · Score: 3, Informative

    It's the exact same fucking link, except this time it points to the top of the page. It's no more 'printer friendly' than the other one.

  7. 2005 Scientific Highlights by Forget4it · · Score: 5, Funny

    2005 Scientific Highlights That's whole lot of highlights!

    --
    Artificial intelligence is the study of how to make real computers act like the ones in the movies.
  8. Wait a minute, wait a minute by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    "...who haven't been checking Slashdot regularly enough!"

    What, you mean BSD isn't dead?

  9. Mickey's genetic code by jdbartlett · · Score: 2, Funny

    I thought the real breakthrough was when they cracked Mickey's genetic code and found out that while man shares 96% DNA with chimps, he also shares 90% DNA with mice, his other cousin. Woman refuses to share DNA.

  10. Just go home if you're going to post dupes by 1u3hr · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This article is from the Sydney Morning Herald, reporting the American Association for the Advancement of Science's "Top 10". Yesterday the Evolution Named Scientific Achievement of 2005 story was the BBC reporting the same fucking list. By cleverly putting "evolution" in the title then Zonk got the standard 800 posts you always get when you wave that red flag.

  11. A great but sad evolution achievement this year by surfingmarmot · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A federal court ruling quashing the teaching of the religiously-motivated pseudo-science of intelligent design in Pennsylvania schools (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10545387/). Its great to have fought off this challenge to science and education in America (yet again), but sad that we are still having these challenges after all science has accomplished since Western mankind threw off the yoke theocracy first put on science in the Middle Ages.

    1. Re:A great but sad evolution achievement this year by Deadstick · · Score: 2, Interesting

      #include "IANAL.h"

      Sadder yet, an asterisk should be attached to the Dover event. Since the Dover voters have already thrown out the school board that started the issue, and the new board is quite happy with the decision, there will be no appeal. That means it will not go to a higher court, which in turn means the decision will have little or no precedential effect outside its jurisdiction.

      rj

  12. Re: Funny...explain this... by Floody · · Score: 2, Informative
    > (Weekends are good for a little "trolling" ;-)

    But apparently not for a little good trolling.


    Yeah, I thought he was trolling too. Then I looked at some of his (the GP) previous posts. Not so much.

    To the GP, I am not disrespecting your faith, however ... you may wish to reconsider any line of logic which posits that the electromotive force, whether represented as a potential "force" or as a true force in the physics sense, is not understood.

    Most simplisticly, the reason your ferromagnet remains attached to the fridge instead of falling is because the potential electromotive force generated by the dipoles in the magnet and the fridge is greater than the potential gravitional force between the magnet and the earth. Note the word potential in both clauses. Until the magnet actually moves, no work has been done and thus no energy has been expended. It does not "cost" anything for the magnet to remain attached. If the magnet were weak enough that potential gravity could overrule it, then there would be a cost (for as long as the magnet continued to change inertially), to both the earth's inertia/angular momentum and the related magnetic domains.

    I know it must seem magical, but its really just a simple case of the magnet being in the lowest possible rest-state (energy-wise) for that configuration.

    You'll notice that it's not called the "Theory of Thermodynamics".

  13. Haahaa by BlackShirt · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I guess this is the best metaphor that has ever been used in a science article.

    >>Neutron stars are the *city-sized*, collapsed cores of massive stars.

  14. Re: Funny...explain this... by Floody · · Score: 2, Informative
    It may be nit-picking, but friction is a big part in this case. Many refrigerator magnets are not stronge enough to work on the bottom of a vertical surface.


    Sorta, depending on you how you look at friction. Any time the layperson's concept of "friction" is involved, it usually just means gravity (after all, in a zero-g environment, will two objects directly touching each other stay that way if a force is applied perpendicularly to one of them?)

    In this case though, that's not really the type of "friction" in play. Like gravity, electromagnetism follows the inverse square law. And, in your example of a magnet suspended vertically from a horizontal surface, the field effect will rapidly fall off as the magnet's distance from the ferrite increases. In fact, because there is no potential force, other than that created by the magnet, which would balance gravitational potential, any increase in distance between the magnet and the ferrite will cause a drop in magnetomotive effect ("potential electromotive force") as well as true current-potential electromotive force. Thus the only "energy hill" is momentary and equal to that of the magnetomotive effect itself. Like balancing two identically weighted people on a a teeter-totter, as soon as you apply the slighest momentary force to one side, they are on an unstoppable (w/out addl force elsewhere) downward journey.

    Not so with a horizontal ferromagnet on a vertical surface. Assuming right angles to the center of gravity, the magnet's distance from the ferrite never increases when gravitional potential becomes true force. The inverse square law has no effect. Now, the gravitional potential must continously meet or beat the non-varying (or very slightly varying) electromotive potential. Because some of the gravitional potential is now actual force (i.e. work is being done), it cannot continously stay "over the hill" as would be required, although if the magnet is weak enough and the two are toe-to-toe, gravity may very well continually "win" but with only enough force to induce minor inertial change and the rest being "consumed" by balancing the non-varying magnetomotive (i.e. the magnet slowly slides down the fridge). Obviously, such a precarious balancing act requires very little change on either side's potential to start a runaway resulting in the magnet either stopping or falling off into inverse-square-law world. This is the facination people have with so-called "permanent magnets"; that it is so easily possible to directly observe and manipulate the equilibrium point between two potentials.

    The main cause of magnetism seeming so mysterious to many is that our instinctual inertial and gravitional perception is not what it seems at first glance. We think, instinctively, that we "feel" gravity, but what we're really feeling is a combination of fluid orientation and inertial potential. In other words, rather than perceiving the actual force performing work, we're perceiving potential energy offset by 1g perpendicular to our orientation. When someone "feels" the pull of a magnet, what they're really feeling is the potential for their hand to experience inertial change. If they allow their hand to move, they will mostly cease to notice the real force (they would notice the acceleration, but it's minor in the case of household magnets). Because one must always balance potential in order to prevent it from asserting the lowest possible energy state (i.e. expending itself), people mistakingly perceive this as work-energy when in reality they could balance it equally well with some external non-moving brace which prevented joint movement.

    I guess it comes down to this: Effort as "not-work" means there is no real force involved, as you can't actually use it to do a damn thing.
  15. Re:Power source for post it note by Darby · · Score: 2, Funny

    If a refridgerator magnet needs a power source, what is the power source for the Post-It(tm) note hanging beside it?

    Gluons, duh.