2010 Ig Nobel Winners Announced

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

2010 Ig Nobel Winners Announced

Posted by kdawson on Thursday September 30, 2010 @01:51PM from the whale-snot dept.

Velcroman1 writes "Having trouble breathing? Try riding a roller-coaster. Really. A pair of Dutch researchers who discovered that the symptoms of asthma can be treated with a roller-coaster ride are among this year's winners of the Ig Nobel awards, the infamous annual tribute to scientific research that seems wacky — but also has real world applications. FoxNews.com has interviews with several award winners, who are all ecstatic to win, despite the fact that they're all gently being poked fun at."

86 of 111 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Last prize really Ig Nobel? by line-bundle · 2010-09-30 13:57 · Score: 5, Insightful

And finally, a project at the University of Catania in Italy was awarded the management prize for demonstrating mathematically that organizations can improve efficiency by promoting people randomly.
This research deserves a far better prize than the Ig Nobel. Just look at the management in companies! An algorithm far worse than random is being used to select the worst of the worst to run companies.
I believe most institutions run in spite of management.
And don't mod this funny.
1. Re:Last prize really Ig Nobel? by qvatch · 2010-09-30 14:19 · Score: 1
  
  This makes me cry.
2. Re:Last prize really Ig Nobel? by sznupi · 2010-09-30 14:29 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  From their site: "The Ig Nobel Prizes honor achievements that first make people laugh, and then make them think. The prizes are intended to celebrate the unusual, honor the imaginative -- and spur people's interest in science, medicine, and technology." Certainly fits; contrary to what many people think it's not about "stupid" research. After all, the prizes "are physically handed out by genuinely bemused Nobel laureates" - would perceiving the whole thing only as harmless fun be enough to get them so easily aboard?
  PS. Also, you jump too quickly to conclusions - the effect might as well be, for example, that when people know the promotions will be random, they don't care too much / there's no infighting / the random ones aren't worse enough (but with other positive effects it pays off) / etc.
  
  --
  One that hath name thou can not otter
3. Re:Last prize really Ig Nobel? by ceoyoyo · 2010-09-30 14:39 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Ig Nobels are not really an insult. They CAN be, but they aren't necessarily.
4. Re:Last prize really Ig Nobel? by youn · 2010-09-30 14:41 · Score: 1
  
  Too bad I don't have mod points, I did find the end of the post funny :)
  
  --
  Never antropomorphize computers, they do not like that :p
5. Re:Last prize really Ig Nobel? by Ethanol-fueled · 2010-09-30 14:55 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  You quoted their website, which stated that their solutions are unusual and imaginative. The summary:
  
  Having trouble breathing? Try riding a roller-coaster. Really. A pair of Dutch researchers who discovered that the symptoms of asthma can be treated with a roller-coaster ride...
  Most asthmatics know that the emergency treatment for severe attacks is a shot of adrenaline. A ride on a rollercoaster is also kinda a shot of adrenaline. I suppose holding a loaded gun to one's head may also alleviate symptoms.
  
  Kinda like that Simpsons episode where Bart has all this stuff super-glued to his face, and Dr. Hibert breaks out a menacing-looking nailgun to remove them. Bart simply sweats them off as Dr. Hibert laughs. Bart asks why Dr. Hibert couldnt've just turned up the thermostat, and Dr. Hibert responds evilly,
  
  No, it had to be terror sweat!
6. Re:Last prize really Ig Nobel? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-30 15:18 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Like the old saying goes: Those that can, do; Those that can't are promoted to management" Of course, then there is the old saying that "You only get promoted to the level of your incompetency"
  A randomized promotion system would tend to push the real workers, the ones who make things happen, into positions where they can affect change.
7. Re:Last prize really Ig Nobel? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-30 15:37 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  Just got done reading The Peter Principle (http://www.amazon.com/Peter-Principle-Laurence-J/dp/1568491611), so this looks like a dangerously accurate theory.
8. Re:Last prize really Ig Nobel? by mrmeval · 2010-09-30 15:38 · Score: 1
  
  It's called the "Goonies" effect.
  
