Slashdot Mirror


Private Donor Saves Fermilab

sciencehabit writes "In what has to be an embarrasment for the U.S. Department of Energy, an anonymous donor has ponied up $5 million to keep the country's only remaining particle physics laboratory operating efficiently."

75 of 560 comments (clear)

  1. The sad thing... by nebaz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    is that it's probably no embarrassment at all.

    --
    Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
    1. Re:The sad thing... by mrbluze · · Score: 5, Insightful

      [The sad thing..] is that it's probably no embarrassment at all. Even sadder is that the DOE has no sense of embarrassment.
      --
      Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
    2. Re:The sad thing... by TubeSteak · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Even sadder is that the DOE has no sense of embarrassment. It's not the DOE's fault.
      The Congress and Senate slashed the budget, not the DOE.

      Maybe you can say "well they didn't lobby hard enough to maintain or grow their funding...
      but it's pretty obvious that science has not been a USA priority for quite some time now.
      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    3. Re:The sad thing... by gnick · · Score: 3, Insightful

      it's pretty obvious that science has not been a USA priority for quite some time now. Yep. Our administration has decided that making footprints on Mars and digging graves in Iraq outweighs energy research. Sucks.

      Even worse? The DoE is almost entirely devoted to missions having nothing to do with energy research.

      Too depressing...
      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    4. Re:The sad thing... by mrbluze · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Maybe you can say "well they didn't lobby hard enough to maintain or grow their funding... but it's pretty obvious that science has not been a USA priority for quite some time now.

      I agree with you, but I think the timing of the US's scientific stagnation is also uncanny. It's been several generations since the last influx of extremely bright and educated scientists (and philosophers) from conquered lands. Iraq, I have to say, hasn't netted anything of the sort (with all due respect to Iraqis).

      Is there a problem with the handing on of scientific knowledge in the US? Or is this a reflection of American cultural shortcomings? It seems to me that US culture is too shallow to recognize the importance of free & fair education 'for all'. If you don't provide equal opportunity to every child to excel and prove themselves in academia, then the chances of plucking the brightest from the far reaches of the bell curve diminish.

      I say this knowing full well I'm going to be modded a troll or flaimbait or something.

      --
      Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
    5. Re:The sad thing... by Cairnarvon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Compared to Iraq, the Mars missions are pretty much free (and incalculably more useful). They don't even make a dent in the annual federal budget.

    6. Re:The sad thing... by The+Master+Control+P · · Score: 4, Funny

      Goddamn government leftists and their "Computer" research. Fat lot of fuckin good that'll ever do us. If that dork Turing cares so much, let him pay for it! None of that stuff will ever see the light of day or help us in general.

      Oh wait!

    7. Re:The sad thing... by MishgoDog · · Score: 5, Interesting

      An article in an Australian newspaper pointed out that it's costing us more to build a new ticketing system for public transport in Melbourne than it cost to send the Pheonix Lander to mars.
      Quite amusing, really!

    8. Re:The sad thing... by mrbluze · · Score: 5, Insightful

      An article in an Australian newspaper pointed out that it's costing us more to build a new ticketing system for public transport in Melbourne than it cost to send the Pheonix Lander to mars. I read somewhere that it costs more to put (and maintain) ticket machines + inspectors on the trams than the combined wages and benefits of all the former tram inspectors that were laid off. It was (and probably still is) costing more to maintain the damned ticketing system than the ticketing revenue. It would have been cheaper to make public transport free of cost. What a change that would have to Melbourne's smog cloud!
      --
      Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
    9. Re:The sad thing... by Cairnarvon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Some perspective: all of NASA gets about half of a percent of the US federal budget.
      Said federal budget is $2.7 trillion in 2008, while Phoenix and MRO combined barely break a billion, and both are invaluable in terms of knowledge we get from them (have already gotten and are still getting from the MRO mission, and expect to get from Phoenix).

      And a final bit of perspective: the $5 million Fermilab gets from this private donor is less than what half an hour of Iraq is costing the US.

    10. Re:The sad thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What's going to happen is that there will be a severe wealth gap (gini coefficient) developing between those who do science and those who don't (aka. the shallow culture). This is already happening (as evidenced by the creative class: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0205.florida.html
      and the geek class:
      http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/23/opinion/23brooks.html
        and it will just get worse. There's not really too much to fear if you have a Science degree and a bit of business sense, but if you don't, watch out.

      No amount of whining on slashdot, or politician concern will change it. It's a culture that has to change.

    11. Re:The sad thing... by I'll+Provide+The+War · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Look at the US Congress. 60% lawyers, 20% lifetime politicians, 1% scientists and engineers.

    12. Re:The sad thing... by rhakka · · Score: 4, Interesting

      compared to who?

      I mean, I know they *complain* a lot about their pay, but here is some pay scales here in maine: http://www.teacher-world.com/teacher-salary/maine.html

      not huge, but be aware of the median values in the state: http://www.state.me.us/spo/economics/economic/householdincome.htm

      I'll save you the math, statewide the average income is 34.5k/year for an entire family.

      So, a teacher with NO experience can walk into a teaching job and start earning almost as much as most households in maine.

      and they get 3 months off a year plus vacations.

      Really, my heart bleeds.

      The teacher's union cares nothing for education. Standing in the way of vouchers proves it. any place in north america that has experimented with parent choice as a motivator for schools and assignment of funding has seen dramatic success, yet, the teacher's union won't hear of it. really, read up. harlem is looking to switch wholesale..

      I love teachers and have several as close friends. and the union is a horrible monstrosity that shows that wild un-unionized labor is horribly exploitable, so is a system with a heavily entrenched union, just by different people.

