Slashdot Mirror
1999 Ig Nobel Winners!
SEWilco writes "The 1999 Ig Nobel winners have been announced. The PEACE winner's car flame thrower and the SCIENCE EDUCATION co-winner, the Kansas Board of Education were both /. articles. The PHYSICS co-winner, the biscuit dunking formula is my favorite. "
We need more of these products commercially aavailable, I'd also like oil slicks and the like. Ohh, I harken back to the days of Spy Hunter, now where'd I put my CD of the Peter Gunn Theme??
______________________ There is no
SCIENCE EDUCATION: The Kansas Board of Education and the Colorado State Board of Education, for mandating that children should not believe in
Darwin's theory of evolution any more than they believe in Newton's theory of gravitation, Faraday's and Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism, or
Pasteur's theory that germs cause disease.
thats just sick. i personally think that is insane. when i heard that kansas had done that i laughed. but now seeing it win a honorable recognition like that makes me mad. we really may be degrading as a society here. i thought we got over the whole "there is no god we are just organisms" thing years ago.
*sigh* just when you start to hope
tyler
Seriously, I really must disagree with awarding Steve Penfold the award for Sociology. If you're not Canadian, you wouldn't believe the importance of donut shops here. *Especially* Tim Hortons.
:)
Tim's is a national institution, on par with pubs in Britain.
But as for the Science Education award, they were absolutely right.
Now, all that said, I've got some serious problems with people who claim there is no God and then turn around and turn Science into God. Scientific rationalism can be (and these days, often is) taken much too far, in the same way that Christianity can.
I consider myself quite religious, though I am not Christian. And the replacement of the Judeo-Christian God with the "non-God" of scientific rationalism just shifts the good/evil paradigm slightly. It really doesn't change the black-and-white outlook that most people seem to have. "I'm right, and I have PROOF! Therefore, you're an immoral idiot." Isn't it time to evolve past this (so to speak)?
(And before someone jumps all over me for this, I'm not trying to claim that the world was literally, actually, created by the remains of a giant cow. I do think that scientific evolution is the best *guess* we currently have as to "how we got here," but I don't want kids taught that Science is God any more than I want them forced to pray to Jesus every day.)
"Somebody exploded a letter-bomb today
"Just once, I'd like to meet an alien menace that wasn't immune to bullets." -- The Brigadier, Dr. Who
The prize awarded for medicine was just way too funny. A rotating table to facilitate with childbirth here.
imabug
"For I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and Long Words Bother Me"
SCIENCE EDUCATION: The Kansas Board of Education and the Colorado State Board of Education, for mandating that children should not believe in Darwin's theory of evolution any more than they believe in Newton's theory of gravitation, Faraday's and Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism, or Pasteur's theory that germs cause disease.
Coming from a religious camp, if I live in a country where religion is taught in school (and I do), and my goverment suddenly that mandate that school children no longer need to believe in God, I would freak out the same way as they do.
Interesting parallel, don't you think?
Anyhow, these people should be careful about mentioning Pasteur. Scientists used to believe in this theory called 'spontaneous generation theory'. If you leave a piece of food in the open air, germs will automagically form. Pasteur proposed that germs did come from nowhere but already exist in the air. Pasteur and others where heavily criticized for this.
One scientist tried to disprove this theory by the glucose solution in a beaker an stuffing it with cork. No bacterial growth was observed. Spontenous theory advocates pointed out that when you stuff the beaker with cork, you cut out the air supply which is needed by the bacteria so the theory still holds.
Pasteur did the same experiment but this time stuff the beaker with cork with an S-tube. This should supply the beaker with fresh air but will trap the incoming bacteria in the S-tube. No bacterial growth was observed. Spontenous generation theory is debunked.
Why is the spontenous generation theory is sooo important? It supports the idea that humans are not created but evolved from bacteria spontenously created out of thin air.
Hasdi
The prize awarded for medicine was just way too funny. A rotating table to facilitate with childbirth here.
A patent was actually awarded for it too!
imabug
"For I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and Long Words Bother Me"
On behalf of the state regents, I would like to thank everybody who helped contribute, from all those idiots writing to the local papers to the people on the board who have shown just how great our education system. It is unfortunate the members of the regents are unable to accept the award personally since this is the time of the day they're still trying to get their head out of their butts. But I know someday, they will be successful, maybe after they are voted out of office.