  --
  I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
9. Re:Last prize really Ig Nobel? by Opyros · 2010-09-30 16:19 · Score: 1
  
  physically handed out by genuinely bemused Nobel laureates
  Is bemused the right word here? It isn't synonymous with "amused". (Sorry for the pedantry, but I am the penultimate prescriptivist.)
10. Re:Last prize really Ig Nobel? by hedwards · 2010-09-30 16:23 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Precisely, the way that many organizations promote people you wind up with incompetent butt kissers and psychopaths being promoted. Whereas if you promote people at random, you get those individuals roughly proportional to their representation at the bottom. The individuals who can't cut it would then tend to drop out leaving you with better managers.
  
  OTOH that's terribly depressing, if a validation of the general observation about management practices.
11. Re:Last prize really Ig Nobel? by nacturation · 2010-09-30 16:34 · Score: 1
  
  physically handed out by genuinely bemused Nobel laureates
  Is bemused the right word here? It isn't synonymous with "amused". (Sorry for the pedantry, but I am the penultimate prescriptivist.)
  Does that make me the ultimate prescriptivist? Follow your own link or try this one: http://www.google.com/dictionary?q=bemuse&langpair=en|en
  
  --
  Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
12. Re:Last prize really Ig Nobel? by Boju! · 2010-09-30 19:23 · Score: 1
  
  Sounds like they have mathematical demonstration of the Peter principle. This is where "in a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to their level of incompetence".
13. Re:Last prize really Ig Nobel? by jimicus · 2010-09-30 19:51 · Score: 1
  
  And finally, a project at the University of Catania in Italy was awarded the management prize for demonstrating mathematically that organizations can improve efficiency by promoting people randomly.
  
  This research deserves a far better prize than the Ig Nobel. Just look at the management in companies! An algorithm far worse than random is being used to select the worst of the worst to run companies.
  I believe most institutions run in spite of management.
  And don't mod this funny.
  That doesn't actually hugely surprise me. At least one well-known jobhunting book claims that companies get just as good results choosing new staff by pulling names out of a hat as they do through the traditional application/interview process, and I first read that in around 2002.
14. Re:Last prize really Ig Nobel? by VJ42 · 2010-09-30 20:52 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Here's a link to the actual paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.0455
  
  --
  If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
15. Re:Last prize really Ig Nobel? by Guignol · 2010-10-01 00:09 · Score: 1
  
  :) fantastic post !
16. Re:Last prize really Ig Nobel? by tehcyder · 2010-10-01 01:01 · Score: 1
  
  A randomized promotion system would tend to push the real workers, the ones who make things happen, into positions where they can affect change.
  Effect. You fail at management speak.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
17. Re:Last prize really Ig Nobel? by cellocgw · 2010-10-01 01:26 · Score: 1
  
  A randomized promotion system would tend to push the real workers, the ones who make things happen, into positions where they can affect change.
  Effect. You fail at management speak.
  
  That rather depends on what the OP actually meant. A manager can certainly effect changes, but he/she can also affect changes.
  
  --
  https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
18. Re:Last prize really Ig Nobel? by Thelasko · 2010-10-01 01:49 · Score: 1
  
  A quick search of the paper seems to indicate the author did not rule out the Hawthorne Effect.
  
  --
  One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
19. Re:Last prize really Ig Nobel? by GooberToo · 2010-10-01 02:24 · Score: 1
  
  That's because its about who you know, who you went to school with, which buddy is on your board, which board your buddy wants you on and what back room deals you can swap with each other to make each of you look good; in the short term. And once you look good, you all get together for a circle jerk to give each other a raise.
  Most companies today are led by people whos sole desire is to see how much they can legally plunder - even while they are sinking the ship they plunder. But, what do you expect when literal sociopaths are considered good leaders?
  These days, its rare for a US CEO to make a long term decision. They almost always make a decision for tomorrow, knowing for well its a very bad decision for day after tomorrow. But they don't care because they'll be long gone with their golden parachute before they have to deal with their poor decisions. And even better, the next guy gets blamed. We even see this happen in politics too - all the time.
20. Re:Last prize really Ig Nobel? by GrumblyStuff · 2010-10-01 02:26 · Score: 1
  
  It was a button applicator!
  Or something to that extent.
  Why do I remember that?
21. Re:Last prize really Ig Nobel? by Red+Flayer · 2010-10-01 02:33 · Score: 1
  
  Most if not all antihistamines work by increasing the adrenaline levels.
  What? That's not true at all.
  