    13. Re:The sad thing... by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Perhaps it's time the legislation was put in place to ensure that government actually is representative of the people. Like jury service, onyl better paid, so people actually want to do it.

      --
      Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
    14. Re:The sad thing... by story645 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      To be more fair, NASA's also about a lot more than just space exploration these days. It's spawned/pays for all sorts of research in weather and climate that's got very real applications, and it's shiny satellites are used by tons of universities/researchers.

      (disclaimer: I play with NASA images for a stipend.)

      --
      open source modern art: laser taggi
    15. Re:The sad thing... by ultranova · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It was (and probably still is) costing more to maintain the damned ticketing system than the ticketing revenue. It would have been cheaper to make public transport free of cost. What a change that would have to Melbourne's smog cloud!

      But making it free would make libertarians and wannabe economists cry out: "Socialism ! Bad ! Why should my tax money support anything, you communist swine ? Free market ! Free market ! Free market !"

      It's politically better to have a wasteful payment system than to give the appearance of being anything but ultra-rightwing free market fundamentalist.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    16. Re:The sad thing... by gregbot9000 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Some times mass transit systems can actually increase revenue by lowering prices. The real question is capacity, prices are used as a rationing tool, raise the price to keep people off in accord with capacity, I think mass transit systems should lower prices and try to maximize ridership.

    17. Re:The sad thing... by Hal_Porter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you are so freakin' concerned with this research, pull out your check book and pony up some cash!!! Put your money where your mouth is you geeky bafoons.

      Too bad wars weren't funded this way. It'd be a much more peaceful planet. Not necessarily. You'd end up with the modern equivalent of the British East India corporation, which was allowed to recruit armies to do 'business' abroad. It's the reason that India was colonised really.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_East_India_Company#Military_expansion
      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    18. Re:The sad thing... by porcupine8 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      They don't make the greatest pay (but not the worst, and in some areas high-demand math and science teachers do pretty well), BUT:

      a) Once they get tenure, they are nearly impossible to fire for even the most egregious misconduct. Tenure generally requires 3-5 years of teaching in the same district and little else, it's not like in higher ed where you have to jump through a million hoops to prove yourself worthy.

      b) Pay raises are based entirely on seniority, and in most places CANNOT be based on actual achievement, evaluations, good work, etc. The only exception is raises for getting an advanced degree.

      Yes, teachers get the short end of the stick in a lot of ways, but the union is not really helping things - it's hell-bent on securing the jobs of the worst teachers out there to the detriment of the average teachers, the decent teachers, the great teachers, and the students. There's no other job where you could do shitty work and not only not get fired for it, but continue to get the same raises as your colleagues who are doing far better work. Even if your boss wants to fire you and doesn't want to give you raises.

      --
      Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
    19. Re:The sad thing... by JordanL · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If you don't provide equal opportunity to every child to excel and prove themselves in academia, then the chances of plucking the brightest from the far reaches of the bell curve diminish.

      The US education system has a lot wrong with it, but those things have a WHOLE lot less to do with the amount of money spent or the cultural importance, than say, the state of union agreements or the burden of proof in situations where the school tries to do something someone somewhere finds objectionable.

      Denmark for instance has a spectacular school system, and they use something very close to school vouchers, which get all the touchy-feely my-heart-will-go-on I-love-the-children people in this country on the verge of a heart attack. For some reason, amking schools *earn* the ability to retain students is *really* bad for students, even though history proves otherwise.
    20. Re:The sad thing... by Dun+Malg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I love teachers and have several as close friends. and the union is a horrible monstrosity....[etc..etc..etc] I neither agree nor disagree with you, but the moment people see that kind of ridiculous logic used then all credibility is lost. Let me give you an example.. "I love americans, many of my close friends are americans, but america is a horrible monstrosity [etc..etc..etc]" What a load of twat. My mother is a math teacher for the Los Angeles Unified School District. Ask her her opinion of UTLA. Bring a lunch, it'll take a while. There's nothing illogical about having a positive opinion of teachers and a negative opinion of how their union operates. You are apparently one of those idealist dolts who insists that "the teachers are the union", when anyone who's ever dealt with the reality of behemoth union leadership knows that the rank and file are largely powerless. They have the power to vote yea or nay on contracts, but what good is that when the guys running the union never present a decent contract? Run for union leadership and change that? Sure! I'll do it in the spare 6 hours a day I spend sleeping! Never mind that you won't get anywhere in the organization unless you're a back-room deal maker and a back scratcher--- at which point you're just as bad as the last guy.

      No sir, it is clearly you who is peddling "a load of twat"--- whatever the fuck that's supposed to mean, you illiterate tard.
      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    21. Re:The sad thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      You should take a look at teachers salaries around the rest of the country and you'll see those are a tad high compared to most states. California, New York, and a few others are in a similar range.

      You should also probably not generalize about what teachers unions do, and how they have an effect on the education that the children receive.

      Teachers unions negotiate to retain the salaries, contracts, and benefits for teachers primarily. In many states people have the same misguided assumptions and opinions about education that you have, and teachers salaries and benefits are constantly under attack. The teachers tend to need their unions to negotiate for them so that there is some unified backing for their needs. Of course in some states this has been taken to an extreme, you have failed to provide any evidence that it is extreme in the majority of situations.

      Teachers unions typically have little to no influence on things like curriculum, total number of hours spent on each subject, or classroom management. All of these things have much more of an effect on education than the amount of money teachers are paid. All of these things are decided by bureaucrat at the county, state, and federal levels. The state and federal levels of course have been given considerably more control over these aspects in large part due to the creation of the Department of Education and the passing of No Child Left Behind.