:)
Sorry, but there's no way I will admit who I really am.
Hello! The article from last Dec was about the car flame thrower. Today's article is about the awarding of the 1999 Ig Nobel prizes, of which one of them was the aforementioned flame thrower. There were many other prizes mentioned in the article linked...
/. isn't going down, just the ability of the posters to read the information presented (yeah, I'm guilty of it too at times).
No,
--
You know, on a Triumphs mailing list I was on, this guy had problems of flames shooting out of his exhaust.
His car was just like mine, a SPITFIRE. Now that's a car that lived up to its name! I should of emailed him on how to do it for my car just in case those Honda drivers get out of line. Hmm..
I think we all need to step back and take alook at the big picture here. The Ig Nobel's serve a very good purpose: They highlight the fact that there are people that are actually getting paid to do this sort of research! That is my kind of job! Person: "So, What do you do?" Hermetic: "I dunk biscuits, quite precisely, mind you, and determine what precentage of dunking produces the best taste." Person: "Are you hiring?" I find it amazing that any woman would think that the rotating birth accelerator is a good idea. Did you look at that thing? "Sweetie, I know it hurts, but I think if we strap you in and spin you around really, really fast that kid'll come shooting out of there in no time fast!" Please, Please don't let these people breed.
Computers can only simulate determinism. ~Hermetic.
Actually, designing a low-drip spout is rather useful. I hate drippy spouts. I'm sure pot and carafe makers might care. The biscuit dunking is rather frivolous though.
I love the 6-page British tea-making specification. Hilarious.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Right... I should read at least twice :( Moderators: Please, a quick -1 to this and the original message. (Shame on me)
In fact, I'd like an EMP gun to waste the electronics of the next idiot whose car alarm goes off as I walk by it in a supermarket parking lot, or the second time that night at 0-dark-thirty, because they've got the sensitivity set to, "a pigeon shat on my car!!!"
Instead, I have a *far* more useful device (copyright m. roth-whitworth, 1995-99): a rocket launcher for the front of your car to take out the morons who can't walk and chew gum at the same time, but who insist on permanently attaching their cell phone to their ear, and driving their SUVs (Stupid lUser Vehicles) *badly* in the left lane.... Now what makes *my* rocket device unique is that it uses a vertical-wedge shaped charge.
The advantage of this is that it not only takes out the idiot in front of you, but
1) it splits their vehicle in half up the middle, so that it doesn't get in your way as you keep on driving, and
2) depending on the lane you're in, the two halves of the vehicle formerly in front of you (VFiFoY) take out the jerks on either or both sides of you, who, seeing the removal of the idiot, would otherwise attempt to cut in front of you.
See? *Far* more useful, eliminating two or three pollutants from the shallow end of the gene pool for the price of one! Besides, it would make a nice boom!
mark "now, about the FCC-legal white noise generator on cellphone frequencies..."
Pardon me for being dense, but how do you teach kids that Science is God?
...phil
...phil
"For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
do these guys seem just a bit too preoccupied with tea and coffee?
I normally follow the following unique procedure -
1) Mix 1/2 cup water and milk
2) Bring it to a boil
3) Dunk in the tea leaves (real ones, not the stupid teabag thingie), turn off the heat, keep covered
4) Let it sit for 2-3 minutes
5) Filter using an appropriate mechanism
6) Add your preferred amount of sugar
This was described to me by a guy from India, and it comes out quite strong and flavorful. It, however, is not the l33t connoisseur's methodology, which normally involves boiling water and adding the tea leaves, then waiting for a longer period of time (5-6 mins).
Note - Use actual tea instead of tea bags (preferably stuff you can find in ethnic stores). Also, let the water run for a while from the faucet - the initial body of water tends to be staler and less oxygenated.
An alternative method is as follows:
1) pour desired liquid(s) in said cup and place in a microwave oven.
2) Nuke till it boils (2:38 mins on my 900 Watt Sharp Carousel)
3) Add the tea
4) Wait till it's done.