  Antihistamines work exactly as their name implies -- they block the histamine response that causes inflammation, etc. They do not increase adrenaline levels.
  
  --
  "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
22. Re:Last prize really Ig Nobel? by Xyrus · 2010-10-01 02:47 · Score: 1
  
  I wonder if the same principle would apply to government. Let's start assigning random people to public office and see if that helps.
  
  --
  ~X~
23. Re:Last prize really Ig Nobel? by mdielmann · 2010-10-01 02:52 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  I wonder about anaphylactic shock. Would naturally produced adrenaline work at least as a palliative until proper medical treatment can be provided? I wonder what the judge would say if one was to water-board a person suffering anaphylactic shock though.
  My kid carries an epi-pen, which led to this story from one of my friends. One day he was hanging out with a girl who was allergic to bee stings. Of course, she got stung, and he tried to help her out with the epi-pen. Unfortunately, he was holding the pen backwards, with his thumb over the end, and when he pushed it into her thigh, it stabbed his finger. The needle is spring-loaded, and reasonably forceful, so it went right in, hit the bone, and curled into a hook. Now he has to pull this thing out, and it's hard. When he finally drags it out, there's a string of tissue hanging from the little hook the pen made. The girl was so freaked out that she was okay until they got to the hospital.
  The two things I took away from this were: natural adrenaline can work is you're sufficiently freaked out; and, never put your thumb over the end of an epi-pen.
  
  --
  Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
24. Re:Last prize really Ig Nobel? by quintessencesluglord · 2010-10-01 03:32 · Score: 1
  
  I have long advocated sortition (choosing positions in government through lottery).
  It appears now there is some research to justify this.
25. Re:Last prize really Ig Nobel? by david_thornley · 2010-10-01 03:51 · Score: 1
  
  I once had a manager tell me the Peter Principle was company policy. He didn't use the same words, and didn't call it the Peter Principle, but the meaning was dead on.
  That was not a good place to work.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
26. Re:Last prize really Ig Nobel? by anonicow · 2010-10-01 04:29 · Score: 1
  
  The only way this "scientific" paper could have been given a prize is because it rubs people's preconceived notions the right way: the grand-parent post is living proof of this. But scientifically, it's absolutely worthless.
  Here is the paper in a nutshell: if you operate under the crazy assumption that the competence of someone has absolutely NO IMPACT WHATSOEVER on how well they will do their job when they get promoted to a higher level, then it makes no sense to promote skilled people since they won't do any better than any bottom-of-the-ladder grunt. And it's actually counter-productive: because those skilled people you promoted will get assigned a new (unrelated) random skill level, the average skill level will drop more if you promote skilled people than if you promote unskilled people...
  Now these are the WTFs that come to mind:
  - why on Earth did they need a crazy numerical simulation to figure that out?
  - why on Earth did they not put a sensible explanation like this one anywhere? before diving into the paper the abstract and conclusions were so devoid of any insight that I was expecting something much more subtle and hard to explain than the trivial reason I outlined above
  The really disappointing part is not that they have a completely unrealistic model, it's that they're trying to hide it behind fancy-looking graphs so that the science appears superficially sound. But before you call me a nay-sayer, I'll throw in some constructive criticism. Here is a simple way to analyze the problem that could have saved some computer cluster energy: Let Xi be a random variable describing the current value of employee number i. Let Yi be his value at his new job if he were to be promoted. When a new higher-level position needs to be filled, we seek to find i maximizing E(Yi | Xi=xi) + Sum(j!=i) xj. This is equivalent to maximizing E(Yi | Xi=xi) - xi. Hence, if the E(...) term depends neither on i nor on xi (as in their hypothesis), the best way is to minimize xi, hence promote the lowest-skilled person (which in the real world makes zero sense at all as they are likely to be complete newbies, difficult to work with, not giving a shit, or otherwise moronic).
  So that's how you can prove their simulation result. However, you can go further: if you look at the last formula, you see that there are two terms: one term E(Yi | Xi=xi) that increases as xi increases (skilled people are good at their current job, so they are more likely to be good at their next job), and one term -xi that decreases as xi increases (it's better not to risk losing a valuable person+job combination: that's why it's well-known that being indispensable to your specific position is bad for your career as management will be reluctant to promote you). So the real job of management is to understand those two contrary goals, and balance the forces due to "skill" and to "inertia" together. You shouldn't under-estimate the first term and promote random or unskilled people, just like you shouldn't under-estimate the second term and promote the single most valuable employee blindly.
  And that's where you see why using a numeric model while wearing a blindfold is a bad idea: not only is it overkill for simple phenomena like this one, but it also deprives you of a deeper understanding of the subject. Don't get me wrong, what I said in the previous paragraph wasn't all that deep: I'm pretty sure most competent managers have internalized the equilibrium, without the fancy statistic notation; but at least it goes way deeper than the paper's computer simulation. At the end of the day, a manager reading the Ig Nobel paper is going to be misled into thinking that there is proof he should try to disregard skill (or, on the contrary, that he should disregard scientific papers), while being offered no reason apart from scary computer models. True science is about enlightening people by giving them tools to understand reality: this article is about getting mainstream media coverage by giving pseudo-proof of a popular theory,
27. Re:Last prize really Ig Nobel? by larsbars · 2010-10-01 07:37 · Score: 1
  