      As far as the amount of money that teachers are paid, they tend to be compensated for the total amount of time worked. In some districts this is for twelve months, and in others it is for approximately nine to ten months. When adjusted appropriately starting salaries may be similar to other educated professionals starting salaries. However, the pay scales with additional experience and time tend to not scale with other professions. This is usually a point of contention when people talk about how teachers are underpaid. Teachers are required to continue their educations either via university programs that will end in an additional degree (master, and phd programs), trainings for their specific curriculum and materials, classroom management, special needs training, etc. When compared to many other professions you can find that teachers that have been in the profession for any length of time have educational backgrounds and degrees similar to doctors and lawyers. Compensation for teachers is not commensurate with the amount of education they are required to have.

      Take a look at the payscale for teachers in most states and you will find that their pay caps out without additional education. Then take a look at the licensing requirements for teachers and you will find that they have to continue their education and meet certain requirements just to get their licenses renewed and keep their jobs. I think if you actually evaluate these areas you'll understand the complaints of many teachers.

      I don't even want to get into the fact that teachers have to deal with parents. I can't begin to tell you the number of parents that treat their children's teacher like an idiot. That assume their child can do no wrong, and assume that the teacher is always to blame. If there was more co-operation between parents and teachers we might see more success in our public school systems. This of course ignores socio-economic factors that prevent some parents from being more involved with their children's education.

      Of course now I'm just ranting, and really you should sit down with your teacher friends and discuss some of what they are required to do to maintain their jobs, be compliant with no child left behind, deal with parents, etc etc. You might find that you the issues are much more complicated than you understand.

    22. Re:The sad thing... by zippthorne · · Score: 4, Insightful

      For everything below high school, though, is a master's degree really necessary?

      In the real world, you don't pay people for the education they have, you pay them for the education you need. So if someone with a master's degree flips burgers, he's not going to be a freakin' six figure burger-flipper.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    23. Re:The sad thing... by masamax · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Perhaps it's time the legislation was put in place to ensure that government actually is representative of the people. Like jury service, onyl better paid, so people actually want to do it. Athens tried this 2400 years ago. Didn't work out so well.
      --
      I like to kill your couch. HE DIED HARD! MOO.
    24. Re:The sad thing... by Omestes · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Odd, I have been thinking something like this, but MUCH more conspiritorial (or at least more Foucaultian ). And educated population is not in the interests of the powers-that-be, since they are more capable of making informed, rational, decisions. The main theme of our culture (in the US at least, but other places increasingly so) is advertisement, not just about products, but about our very culture, and the politics that run our country. Advertisements depend on the passions, and the lack of critical thinking, the ability to be easily swayed with the minimum of evidence. Thus critical thinking benefits NO ONE, except us little people.

      This isn't really a tin-foil-hat flavored conspiracy though, since no one actually sat down and though about this, or implemented this. Its more like a form of social evolution, accidental, and based on survival values. Plus, why the hell would I go against my own interests for YOUR benefit? Its just like how it isn't in the criminal justice systems interests to eliminate crime (loss of profit, employees), or the lawyer based legal system to make sensible laws (loss of profit, employees), or the pharma industry to cure ANYTHING (loss of profit, employees). Again this has nothing to do with the conscious will of individuals, but the very structures involved.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    25. Re:The sad thing... by 19061969 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Good point. As a former scientist myself, I left the academic world for a number of reasons:

      1) Being poorly paid, commensurate to the qualifications, experience, and quality/scale of work. If I did what I did for a company, I would have been a senior executive on a large bonus. As it was, we got no performance pay to increase motivation, no bonuses whatsoever, few holidays, and we were packed into a cramped office fighting over crumbling PCs). Did I mention that HR considered it a good days work to start us off on the bottom of the pay scale regardless of experience, talent or qualifications.
      2) Spending half of my research time applying for grants and maybe 10-15% of what was left to complete mystifying administration work (hint: perhaps the admin staff could help us out by doing something useful rather than just giving leaflets out or showing presentations).
      3) Ethics committees being too PC and panicking any time we approached the public. I had to submit a 52 page questionnaire before I could issue a paper-based survey to people even if I just asked them anonymously what their favourite colour was.
      4) Low status - "rock star" professors are all well and good, but plain researchers get relegated to the bottom of the heap beneath administration in terms of resources if you can believe it. I once requisitioned a pair of headphones for an experiment. 18 months later, I had finished my thesis and still had no headphones. You guessed it - I had bought my own because it was easier).
      5) Little chance of advancement regardless of talent or accomplishments.
      6) Bad security - researchers live on temporary contracts and a permanent one is extremely rare. The problem is that with a family, I need a place to live etc and at least some idea that I might be able to stay in the same place for a few years rather than just 6 months.
      7) Having senior staff with inferior knowledge of methods tell you to change your design to one that is compromised. Admittedly this is rare, but annoying nonetheless.

      The points about lack of advancement, lack of pay, poor conditions etc, all seem to stem from management cocking it up. Because we didn't produce anything with a price tag on it, we couldn't demonstrate our worth in terms that they can understand. Instead, I left academia with my ideas and training and I am going to make them work for me. I tried the university's business start-up service, but they wanted a large percentage, control over how everything was run (if it's anything like the university then be prepared for another SCO), but they weren't interested because I was just a research fellow and therefore unimportant. Once they realised what my position was, they didn't even ask me what the idea was.

      The business isn't properly started yet, but we're getting there; and it's a very big market. We're just hoping to scrape by until the product begins to get momentum.

      In case you're interested, this was a UK university.

      --
      bang goes my karma... again...
    26. Re:The sad thing... by mrbooze · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Supposedly, much of Fermilab's current budget problems can be blamed on the retirement of Dennis Hastert. Haster's seniority and clout was a huge benefit for Fermilab. Apparently the timing of his retirement didn't help either, timed around the time that the budgets were being formulated and voted on. The actual budget vote that slashed Fermilab's funding didn't even get a vote from that district.