Historical footnote - Legend has it that tea was invented accidentally when tea leaves drifted into a Chinese emperor's hot water (which always made me wonder why he was drinking hot water and in a place likely to allow leaves to fall in). Just found this -
http://www.aromas.com.au/AllTea.html
Oddly, I couldn't find the British standards institute way of making tea. A search for tea only gives this page :
http://www.bsi.org.uk/bsi/products/standards/de
It does have the wise committee's email addr. Just don't slashdot them asking for tea recipes.
I hereby place the step-by-step tea making code included in this document under the GPL (which can be obtained by writing to the Free Software Foundation, Inc. 59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307, USA)
L.
-=-=-=-=-
-=-=-=-=-
My mom's going to kick you in the face!
If you think a standard for tea is bad, a quick search on http://bsonline.techindex.co.uk reveals BS0-1:1997,
"A British Standard for Standards."
I wonder if BS0-1:1997 is BSO-1:1997 compliant?
I think one scientist described it best on NPR when someone made the same point as you - why do scientists reject religion when they themselves have a dogmatic faith in science? He said something along the lines of "Sure, I want to have a dogmatic faith that 2+2=4. If somebody else comes up with a better theory, I'll believe it".
I get tired of people saying - Hey, you scientists treat science like your god. Umm...no, scientists don't believe something because they are supposed to unquestioningly believe it. They do it because evidence and logic points to it.
For instance, I'm pretty sure you believe the earth is not flat. Why do you teach your children this religious belief that the earth goes around the sun?
See - nobody is replacing Judeo-Christian religion with the "non-god religion" of science. I'm not sure why you're making a big deal out of it and interpreting it that way. Nobody is carrying rationalism too far. I'd say it's not carried far enough.
Note - if you REALLY think science is an overrated religion, just don't go to the local surgeon when you need treatment. after all, he just has a "religious faith" in medical science and has replaced God with his belief in "non-God science".
Scientists used to beleive there was an "ether" permeating the universe. That too was proven wrong. If you have some proof that evolution is wrong, please present. I'd wager any "proof" you can provide has already been debunked time and time again.
By pointing out a wrong theory that Pasteur proposed and saying "Ha! Look, you scientists were wrong!" doesn't prove anything. Science works on the very basis of proposing a theory based on observation and logic, then discarding it if a better one is presented.
For instance, Einstein made some mistakes in his model of the universe, but that doesn't mean that the e=mc2 is wrong.
Could you state what exactly your point is - are you saying they should not mention Pasteur's theory of germs causing disease as being correct, because one of his other theories was wrong?
BTW, do you yourself believe that germs cause disease, or in the theory of evolution? Just curious..
The other neat thing was as I was walking to the bus stop on my way home, I passed through Harvard Square and bumped into Stephen Hawkings. He was in his wheelchair and wandering around Harvard square. Pretty neat. Didn't even know he was in town.
The other neat thing was as I was walking to the bus stop on my way home, I passed through Harvard Square and bumped into Stephen Hawkings. He was in his wheelchair and wandering around Harvard square. Pretty neat. Didn't even know he was in town.
Scientists are no more immune from having an agenda than "men of God" are, and "scientific findings" have this interesting way of backing up popular public beliefs, or alternatively of not really seeing the light of day. Phrenology, anyone?
"Somebody exploded a letter-bomb today
I get quite a kick from the language in this section; it sounds much like a passage from an enlightenment treatise on `primitive peoples.'
I get quite a different and unpleasant sort of kick on viewing the diagrams for the device itself. It looks like some sort of torture apparatus from the Inquisition. (To be fair, the Spaniards didn't go in for sexual torture as such.)
This looks like a device only a managed-care corporation could love -- Let's get that delivery over with, no matter what the consequences! I hate to think of the complications that could be induced or worsened by using this technique -- in particular, unduly profuse intrauterine or episiotimal bleeding due to the increased forces the mother experiences during the centrifugal acceleration. And that's not even considering the issue of fetal distress.