  Not any more.
28. Re:Last prize really Ig Nobel? by Kvasio · 2010-10-01 08:09 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, in "good ol' times" - 2006-2007, 95% of the investment funds in Poland recorded lower profits (or even loses) than average for all possible random baskets of 20 stocks. And journalist who discovered it found also, that his toddler had better results in picking stocks than fund managers :-)
29. Re:Last prize really Ig Nobel? by sznupi · 2010-10-01 11:40 · Score: 1
  
  You seem to put it like it's something new?...
  (in fact, I'd say there's certainly less of such stuff going on than was the case "historically"; still too much of course)
  
  --
  One that hath name thou can not otter
30. Re:Last prize really Ig Nobel? by KingAlanI · 2010-10-01 16:44 · Score: 1
  
  Epinepherine *is* also known as adrenaline, so this makes sense.
  
  --
  I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
31. Re:Last prize really Ig Nobel? by BraksDad · 2010-10-02 01:20 · Score: 1
  
  Those that can, do. Those that can't, teach. Those that can't teach, administer. Those that can't administer, manage.
  
  --
  Slowly waving my hand - "This is not the sig you are looking for."
32. Re:Last prize really Ig Nobel? by Longboy · 2010-10-02 13:49 · Score: 1
  
  What if, in addition to asthma, you have acrophobia, like me? My first ride on a roller coaster - in 1956 - was my last. I'm still fucked, I guess.
33. Re:Last prize really Ig Nobel? by Geminii · 2010-10-03 12:00 · Score: 1
  
  An algorithm far worse than random is being used to select the worst of the worst to run companies.
  Self-selection.
  Obviously, the best solution is to promote people who don't WANT to be promoted. And hope that doesn't make them quit. I know at least one ex-boss of mine had to be almost forcibly crowbarred into management, and did a brilliant job. Of course, I turned down a lot of promotion opportunities myself because being responsible for other people's screwups would have put me in a rubber room in short order, so obviously there's some leeway for fine-tuning. :/
34. Re:Last prize really Ig Nobel? by sznupi · 2010-10-06 22:53 · Score: 1
  
  Even if it "works" it seems to be a significantly different thing - a random promotion of one position "up" within the same organisation isn't similar at all to an outright lottery for arguably one of the most crucial (unless everything would be really handed by backstage clerks anyway) positions in a given country.
  
  --
  One that hath name thou can not otter
Re:Fox News! Burn it! Burn it with fire! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-30 13:58 · Score: 1, Insightful

Wrong! Only if it has been spun like a roller coaster.
Asthma is cured while you are on a roller coaster by Meshach · 2010-09-30 14:00 · Score: 4, Funny

That should cover three minutes twice a year.