      I don't know, maybe this just highlights how screwed up the congressional seniority system really is.

    27. Re:The sad thing... by dr_d_19 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, it would be something like: 60% evolution deniers, 20% laywers and 1% scientists.

    28. Re:The sad thing... by Zelrak · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Do you really want Engineers in charge of designing machines? They have a vested interest not in good machines, but in more machines.


      The point is that lawyers are society's experts in law, so it makes sense they should be making them. They know the most about the ones that already exist and they know how to make good ones (assuming they are good lawyers of course). The point of legalese is to be precise and to eliminate loop holes, not make laws incomprehensible.

    29. Re:The sad thing... by Ihlosi · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Do you really want Engineers in charge of designing machines?



      Yes. However, I'd let someone else design the user interface for the machine.



      They have a vested interest not in good machines, but in more machines.



      Engineers usually want to build the perfect machine. Unfortunately, it will then require another engineer to operate it.


      If engineers designed machines like lawyers made laws, you'd need to hire an engineer to operate even the most trivial machine (car, elevator, TV). We don't let the engineers get away with that. Why do we let lawyers ?

    30. Re:The sad thing... by Red+Flayer · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Plus, why the hell would I go against my own interests for YOUR benefit?
      Ask the poor fundamentalist Christians why they consistently vote against their own economic interests in favor of the economic interests of the wealthy.

      It is very common in the US for people to vote against their own interests, because it is a two-party system. As you point out,

      Again this has nothing to do with the conscious will of individuals, but the very structures involved.
      The use of wedge issues (gay marriage, abortion rights, etc) by the party of the wealthy has led to tens of millions of people voting against their own interests because they place their vote based upon issues unrelated to their interests.

      I agree with you that this has not come about from a purely organic evolution of culture -- it is documented that this is a planned strategy employed by the Republican party in the 80s and 90s -- and I'm pretty sure the Democratic party has operated the same way.

      The deeper issue, of course, is that the American public does not have the ability to, or is not motivated to, see through the BS and analyze the issues critically. We are happy to be spoonfed soundbites and trite promises of little import.

      I know I'm rehashing some of what you posted... but critical thinking has always been a skill not practiced by most people. So why has the lack of critical thinking become such a problem wrt the American electorate?

      I would pose the following:

      1. Mass media -- it has become very easy for those with money to brand themselves and issue marketing material
      2. The scope and power of the US government is greater than ever before, meaning that the powers that be can wield more influence than ever before
      3. The collusion between business and government is greater than ever before (with the possible exception of the period from 1900-1920). As Eisenhower said, beware the military-industrial complex -- except now, we have the military-industrial complex and the legislative-commercial complex.

      This post is getting way too long, I'm sure there are other reasons why the American public is so susceptible to PR/BS from politicos. Offhand, I'd also mention that politics is a taboo subject in the US, which leads to even weaker understanding of the issues.

      At any rate, I think you'd really enjoy the book "What's the Matter with Kansas" by Thomas Frank -- while it focuses on the Republicans' ability to manipulate the populace, I think the same theories apply to Democrats.
      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
  2. Taxes by JoshJ · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's not an embarrassment for the DoE, it's an embarrassment for the Bush Administration and the Republican party in general- despite driving this country's yearly deficit deeper and deeper and pushing our total debt to record levels, they can't even fund worthwhile projects with it.

    Of course, the Republican party's low appraisal of science probably has a lot to do with it- after all, what good is science that might change peoples' minds about something (FLIP FLOP FLIP FLOP) when there's Muslims to kill?

    1. Re:Taxes by jamstar7 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Yeah, God help them if they fund something that makes people think about science. Hell, they might start believing in evolution.

      Can't have that...

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    2. Re:Taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's not an embarrassment for the DoE, it's an embarrassment for the Bush Administration and the Republican party in general- despite driving this country's yearly deficit deeper and deeper and pushing our total debt to record levels, they can't even fund worthwhile projects with it. I'm no fan of the Bushies, but if you dislike budget cuts, it's important to understand where they come from. Congress determines the budget. That is their prime function.

      The administration asked for increased funding for the DOE Office of Science. Congress instead slashed its budget --- all while fully funding Bush's multi-trillion dollar war in Iraq.

      When Congress cuts the budget, there's nothing the administration can do.

      If the Democrats in Congress really wanted to end the war in Iraq, they could do it tomorrow by revoking its funding. But why would they end it, when it's their best polling issue?

      Sometimes, Democracy just plain sucks.
    3. Re:Taxes by EricTheGreen · · Score: 3, Insightful

      While I share your disdain for the Bush administration you appear to be overlooking the fact that both houses of Congress responsible for crafting and approving the US budget (including this particular embarrassment) were controlled by the Democratic Party. Plenty of opportunity for them to do something about this and nothing was done.

      You're welcome to your partisan opinions (it is Slashdot after all) but at least apportion blame fully where it is due.

    4. Re:Taxes by bondsbw · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Democracy? Since when is America a democracy?

      The problem is that America is not a democracy, and is nothing close. It is virtually guaranteed that:

      • Just under half of Americans do not agree with most of the ideas from their elected representatives
      • Just over half of Americans (the rest) probably don't agree with most of the ideas from their elected representative, but more than the ideas of other candidates
      • Since our representatives disagree with us for the most part, they probably don't care what we think and listen more to money and lobbyists.

      So, because of this "republic" two-party system, we're screwed. We have no real voice.