Thinking back to an article I saw concerning alternative birthing methods, I recall some positions other than the standard supine presentation we know in the West -- for example, squatting, on hands & knees, perching on a U-shaped birthing stool, and so forth. (One of the most creative was underwater -- apparently the supportive buoyancy was supposed to help the mother.) I believe the preferred method used in "primitive" cultures was squatting, often with a cloth or skin laid on the ground to receive the baby. What happens to truly 'primitive' mothers and neonates who go through labor-specific birth complications? Mom and/or kiddo doesn't necessarily survive to pass on a genetic legacy (Sorry, state of Kansas).
"How many light bulbs does it take to change a person?" --BMcC-->
The punch line is a kicker. :)
Gee, I thought it was just a funny in the Jargon File. It is a pity...I want that recipe :o)
Who ever said science is god (besides scientology freaks)? I don't think any scientist in any definition of the word would ever make an equation between the two. If someone is trying to do this they are really not scientists and rather charlatans.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
For many years, when observing someone about to pour tea, I would often comment: for the thousands of years people have been making teapots, why do teapots still drip? hasn't anyone figured it out yet? Today, I understand. The problem is in fact quite difficult! Indeed, nobody had properly tried to solve the problem until recently. But all I find is a headline! Does anyone have a link to the actual paper presenting the solution to dripping pots???
"Just once, I'd like to meet an alien menace that wasn't immune to bullets." -- The Brigadier, Dr. Who
A video of the ceremony is available as a Real stream. Unfortunately, nobody thought to spend some time breaking it up into smaller, indexed segments. Streaming media on the public Internet sucks anyways. Hopefuly, I will find it on tape some time.
My wife was actualy one of the maidens in the opera. I had a class last night so I couldn't go -- I should have bagged the class!
Can someone who went post a review of the opera?
thanks,
pb
...a more intelligent response
I'd wager any "proof" you can provide has already been debunked time and time again.
And many "proof" supporting evolution has been debunked time and time again as well...
don't you see the parallel here?
In science, we propose numerous hypothesis, and test them to see if it is consistent with experiments. In principle, we should discard it as soon as we run an experiment that conflicts with it.
In practice, many scientists stick to their hypothesis even in the face of conflicting evidence. Louis Pasteur is one case. Other popular case is Einstein physics vs Newtonian physics. I have my hypothesis, and you have yours. Very often, we're just like lawyers and our client happens to be our hypotheses. We present our evidence and we debunk the other side.
Did you ever stop to think what if the creationist are right and evolution is wrong? Or do you keep defending your case or debunk whatever they throw at you? Would you think I would have done likewise?
We may not admit but usually there are unrelated reasons why we believe in a particular hypothesis. Maybe you don't like the idea that one day we will be accountable for our actions. Maybe i don't like the idea that all my the deeds will be all for nothing, or I am in any way 'related' to that furry little animal. Why is that some people would want to mandate one hypthoses to be taught over another, when both have strong supporters?
Enough ranting. I am back to earning my pay. Maybe I'll continue tonight.
Hasdi
PS - yes, my point is italicized
That's great!
But the ratings are useless unless you then apply some sort of selection pressure that uses them. Maybe have toll booths charge diff amts depending on how many darts your car has. Or perhaps the fins on the darts, after they stick, could then turn sideways to provide more aerodynamic drag -- thereby slowing offenders' cars down?
Hmm.. there's also the problem of people abusing the darts, so there would be cries for meta-moderators...
---
Have a Sloppy day!
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
I could well be wrong, but I think donut shops play a much more important (if you can really call it that) role in Eastern Canada than in the West. I didn't appreciate the jokes the Royal Canadian Air Farce, for instance, made about donut shops until I moved to Ontario. There are donut shops *everywhere*, and so many different chains. :P).
BTW, what *is* the correct Tim Horton's spelling? I've seen it -- on store signs, no less -- spelled as Tim Horton's, Tim Hortons, and even Tim Horton (maybe that one was in Quebec
Who needs a flamethrowing car alarm? Check out the last winner -- the centrifugal birthing table.
Mount one of those bad boys on top of your car, strap a mother-to-be-any-minute on it, and walk away. I guarantee your car won't get stolen, and any thief brave enough to come within an arm's reach of Mama is going to *wish* it was just a flamethrower.
Then's there's the potential for using it as a projectile weapon, but I'd think the accuracy would be pretty bad, and it'd take ninth months to reload.