--
"Maybe this world is another planet's hell"
Aldous Huxley
Re:Asthma is cured while you are on a roller coast by LostCluster · 2010-09-30 14:05 · Score: 5, Funny

I can't wait to see this added to the Six Flags health plan.
Woah missread by furgle · 2010-09-30 14:06 · Score: 2, Informative

I thought it was lg as in LG nobel Winners Announced Can you tell the difference : lg Ig
1. Re:Woah missread by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-30 15:04 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Why would the name of a company that is universally written as LG (note the CAPITAL letters) suddenly show up as lg (lowercase)? Even slashdot isn't that sloppy. Don't be an idiot.
2. Re:Woah missread by arth1 · 2010-09-30 16:29 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  1: If you haven't heard about the Ig Nobel prize before now, I wonder where you've been. I'm pretty sure that most slashdotters can list more Ig Nobel winning research than Alfred Nobel winning research. On the geek scale, Ig Nobel ranks up there with Darwin awards, knowing Binky's colour and the 20th decimal of pi.
  2: Not everyone uses a font where I and l look similar. In fact, programmers, sysadmins and other computer geeks tend to abhor fonts with ambiguity. If you can't tell an Omelet from an 0rneIet, you need to change your font NOW.
3. Re:Woah missread by mirix · 2010-09-30 17:15 · Score: 1, Offtopic
  
  You'll take my courier from my cold, dead hands
  
  --
  Sent from my PDP-11
4. Re:Woah missread by koinu · 2010-09-30 17:47 · Score: 1
  
  And what is it exactly "Ig"? I first thought it was "1g" (one gramm; a small nobel statue in gold).
5. Re:Woah missread by Daniel+Dvorkin · 2010-09-30 18:32 · Score: 1
  
  It's a pun on "ignoble."
  
  --
  The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
6. Re:Woah missread by BluBrick · 2010-09-30 19:58 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Even slashdot isn't that sloppy. Don't be an idiot.
  You must be new here, Mr. Coward.
  
  --
  Ahh - My eye!
  The doctor said I'm not supposed to get Slashdot in it!
7. Re:Woah missread by TeknoHog · 2010-10-01 00:05 · Score: 1
  
  I thought it was "lg nobel" as in
  
  nobel = 10^x x = lg nobel
  
  --
  Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
8. Re:Woah missread by tehcyder · 2010-10-01 01:08 · Score: 1
  
  Not everyone uses a font where I and l look similar
  
  But I and I are identical, as are l and l, not just similar, so I don't see what you're getting at.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
guh? by Johann+Lau · 2010-09-30 14:21 · Score: 1

does it annoy you so much that nobody actually *is* flaming fox that you have to play with sock puppets...?
My favorite one by inode_buddha · 2010-09-30 14:40 · Score: 1

My favorite one was the youtube video of the fruit bat giving head... maybe I need to get out more....

--
C|N>K
Socks by shermo · 2010-09-30 14:41 · Score: 4, Informative

"In research that could boost the sales of socks in New England, a study out of the University of Otago in New Zealand found that wearing socks over shoes results in far fewer slips and falls on icy footpaths. It won the physics prize."
This is common knowledge here amongst yachties and other people who walk on green covered slipways (they're not called that for nothing). Put on some rugby socks and you won't fall over. It's counter-intuitive but it works.

--
Insanity: voting in the same two parties over and over again and expecting different results
1. Re:Socks by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-30 18:58 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  The role of science has always been either to experiment on what everybody knows or on what nobody ever guessed.
  And hey, now your common knowledge is backed up by a scientific study meaning people can't call it anecdotal anymore.
2. Re:Socks by techno-vampire · 2010-09-30 19:05 · Score: 1
  
  It's counter-intuitive but it works.
  It's not even counter-intuitive, at least, not to me. In the Navy, decks topside are painted with something called "non-skid," a mixture of paint and sand. (Five gallons of the stuff have only two gallons of liquid; the rest is pigment and sand.) You'd think that this would be enough to keep people from slipping on wet decks, but I can assure you from personal experience that it's not always! Of course, the deck was not only wet, it was moving when I lost my footing. Wearing coarse socks over my shoes may well have added just enough traction to keep me standing that day because anything that gives you more traction on a wet surface is going to help.
  