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    5. Re:Taxes by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I used this quote before in another forum today and it applies here, now, as well:

      democracy is 2 foxes and 1 chicken voting on what's for dinner.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    6. Re:Taxes by knarf · · Score: 3, Funny

      democracy is 2 foxes and 1 chicken voting on what's for dinner.

      ...while in the Republic of the US the chickens vote on which of the 2 foxes gets to eat them.

      --
      --frank[at]unternet.org
  3. SCIENCE? Who needs that shit? by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 5, Funny
    MY GOD!!! We have nations to invade, and children to burn, and a treasury full of cash that needs to be looted by the military industrial complex. We don't need stuff like BASIC RESEARCH. Hell with that crap. We need bombs and guns to keep the empire rolling and extract other nations resources for our own lazy convenience.

    RS

    --
    Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
    1. Re:SCIENCE? Who needs that shit? by marshac · · Score: 4, Funny

      What's sad is your comment was rated as Informative rather than funny...

    2. Re:SCIENCE? Who needs that shit? by OMNIpotusCOM · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is what happens when you give people mod points and say you have 3 or 5 or however many days to spend them. It's like giving an 8 year-old $10 and turning them lose in the candy store. You're not going to get any change back, and they sure as hell didn't think most of their decisions through, but you can really only blame yourself for being dumb enough to give the kid the money in the first place.

  4. Umm. It's NOT the only remaining particle lab by MichaelCrawford · · Score: 3, Interesting
    There is also the Stanford Linear Accellerator Center. I haven't been doing physics for a while, but last I checked they were investigating why there's more matter than antimatter, and not an equal amount of both.

    --
    Request your free CD of my piano music.
  5. very humbled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm posting AC on purpose, but i'm a karma-whoring regular.

    I work at Fermilab, and everyone i know (and that's a lot of people) is ... overwhelmed and humbled by this gift. A couple people almost cried. It's ... well, it's a real morale booster and at the same time it's humbling. did i mention humbling? wow.

    Thanks a million (x5!) mysterious friend!

    now back to the antimatter and neutrinos...

    1. Re:very humbled by Rocketship+Underpant · · Score: 5, Funny

      It can either be seen as a massive wave or a massive particle, depending on how it's measured.

      --
      He who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
  6. Re:Why Is That Embarassing??!! by gardyloo · · Score: 5, Informative

    Next time you use a computer, think: positrons are an unrivaled probe of defects in Si crystals. They make excellent diagnostic tools to see if a particular batch of computer chips is going to go bad.

    Next time you or someone you care for gets radiological treatment, think: accelerators make lots of things which are used to diagnose and treat cancers.

  7. Umm, both houses are (D) - cuts are from congress by Ada_Rules · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ignoring for a moment the argument about whether or not the government should be funding this lets just talk about the full article v.s. your post... From the full article "Fermilab's financial crisis began in December, when the U.S. Congress passed a last-minute budget for the 2008 fiscal year (ScienceNOW, 19 December 2007). Legislators whacked Fermilab's budget from the $372 million requested by the Department of Energy (DOE) to $320 million, $22 million less than the lab had received in 2007. To balance the books, lab officials said they would have to cut about 200 of the lab's then-1950 employees." You have gotten so used to bashing Republicans that you really are missing the point that both parties are corrupt and extending government beyond the constitutionally defined limits. Then each side argues about how they don't like the cuts and/or spending that was pushed from the other side and we all end up so worked up that we miss the point that the government should not be doing any of this stuff.

    --
    --- Liberty in our Lifetime
  8. Small government, private philanthropy by Lars512 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Isn't this just a reflection of the style of government in the US? There seems to be a strong emphasis on small government, and then relying on private philanthropy to keep other things running.

    1. Re:Small government, private philanthropy by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Bush's faith-based initiatives are only symbolic gestures(tax breaks on donations and whatnot), but having that office still costs money and I'd still rather have that dollar of my taxes go to the EFF instead.

      Some other slashdotter posted a good idea awhile back: That taxpayers should be able to directly allocate their taxes to the issues(and possibly the charities) that they care about, rather then just sending lump sums to the government(who will do what the government, and not necessarily the taxpayer, wants).

    2. Re:Small government, private philanthropy by bendodge · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's called a pure democracy, and it doesn't work. There's a reason we're a republic.

      --
      The government can't save you.
    3. Re:Small government, private philanthropy by metlin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Democracy is bad enough in itself - if it got any purer, the mediocrity will be a little too overpowering.

    4. Re:Small government, private philanthropy by Hal_Porter · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Have you heard the expression 'He who pays the piper calls the tune'?

      In unrelated news, Evil Corp CEO Doctor Evil announced that no changes would be made to Fermilab's existing projects following Evil Corp's philanthropic donation. However a new project, Project Deathray was announced.

      Just kidding. It doesn't really seem bad to me. There are probably enough billionaire nerds in silicon valley to fund a decent percentage of basic research. And actually good US universities are staggeringly rich by academic standards. It seems like the way to go is to try to migrate funding from the federal government to university foundations and private donors.

      Maybe there should be some sort of intellectual property device that allows for pure research. Fermilab would get file for them and engineers would license them. It would be hard to do though, the physics that allowed for semiconductors was in the 1920's and 30's decades away from the engineering R&D that made them in the 50's and 60's. So it's hard to see how to use IP licenses to pay for the physics. Unless the physics is about time machines of course, then the engineers could pop back a few decades and pay the fee.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    5. Re:Small government, private philanthropy by YttriumOxide · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Not quite "pure" democracy, but getting pretty close to the ideal is Switzerland. And they seem to do alright for themselves.

      Also, despite being a part of the British Commonwealth, New Zealand is also much closer to the ideal than most other English speaking nations at least, and doesn't do too poorly either.