I can see Nabisco dropping a few $M to fund cookie-specific studies...and to publish the optimal time to dunk an Oreo (among other cookies) in the different kinds of milk (skim, to whipping cream).
I wonder if I could get an insurance discount for the flame defense system? Too bad it shoots out both sides though. A switch similar to the dual-mirror control should take care of that problem.
Speaking of which, I think I could use an oreo or two.
__________________
Fuck you, fuck you, fuck you.
Proud SUV owner
And to think that when the early NiH batteries were generating hydrogen and exploding occasionaly, I proposed marketing it as a feature of a "combination cellular handset and flamethrower", which would give you that extra security when walking home in the dark. Should have persevered. Coulda been a winner.
I'm an American (Usonano) living in Canada and I just can't believe the number of Tim Hortons shops. Four! Count 'em -- four! within easy walking distance of my apartment. There's even one in the building where I work!
Yeah, Hawking is in town for the month shooting the breeze, so to speak, with the profs in the physics dept here at Harvard. He gave two talks this past week, on Mon & Tues, in Sanders Theater, the very same space as used for the Igs. He'll be giving another talk on next Tuesday, and then on the 7th there's a lecture at the Wang center open to the public. Tix for the tuesday lecture are sold out, though; dunno about the later one.
FWIW, I'm a senior astrophysics major, and I understood quite little of his second lecture; the stuff he's doing is just way over my head even after a couple years studying this stuff. The first lecture, though, was more at the level of Brief History, and was pretty accessible even to nonphysicists.
He's an amazingly impressive man and I'm very glad to have had the chance to see him in person. Go check him out next week if you can; you won't regret it.
I was first introduced to Tim Horton's in Vancouver BC a few years back while I was working a project up there. Good Coffee (I'll probably get flamed by Coffee Shop denizens for this). From my observation, Tim Horton's, and Donut shops in general, are not as common in BC as I'm hearing about here.
Oh, by the way, Wendy's International (a US company) "merged" with Tim Horton's last year. Wendy's being much the larger of the two makes Tim Horton's an American Donut Shop as much as anything.
I'm just pointing this out to tweak the Canadians. American companies operating in Canada do silly things like integrating a maple leaf (McDonald's and Pizza Hut are examples) into their signs in an attempt to calm Canadian fears about having their commerce dominated by American (US) business.
It's funny. Mexicans who I've known will point out that they are, in fact, Americans, Mexico being in North America. Canadians I've known have no problem whatsoever with the identification of people from the US being 'Americans'.
I summarise:
- Real polystrate tree fossils (that cross many rock strata) exist
- Even the fossils that are replacements of actual trees (double fossils if you like) don't help evolution since the tree has to have been buried before the first replacement anyway
- Invoking fossil forests makes the case worse, since they are invariably transported
- Even trees labelled "not transported", apparently ad hoc, have matching ring patterns in different layers, implying that they grew together contemporaneously and were subsequently layered
- The few references to Mount Saint Helens make the case still worse by exposing even worse problems for evolution (e.g. 8m/26ft of sedimentary rock laid down in minutes and eroded into a grand-canyon lookalike in hours) while not actually reducing the polystrate tree difficulty at all
Yet a theory which relies on evidence like this must be taught in most schools? Hmmm.I have to conclude that the Ig Nobel Prize judges either didn't think, or indulged in polystrate thinking to avoid the reality.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
The Ig Nobel winner for Sociology might sound a little bit petty and, well, meaningless, but have you ever taken a sociology course? You'll have access to volumes upon volumes (real books now, not on-line) of information that you could nominate for this award. I remember for my sociology class, I "researched" group dynamics at a music store. Basically, I made a lot of gross generalizations in my paper, stated the patently obvious, and provided some citations to other people who had done the same exact thing. And, to top it all off, I didn't come to any significant conclusion.
The paper received an A+.
For more information, click here.
The woman in question is strapped to the top of a sports racing car. The legs are held apart with stirrups and the crotch faces the front of the car. After reaching a velocity of 200mph (300kph if it's Mulsanne), the driver slams on the brakes and the baby pops out.
Le Mans sure beats that lamaze crap!