  --
  Good, inexpensive web hosting
3. Re:Socks by hcdejong · 2010-09-30 22:00 · Score: 1
  
  Alternatively, wear shoes with grippy (profiled rubber) soles instead of stupid leather soles.
4. Re:Socks by paiute · 2010-09-30 22:01 · Score: 1
  
  "In research that could boost the sales of socks in New England, a study out of the University of Otago in New Zealand found that wearing socks over shoes results in far fewer slips and falls on icy footpaths. It won the physics prize."
  This is common knowledge here amongst yachties and other people who walk on green covered slipways (they're not called that for nothing). Put on some rugby socks and you won't fall over. It's counter-intuitive but it works.
  Counter-intuitive? It seemed very intuitive to me. But I can't find socks to fit my big feet. Good luck finding ones to go over my shoes.
  
  --
  If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
5. Re:Socks by Iskender · 2010-10-01 00:13 · Score: 1
  
  Given that this has been known for probably most of his life, if not longer, why are they getting an award for restating something that is known?
  One common reply to this is that it used to be "known" that non-white people are sub-human. That didn't make it true.
  To use a less emotional topic it is "known" by many that tapping cans of carbonated beverage before opening will make them not explode. I seem to recall someone looking into this and finding that waiting for the same amount of time as the tapping would take had the same effect.
  Basically, it comes down to this: scientific knowledge and scientific trial and error aren't the same as common knowledge and common trial and error.
Re:Fox News! Burn it! Burn it with fire! by clang_jangle · 2010-09-30 14:42 · Score: 3, Insightful

Actually yes, pretty much. Using Fox News as a source for a story is like using Encyclopedia Dramatica as a source. It may have amusement value, but as far as finding literal truth you're probably out of luck. Of course, this is also at least partly true of nearly all the mainstream media outlets nowadays, but Fox is by far the worst. It's where people go to have their belief systems affirmed, not where they go for actual news.

--
Caveat Utilitor
Another myth busted by oldhack · 2010-09-30 14:43 · Score: 5, Funny

Plainly, women are no longer underrepresented in science and whatnot. Look up the winners' names.

--
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
Re:Fox News! Burn it! Burn it with fire! by cavePrisoner · 2010-09-30 14:56 · Score: 5, Funny

Since you mention it, they incorrectly state that the economics prize was awarded "for determining by experiment that microbes cling to bearded scientists." I guess it was a copy and paste error, since that is the same listing they have for the public health award directly above it. If you want to be paranoid (realistic?--I can't even tell anymore) about it, you could say the mistake was made intentionally to avoid publishing how the award poked fun at Wall Street's creative investment schemes.
I am surprised to hear by drainbramage · 2010-09-30 15:19 · Score: 1

That they let you out.
Surprised and worried.

--
No brain, no pain.
1. Re:I am surprised to hear by inode_buddha · 2010-09-30 22:36 · Score: 1
  
  Well, it was nice to see something with some hard proof behind it. OK, I'll be getting me coat now...
  
  --
  C|N>K
2. Re:I am surprised to hear by inode_buddha · 2010-10-01 01:24 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Maybe next year they'll demonstrate bat-kkake. But I don't plan to watch that vid.
  
  --
  C|N>K
3. Re:I am surprised to hear by drainbramage · 2010-10-01 10:00 · Score: 1
  
  Now that's funny.
  However, I will never be able to watch Batman again.
  
  --
  No brain, no pain.
4. Re:I am surprised to hear by sznupi · 2010-10-01 11:26 · Score: 1
  
  But make sure any collectors and users of bat guano get to see it.
  
  --
  One that hath name thou can not otter
Slime Molds by Nyeerrmm · 2010-09-30 15:22 · Score: 4, Interesting

I'm glad to see the use of slime molds to study transport networks on there.
I honestly thought it was one of the most interesting bits of research I'd seen all year.
1. Re:Slime Molds by MichaelSmith · 2010-09-30 15:35 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  I'm glad to see the use of slime molds to study transport networks on there.
  Sounds like an ideal model for Melbourne drivers.
  
  --
  http://michaelsmith.id.au
2. Re:Slime Molds by kainosnous · 2010-09-30 18:25 · Score: 1
  
  It is interesting, but I always thought that slime molds were just randomly generated. Of course, I would still like to see them used to trace a path for a railway through the Dungeons of Doom.
  
  --
  There are 10 commandments: 01)Thou shalt love the Lord Thy God 10)Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.Matt22:34-40
3. Re:Slime Molds by Bill+Dog · 2010-09-30 20:39 · Score: 1
  
  I always thought slime molds were just randomly promoted managers.
  
