Slashdot Mirror


Scientific American's Top 50

dptalia writes "It's that time of year again, where everyone is putting out their best of 2006 lists. Last week, Popular Science did it, and today, Scientific American has released their top 50 list. Of note are improvements in RFID technology, discoveries in nantechnology, and net neutrality."

19 of 75 comments (clear)

  1. Slashdot's Top 10 by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why not have a /. top 10 news stories of 2006, as slashback retrospective of the year 2006? Or something.

    Then we can have a poll of the top five, to let the readers decide which one is the top story of 2006.

    And I want my 15 min of slashfame for suggesting it.

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  2. Summaries by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Is it too much to ask that a summary say what this is a Top 50 of?

    1. Re:Summaries by Salvance · · Score: 2, Funny

      Even after reading the article, it's rather difficult to say what it is a top 50 of ... Scientific American calls it "Scientific American 50: Trends in Research, Business and Policy". What a mishmash. Looks like they originally wanted to have 3 top 50s and couldn't think of enough to fill all the slots, so threw what they had into one.

      --
      Crack - Free with every butt and set of boobs
    2. Re:Summaries by MollyB · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I just got my copy of the actual magazine yesterday, and I still haven't given it the time to do more than scan it in general. It IS much too long for a summary, even if only two or three were briefly highlighted.

      Of course, if you wish to read the whole shebang online, it's there. I don't think it is the natural meat & potatoes of typical slashdot fare.

      Maybe there are newsworthy items in the list, but many compilations of "things achieved" necessarily have that Yesterday's News feeling. And no, you aren't asking for too much; you don't want the camel's nose in the tent, though.

    3. Re:Summaries by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's a list of 50 scientific accomplishments from 2006 that the Scientific American editors feel are noteworthy. You can probably get a better idea of this from the introduction to the article/list.

      --
      This guy's the limit!
  3. Right automotive achievements to recognize? by Salvance · · Score: 4, Informative

    I thought it was interesting that the section on green cars ("on the road to green") mentioned GM and DaimlerChrysler for their work on new Hybrid technology, and HyMotion for their new plug-in Hybrid conversion kits, but didn't mention any of the advances with pure electric car designs. For example, the Tesla roadster has sold a couple hundred sports cars that perform well (0-60 in 4 seconds) with excellent range (250 miles). This achievement in a production auto certainly seems worthy of their top 50. While it's not exactly for your average consumer (it costs $100K), the company plans to offer family cars for their homepage.

    --
    Crack - Free with every butt and set of boobs
    1. Re:Right automotive achievements to recognize? by Shivetya · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think the reason to keep the "Tesla" off the chart is this simple, anyone can make an unaffordable solution. They key to success there is marketing it properly.

      The "automakers" work under the constraint that its affordable to the majority of the drivers out there (think 12-25k), its cheap to maintain (think just change the oil and rotate tires), and its reliable (we don't want it back 15 times).

      Of course some are going as far as looking down the road "Will we be liable for the technology in this if someone deems is a threat in the future?" (think asbestos)

      --
      * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
  4. Pure sciences by metlin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So, is there a reason that advances in pure sciences (e.g. Theoretical Physics and Mathematics) are not mentioned in these lists?

    While some of those projects are science, most seem to be technology projects. The irony of this of course is that business and policy makers are given recognition, rather than some scientists and mathematicians, who probably make more significant contributions (e.g. Grigori Perelman).

    What's ironic, of course, is that these magazines are called Scientific American and Popular Science. /Rant

    1. Re:Pure sciences by hebcb · · Score: 2, Informative

      Over the past 20 years SciAm seems to have moved more towards technology/applied articles than pure science. I remember a much higher number (per issue) of pure mathemetics/physics/anthropology/etc articles. Maybe there's something to the position some have taken is that there is nothing left to discover ;-) An alternative view might be that the number of "pure science" (i.e. academic) journals keeps growing and it's more important for the already strapped academics to keep churning out articles in the peer-review journals.