      For the first time in my life, I'm living in a Democratic Republic at the moment (Germany), and while I do love it here and they have yet to do anything that I am strongly against, it does worry me from time to time how much control the government potentially has.

      (on the plus side, I'm only a few hundred km away from a country that would take me in (due to my heritage) in the unlikely event that something really bad was decided and I needed to get out of here FAST)

      --
      My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
      Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
    6. Re:Small government, private philanthropy by Cyno01 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Tyranny of the majority. If we had a true 1:1 democracy, black people probably still wouldnt have rights and being gay would probably be illegal. Just because a majority of people can agree on something doesnt make it right.

      --
      "Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
    7. Re:Small government, private philanthropy by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The Swiss are fascinating. They also do compulsory military service, and pride themselves on minding their own business. And notice who are the part-time soldiers, what we'd call 'reserves' or 'National Guard' in the USA. It's not the lower class or lower middle class you get in the US. It's the bank presidents, the corporate leaders, and other private citizens who really run the country.

      The result is that they meet each other socially and work together in a way that lets them bond together should make Americans really think about what corporate leadership can do. It's a form of networking we've never really tried.

    8. Re:Small government, private philanthropy by dreamchaser · · Score: 3, Funny

      While good in theory, one look at what is popular on TV in the US these days makes me shudder at the thought of direct democracy.

      Yes, that is somewhat a joke, but not really.

  9. Re:Umm, both houses are (D) - cuts are from congre by afidel · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Hmm, government has basically always funded basic science research, whether that be a strong central government or the local lord. There isn't a huge amount of incentive for businesses to fund basic science research as it infrequently leads to a positive ROI in the nearterm. That doesn't mean that there isn't a societal good from basic science research, the last 100 years of technological advances are proof to the contrary, but the private sector just doesn't have the right conditions to do it so the only place left are private foundations and government and private foundations don't have nearly the resources to do it (I guess you can argue that the foundations would have more resources if the government took less but I don't buy it).

    --
    There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  10. Re:Umm. It's NOT the only remaining particle lab by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    You are thinking of the Babar experiment. Unfortunately, that has stopped taking data due to funding cuts. Scientists are slowly going through the last of the results, and are leaving SLAC for greener pastures.

    SLAC will no longer be doing high energy experimental physics, and is being turned into a enormous synchrotron source. Whilst this will result in good science, I think it is somewhat sad that the once world leader of high energy physics is no more.

    The US government decided not to support the international linear collider. That marked the end of high energy science in this country. Discovering the workings of the universe is just too expensive compared to spending our money fighting for part-ownership in some hydrocarbons buried under a far-off desert.

  11. Not the first time this has happened. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    It wasn't too long ago when a group led by hedge fund manager Jim Simons donated $13 million to account for a budget shortfall that would have stopped the operations of the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) at Brookhaven National Laboratory.

    1. Re:Not the first time this has happened. by xPsi · · Score: 3, Informative

      Simons, the hedge fund guy who bailed out BNL, was/is also a mathematician and theoretical physicists.

      --
      i\hbar\dot{\psi}=\hat{H}\psi
  12. Re:Why Is That Embarassing??!! by jaxtherat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sorry for feeding a troll, but two points:

    1. Research (even esoteric) can have completely unexpected practical applications. Remember the steam engine? For hundreds of years it was nothing but a novelty, and then whammo! Industrial revolution. Just because something has no clear immediate practical applications now, doesn't mean squat for the future.
    2. Compared to how big a proportion of your 'tax dollars' goes to funding despotic regimes, terrorist cells we use against 'other' terror cells, and kickbacks to the arms industry, I think you can wear the tiny percentage that goes to 'esoteric' research.

    I'm sorry, but I wish people had a bit more perspective on these things :(

    --
    http://www.zombieapocalypse.tv/
  13. Re:No, this is what's great about the US by Iguanadon · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Yes, it's awesome that there are extremely generous rich people in the US, however, that person who donated $5 million dollars won't see any sort of personal return on it. You know who will though? Everyone else. No matter how indirect, basic research benefits everyone. Better products are created, new jobs are created, society as a whole advances. Why shouldn't the government fund it?

    And before someone says it, corporations have no incentive to do basic research, there is no profit motivation for them to do it. Try telling GE 100 years ago to do basic atomic research, at that time there were no known applications for that research. However, after government funded nuclear research, GE now has a nuclear energy division, making a developing better nuclear reactors.

  14. ugh, what spin. by SuperBanana · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Saved" Fermilab? Give me a break.

    They might have had to lay off 200 employees. Out of TWO THOUSAND. Because their budget was "slashed" by just 22M (less than 10% of the budget.) Christ. It's not embarrassing, and the lab was in no danger of being "lost."

    1. Re:ugh, what spin. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful


      So you really think losing 10% of your staff isn't catastrophic? Do you appreciate that the Tevatron runs 24/7, 365 days a year? That they don't just turn it off over the weekends, and start it up again on Monday morning by turning the key and giving it some gas?

      And, do you really understand how research projects are funded? It's not like Fermi is just thrown huge buckets of money that they can just dole out any which way they please. Each project has its own funding, generally with competitive renewals. Plans are made, projects are begun, and then one day $22M that you were promised for the next year is pulled out from under you. What works in progress get the plug pulled? How much wasted time, effort, materials, is acceptable?

      If basic research funding will continue to be decreased, it might be nice if they'd at least give a heads up to researchers that the money is drying up, so researchers could plan accordingly ("oh well, forget that line of inquiry, there's no money.") But to promise monies and then yank them away is cruel as much as it is shortsighted.

  15. How do the DOE and Congress not get this? by Phoenix666 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You can sort of understand cutting funding to things like behavioral sciences or research on frogs or something. Their benefits are not always obvious to the layman.