  --
  Attention zealots and haters: 00100 00100
Re:Fox News! Burn it! Burn it with fire! by Sulphur · 2010-09-30 15:44 · Score: 1

Wrong Prize.
Re:And this year's winner is... by codepunk · 2010-09-30 15:51 · Score: 1

Darn shame I don't have any mod points right now, you would certainly be getting one.

--

Got Code?
Slime Molds and Traffic by zooblethorpe · 2010-09-30 15:54 · Score: 2, Funny

DC, too -- being stuck on 395 at rush hour sure makes a slime mold look like a speed demon.
Cheers,

--
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
Re:Fox News! Burn it! Burn it with fire! by arth1 · 2010-09-30 16:10 · Score: 2, Insightful

It may have amusement value, but as far as finding liberal "truth" you're probably out of luck.
That's a tautology. All truth is liberal.
Unless free from prejudice and narrow-mindedness, i.e. liberal, it can't progress from an opinion or a belief to the independent verification that truth survives.
Re:Fox News! Burn it! Burn it with fire! by arth1 · 2010-09-30 16:37 · Score: 3, Insightful

Indeed -- no group has monopoly on narrow-mindedness; there is just a higher proportion of liberals among progressives than many other groups, but each individual progressive can be as close minded and prejudiced as a trailer park reverend.
Re:Fox News! Burn it! Burn it with fire! by ArcherB · 2010-09-30 17:02 · Score: 1, Offtopic

Unless free from prejudice and narrow-mindedness, i.e. liberal,
Like when conservatives get shouted down whenever they are to speak at college campuses? Like how brown^H^H^H purple shirted SEIU thugs lock out anyone with an opposing view, sometimes using violence? that kind of "free from prejudice and narrow-mindedness"?
Sorry, but liberals are no longer the ones with open minds, willing to listen to all opinions and give them a fair shot and even consider foreign ideas in their own minds. Those true liberals got shouted down and mashed under the thumb of "progressive" liberals long ago. Even other progressives who stray too far from the group think gets silenced.
You should have seen the way Democrats treated each other at the local Democratic caucuses required by Democrats in Texas to elect a candidate. It was held in my local town at City Hall. I was there. It was a sight to see:
Manuella: "Excuse me, every one of you up there is an Obama supporter. Wouldn't it be fair if we had some Clinton supporters up there?'
Person in charge: "Denied"
Manuella: "Well, shouldn't there at least be one Clinton supporter there to oversee everything?"
Person in charge: "Who would you recommend?"
Manuella: "Well, I could do it."
Person in charge: "OK. What's your name? OK, Manuella. Anyone else? John? OK. All in favor of Manuella?"
Group: "Aye"
Person in charge: "OK, all in favor of John?"
Group: "Aye"
Person in charge: "John is the Clinton monitor"
Manuella: "But John has an Obama button on..."

--
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Re:Fox News! Burn it! Burn it with fire! by Daniel+Dvorkin · 2010-09-30 18:41 · Score: 1

That's quite an impressive straw man you've built there. And I'm in awe of the ferocity you display in tearing it down. You must be very proud of yourself.

--
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Re:Nobel prize going downhill... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-30 18:41 · Score: 1, Insightful

Don't ignore that "or for a portion thereof." at the end. They certainly did manage to maximize gain and minimize financial risk for certain members of the economy. It's actually a simple equation. The way it works is, you take money from someone who trusts you to invest it and make a return for them, then you use various kinds of complex accounting tricks to give that money to yourself. Voila, financial gain for you at no risk, because you gave all the risk to some sucker. True genius.
Re:Fox News! Burn it! Burn it with fire! by matfud · 2010-09-30 18:56 · Score: 1

"So, the mechanics of US Democracy are fundamentally broken, and there are tons of ways to make it better. The most simple way, although it would have paradoxes of its own, just not as bad, would be to let people cast their one vote either for or against one candidate. That way, the Democrats and Republicans could mutually annihilate one another and then everyone else could get on with some real voting. Still a bit too blind though. Another way is to have everyone rank all the candidates in order of preference, or possibly just the ones they actually care about or at least know about. Once again, that should probably include a want and a do not want pile (that should help stop parties with small but rabid followings but that most of the population despises from getting a chance to win. ie, the nazi party candidate gets negative 60 million votes). There are a lot of systems that have been worked out, many with very few paradoxes (I'm not sure, but I think it may have actually been proven that you can't have a single pass system without paradoxes), that are better than the one the US uses. Partly that's because they've been worked out by very clever people who know what they're doing and how to mathematically vet the system, and partly because _ALL_ other systems of vote-taking are superior to the US system when it comes to accurately measuring the will of the populace."