  5. Item #51 by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 2, Funny

    Accomplishment #51: Building a robust enough server network to survive Slashdotting.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  6. I Wanna Know... by eno2001 · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...why the Segway isn't on there. Wasn't the Segway supposed to the the "IT" that everyone was talking about? Hehehe.. I remember that when some rumours were leaked about what "IT" was, and the word transporter showed up, people started thinking transporter technology like on Star Trek. That WOULD have truly made it to this list, had it been the case. But it wasn't. However, considering how poorly the average American eats, and how fat those people are getting, I see a future industry for Segway. Imagine the day when Americans believe it's their right to enjoy the culinary delights of KFC, McDonalds, Burger King and the like and weigh 5000 pounds and have tons of health problems. To deny them the pleasures of these great dining experiences would rank up there with communism and gun control. So, Segway could then introduce the surgical leg replacements as most limbs would be unsuitable to move the typical American fatass. So people will voluntarily have their legs removed and replaced with industrial strength Segway devices so that they can easily maneuver their way into the next fast food joint down the street. ;P

    --
    -"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
    1. Re:I Wanna Know... by Rob+T+Firefly · · Score: 3, Informative

      Heh.. good or bad, though, devices introduced in 2001 don't really fit on "best of 2006" lists.

  7. Re:"Scientific American" missed one. by metlin · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Science has been replaced by technology.

    People have stopped caring about fundamentals, all they care is about their own shiny new gadget.

    I'd not be surprised if the average intellect of the population has also decreased, thanks to our wonderful media. Not to mention our educational system that cares more about getting better grades and a job than in making you understand the basics.

    Sad, that.

  8. Re:"Scientific American" missed one. by MyLongNickName · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Wow. What a cranky old man. And one that replies to an unrelated post just to get to the top of the comment list.

    Why don't you read the article? There are plenty of examples of messing around with fundamentals in the article. Try reading the one about "beginning to see the light". Two dimensional light waves able to take pictures smaller than the wavelength of the originating light. Quite amazing stuff.

    Hate to break this to you, but fundamental shifts in science don't happen every day. If they did, they would not be so amazing. Often they come on the back of generations of hard work.

    --
    See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
  9. Much more fun... by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Get people predict the important stories of 2007 and then come back in a year to compare predictions. That'd sort out the real gurus and pundits from the wannabes.

    --
    Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
  10. With dupes: Re:Slashdot's Top 5 by neurostar · · Score: 4, Funny

    Then we can have a poll of the top five, to let the readers decide which one is the top story of 2006.

    Why don't we just pick the top 5, and they can dupe them to get the top "10"?

  11. Re:"Scientific American" missed one. by metlin · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I was referring to pure sciences (e.g. theoretical physics and mathematics). All the ones out there are applied science/technology.

    There is a difference. I would imagine that folks like Grigori Perelman who solved the Poincare conjecture would be in there, but instead I find Al Gore in that list. Nice.

  12. is policy/advocacy really worthy enough? by east+coast · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Not to question the integrity or sincerity of some of the "top 50" but I was expecting more of a top 50 in advancement instead of simply advocacy. While it is important that the public be informed on issues of a scientific nature to better understand there impact on the world around them I don't find it as noteworthy as people producing real solutions instead of simply putting their weight behind a movement.

    I'm kinda borderline on this whole thing.

    --
    Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
  13. Improvements in RFID? by superstick58 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Everyone always talks about RFID as it is used by the end user, i.e. Wal-Mart, toll-ways, credit cards etc. However, where better improvements are really needed is on the factory floor for all the suppliers that Wal-Mart mandates must use the technology. If a vendor wants to be a supplier to Wal-Mart, they face mandates that they must tag at some level of pallet, box, item. Suppliers can do this, but it offers no value except that Wal-Mart will buy their stuff. So how do they add value? The idea is to implement the RFID tagging higher up the line into the manufacturing process so that each supplier can track their inventory as it rolls off the line, into storage, and out the dock doors onto the truck. However, current UHF RFID technology is pretty poor at integrating in the manufacturing environment. With all the metal, hot air, dust, etc. etc., the limitation of RFID is really shown. Plus, depending on your material (hmmm beverage makers? Sorry liquid is a pain to work with), the application may be near impossible to implement. Read rates are generally good, but encoding is very very difficult. Reliability is perhaps in the 90% range if you are lucky which is very bad for processes that generally require quality results in the 99% ranges. I'd like to see RFID developed so it can be used on the shop floor with high reliability and easier implementation.