    You can also, given their ideology, understand why they want to de-fund climate research. That sort of thing leads to uncomfortable implications about John and Jane Doe's lifestyle in the exurbs.

    But de-fund particle physics? Really? The successors to the folks who brought you the wonders of the atom bomb and who do all kinds of cool death-ray and weapons-applicable research (roughly)? To put it in terms even Bush and Congress should understand, "You like the boom-boom? They make the boom-boom."

    How is it they cannot grasp that de-funding these facilities leads directly and quickly to the loss of our technological and military edge?

    It's bad enough that they killed the supercollider. But killing the last of our first-rate physics labs is just plain nuts.

    --
    Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
  16. This is an apolitical issue by kungfoolery · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This isn't a Republican or Democratic issue, it is a societal one. Year after year, administration after administration, we as a society have been saying "we don't really consider science/education/research all that important."

    Just look at the trends: companies are increasingly seeking out technical professionals overseas because they're churning out greater and greater number of graduates with science/engineering degrees with China pushing out 600,000 such graduates compared to the US' 70,000 per year; and how can we compete in biotech when the majority of our citizens can't grasp genetics nor do they even believe in evolution (we beat Turkey though!)?

    With the way we've been funding education and paying our teachers, we collectively give educators the big middle finger tipped with stinky poo every year. We're making these choices as individuals so we all have a hand in this appalling state of affairs.

  17. Re:Why Is That Embarassing??!! by The+Master+Control+P · · Score: 3, Insightful

    s/particle physics/that shockley guy's "transistor" thing/g

  18. Fermilab died a long time ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Fermilab is barred from proposing and receiving science funding from the NSF or DOE on its own. Any high energy physics or computing project at Fermilab that gets funded has to be at least co-lead by a University professor. Over the last twenty years or so, as the universities became more and more aggressive about protecting their turf, more and more projects left the lab. When I left there six years ago, the writing was already on the wall. Smaller experiments were slashed in favor of the mega collaborations DZero and CDF, computing was shifted to the "Grid", and both trends were very efficient at shifting power and projects out of the lab. Except for operations, there was very little being done at the lab. One wonders if it was planned that way.

  19. Re:No, this is what's great about the US by timeOday · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The government did not need to forcibly confiscate the $5 million dollars from innocent taxpayers against their will.
    We don't need to force libertarians to pay for anything against their will. Instead, simply require them to pay a licensing fee if they choose to use any technology they did not personally invent. Such as plastic, semiconductors, cloth, agriculture... you get my drift. After all, we can't let them freeload on thousands of years of cultural development can we? They are strong individuals and wouldn't want to rely on others. Let them live in caves and wear animal skins so they don't owe anything to anybody who came before.
  20. Parent has the right idea but not the facts by Colonel+Korn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The administration asked for increased funding for the DOE Office of Science. Congress instead slashed its budget --- all while fully funding Bush's multi-trillion dollar war in Iraq.

    When Congress cuts the budget, there's nothing the administration can do. This is patently wrong, as anyone who uses DOE funded national labs knows due to the weekly emails from lab personnel asking us to lobby lawmakers on their behalf. You're probably expecting me to say that it was Bush's fault, but I won't say that, either. Here's what happened:

    1) Congress decided to increase funding to natural sciences. Republicans and Democrats agreed on it. The Bush administration (which does have heavy, heavy influence in the Republican-sponsored budgets in congress) agreed with Congress. Things looked good.

    2) Democrats in Congress and the Republican Congress/Presidential administration started fighting about funding for veteran-benefits (D's wanted more, R's wanted less), the war (D's wanted a timeline for withdrawal, R's didn't), and several other issues. They needed to compromise, as usual.

    3) The compromise they reached ended up cutting the funding increase that they ALL had supported, and which was already being spent. Instead, funding for natural sciences was cut. This is why the DOE, NSF, etc. are in their current situations.

    Why did the politicians cut something they all agreed was worthwhile? I'm going to speculate that it was because they didn't really care about it much one way or another, and also because research funding is such a tiny part of the budget with virtually no lobbyist support that our esteemed leaders essentially forgot about it.
    --
    "I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
  21. fundamentalists by misanthrope101 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Is there a problem with the handing on of scientific knowledge in the US? Or is this a reflection of American cultural shortcomings?

    Yes, and yes. The USA has been largely taken over by religious fundamentalists. To the extent that they don't rule outright, their influence is still pervasive, and moves the entire country in that cultural direction. Science and scientists are openly held in amused contempt by about half of Americans, if not more.

    They respect engineers and people who can make stuff, but science for science's sake seems pointless. As Ronald Reagan, the official saint of the Right Wing, said, "Why should we fund intellectual curiosity?" That's not a gaffe--that's a normal right-wing attitude towards intellectual curiosity, i.e. basic science.

    You can make an argument that Christianity itself isn't inimical to science. I won't agree with you, but I acknowledge that you can make a case for that. You can't, however, make a case that religious fundamentalism isn't harmful to science. The hostile relationship between fundamentalism and science is glaringly obvious, and there just isn't much to talk about here. As long as fundamentalists are running our culture, our downward spiral regarding science education will continue.

    We'll still be on top for a while, but only because our initial lead was so great and we still have so much more money. I don't think they'll turn us into Afghanistan anytime soon, but they're going to keep trying.

    1. Re:fundamentalists by Roxton · · Score: 3, Informative

      The first is that the fundamentalists whom you see in your media are representative of all US fundamentalists.