I agree but the UK system is not much better. And when it comes to voting systems there are many and they all have flaws. Try getting a computer to agree with its self! then wade through the various modes and discover the problems every one has.
matfud
The site itself by Trevelyan · 2010-09-30 21:17 · Score: 2, Informative

I note that TFA summary lacks a link to the ig Nobels own site..
So here it is although via Corel Cache since the site appears to be taking quite a heavy hit.

I think I'm probably the first to try via corel cache so its still loading for me, but I hope giving this link will improve that...
Re:Fox News! Burn it! Burn it with fire! by Ezel · 2010-09-30 21:28 · Score: 5, Informative

Yes, there is an error in the Fox News article. Here is a quote from the official site instead:
ECONOMICS PRIZE: The executives and directors of Goldman Sachs, AIG, Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch, and Magnetar for creating and promoting new ways to invest money -- ways that maximize financial gain and minimize financial risk for the world economy, or for a portion thereof.
http://improbable.com/ig/winners/

--
Prosp long and liver.
Mystery solved by paiute · 2010-09-30 21:59 · Score: 1

I was there, and as we left the place there were people handing out small packages of red Swedish fish. So the mystery is solved(?)

--
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
Surely you jest? by mcgrew · 2010-09-30 22:35 · Score: 1

No, I'm serious. And don' call me Shirley!

--
Free Martian Whores!
Re:Fox News! Burn it! Burn it with fire! by uglyduckling · 2010-09-30 23:42 · Score: 1, Insightful

By stating that '"1x1=1"' is 'true' you're interpreting the meanings of the symbols '"', 'x', '=,' and '1' in a very conservative manner.
The winners are... by Cyko_01 · 2010-10-01 00:00 · Score: 1

ENGINEERING PRIZE: for perfecting a method to collect whale snot, using a remote-control helicopter.

MEDICINE PRIZE: for discovering that symptoms of asthma can be treated with a roller-coaster ride.

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING PRIZE: for using slime mold to determine the optimal routes for railroad tracks.

PHYSICS PRIZE: for demonstrating that, on icy footpaths in wintertime, people slip and fall less often if they wear socks on the outside of their shoes.

PEACE PRIZE: for confirming the widely held belief that swearing relieves pain.

PUBLIC HEALTH PRIZE: for determining by experiment that microbes cling to bearded scientists.

ECONOMICS PRIZE: for determining by experiment that microbes cling to bearded scientists.

CHEMISTRY PRIZE: for disproving the old belief that oil and water don't mix.

MANAGEMENT PRIZE: for demonstrating mathematically that organizations would become more efficient if they promoted people at random.

BIOLOGY PRIZE: for scientifically documenting fellatio in fruit bats.
Awesome! by EmagGeek · 2010-10-01 00:06 · Score: 1

Once we get FDA Approval for the use of roller coasters to treat asthma, I will look forward to forcing my insurance company to build one for me in my back yard. YAY!
Re:Asthma is cured while you are on a roller coast by Five+Bucks! · 2010-10-01 02:26 · Score: 1

More flags, more tidal volume!

--
52 52'23" W 47 32'07" N
Re:And this year's winner is... by nanospook · 2010-10-01 13:59 · Score: 1

Oh brother *rolling eyes* since when is humor offtopic? Especially on /.

--
Have you fscked your local propeller head today?
I drink less... by KingAlanI · 2010-10-01 16:32 · Score: 1

"Students drink more during the weekends".
Being able to sleep in more often, I don't have to overcaffeinate myself, and I'm not riding my bicycle out to campus, so less sipping form an oversized water bottle...oh, you meant alcohol? Don't drink more of that either. 0 = 0. [still 21. :(]

--
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.