      16% of American biology teachers believe the earth was created within the last 10,000 years, as compared to 48% of the US population. That 16% is, of course, is not evenly allocated across the US. Entire generations within certain states are growing up scientifically illiterate.

      http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/05/creationists_in_the_american_c.php
    2. Re:fundamentalists by hey! · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well, they don't make you take a test before they put the "fundamentalist" label on you, or before you claim that label for yourself.

      In fact, the way words like "fundamentalist" and "evangelical" are used as if they were synonyms, which they are not. Also, some of the ideas of Pentecostalism are associated with Fundamentalism, and indeed many individuals these days practice a mix of both, but they are really different (and somewhat antithetical) things.

      Usually, when we hear "fundamentalist", it is used to refer to somebody who is a conservative, evangelical Christian who believes in Biblical literalism and practices an ecstatic form of worship in a large, media driven community.

      In fact, this is something of a recent mish-mash of distinctive and sometimes opposing American religious groups. For example, up until the mid twentieth century, Christian fundamentalists were antagonistic to the kind of mystical worship practiced by Pentecostalism. That is because the Christian Fundamentalist movement is essentially pseudo-rational in nature.

      "Creation Science" is quintessential Christian Fundamentalism in its historic form. Fundamentalists of this sort don't see themselves as anti-science. They see themselves as pro-science, but against an intellectually corrupt scientific establishment. It is therefore quite practical for a "fundamentalist" to pursue a scientific career, provided it is in a field that either has a well established fundamentalist counter-movement, like biology, or one in which Biblical issues don't arise very often, for example solid state physics. You won't find many "Fundamentalists" in scholarly fields like Near Eastern languages or Biblical Archeology -- not for long at any rate.

      There is a lot more diversity in religious belief than our labels allow for. The right wing Christian movement has laid claim to a number of American religious traditions, sometimes conflicting traditions. They're even flirting with Catholicism, which was long seen by native Protestants of all stripes as alien and wicked. Bringing these traditions under a single terminological roof is about institutional and political power. We sometimes call that roof "Evangelicalism" and sometimes "Fundamentalism", even though these are again two different historical phenomenon. The two words serve complementary political purposes: to unite those under the roof, and to stand them against those outside.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  22. The REPUBLICANS also share blame here by Werthless5 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How can you be so blinded to that fact?

    1) The Democrats have a very, very slim majority. This is usually not enough to get anything done because the party is full of people who wear a (D) but are truly (R) in spirit.

    2) Many of the Democrats opposed the science budget cuts. Many Republicans supported it. Both parties share blame here. You should actually investigate this for yourself. Do some research before you open your mouth next time.

    3) The funding cut was a purely political move. Both sides wanted it because it makes BOTH sides look bad. This wasn't done by the Democrats, it was done by DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS!

    4) Most PhD holders (ie the physicists working in these labs) are themselves DEMOCRATS. More Democrats see the good in doing scientific research. More Democrats support it.

    Politicians - working together to better screw you.

    Placing the blame on a single party is meaningless and stupid. It makes you look like a moron.

  23. It's a biological imperative... by interactive_civilian · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Humans are social organisms. That is how we evolved, and that is a big part of our success as a species. All social organisms in nature do things that contribute not only to themselves, but to the local population as a whole. Doing so increases the chances of survival and success of the group, which in turn increases the chances of survival and success of the individual. A practical upshot of that is that you don't have to work as hard to survive and reproduce.

    Though, there is variation in any population, so I suppose you do have the choice to turn your back on about 2 million years of human evolutionary success and just be a selfish git. ;p

    --
    "Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
  24. Congressional Funding Priorities by Bob(TM) · · Score: 3, Informative

    Clearly, Fermilab lost out funding over much more worthy initiatives. These include:

    $7,556,660 for grape and wine research.

    $22,716,664 for 18 projects by Senate appropriator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), including $1,574,400 for a cooperative agreement between the Department of Energy and Inyo County and $107,256 for long term sediment management at Humbolt Bay.

    $787,200 by House appropriator Betty McCollum (D-Minn.) for advanced green design at the Museum of Natural History in Minneapolis.

    $19,942,000 for four projects funding presidential libraries.

    $50,000,000 for REAL ID grants.

    $16,833,240 for eight projects by Senate Interior Appropriations Subcommittee member Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), including: $3,937,600 for the Tongass Timber Supply Pipeline; $3,937,600 for the United States Geological Survey Volcano Observatory; $2,953,200 for the Alaska Conveyance Program; and $492,200 for the Craig Recreation land transfer.

    $5,906,400 by Rep. Heath Shuler (D-N.C.) for Great Smokey National Park, North Shore Road Settlement.

    $6,700,000 for two projects funding fitness centers at two military facilities.

    $14,878,000 added by the House for the International Fund for Ireland (IFI).

    $33,005,420 for 35 projects by Senate appropriator Christopher (Kit) Bond (R-Mo.), including: $1,470,000 for statewide bus and bus facilities; $551,250 for the Heart of America Bicycle/Pedestrian Bridge; $367,500 for improvements to Downtown Square Street in Grant City; $367,500 for redevelopment of the 11th and Grand neighborhood in Kansas City; and $183,750 for restoration of the Poplar Bluff Historic Depot.

    $18,071,200 for 17 projects by House appropriator John Olver (D-Mass.), including: $5,880,000 for development and construction of the MBTA Fitchburg to Boston Rail Corridor Project; $1,470,000 for downtown streetscape in Pittsfield; $784,000 for the Franklin Regional Transit Center; $735,000 for MART bus and commuter facilities; $269,500 for the Barrington Stage Company for the renovation and buildout of the Berkshire Music Hall and Octagon House in Pittsfield; and $196,000 for the Massachusetts Landscape Connectivity Study.

    Others can be found at http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reports_pigbook2008.

    --

    The little guy just ain't getting it, is he?