Because the Republicans wouldn't actually fix it... they'd spend even MORE rather than be "outRepublicaned" by a Democrat.
Eventually we'd have a government that spends 100s of trillions of dollars yearly and collects no taxes. Say goodbye to the US as you know it, in that circumstance.
We NEED taxes, what we DON'T need are a lot of these unnecessary or redundant services (the entire Dept of Homeland Security, I'm looking at you). Sadly too many people are stupid enough to believe that we can spend as much as we want without taxing anyone anything.
Supply side economics is a failure on paper and in practice. It has been revealed as nothing more than a sham to reduce taxes on the rich, a ploy that was supposed to benefit everyone yet was really only beneficial to the top 5% earners.
It's called caffeine. It's a brilliant drug that can keep the science train rolling long into the night. Sometimes science just won't let you sleep, and caffeine is a perfect boost.
I also drink orange juice in the morning, which supposedly improves cognitive abilities. Does that count?
Mario Typing was one of my favorite games as a young lad, and it vastly increased my typing speeds (from the mid-50s to the low 100s). I was 10. Once you break 100 it's pretty easy to get up to 120-140, and I owe it all to Mario Typing.
The House of the Dead typing game on the Dreamcast was also kickass. It was a lot of fun and your performance was based on typing speed. I played it in college a few times, by then I already had a 140WPM average though.
I also remember learning how to factor and multiply well using an old DOS game that we had in one of the classrooms during recess.
I don't see how anyone can deny that some video games are educational. Obviously Halo isn't going to teach you much, but the games designed toward education are usually get the job done well (and are usually pretty entertaining)
Taking the Iraqi oil fields does NOT increase supply. It would be like if Target took over a Walmart warehouse and started selling their products. The supply did NOT increase; it was always there. It's a different person selling a stolen item.
Our prices are increasing due largely to oil speculation, which has become the new popular way for rich people to become more rich (much like the housing bubble and the.com bubble before it). More speculation = artificially higher prices = record-breaking profits for the oil companies for several years in a row. It's true, you can go look up their quarterly reports for yourself.
We physicists enjoy watching the public squirm as we go around proclaiming that we can destroy the world at any time. We know that none of this stuff is going to happen, but when journalists overhear us joking around they take things a little too seriously and let their minds wander to the headlines that sell best.
In other words, the experts already know that these concerns are unfounded. The people who are concerned don't actually know the physics behind these doomsday scenarios and why they can not happen.
I really hope we find a magnetic monopole at LHC (I have no idea how we would actually detect it, the doomsday story is just FUD). It won't do anything, but the existence of a magnetic monopole explains the quantization of electric charge (which is fairly important). I also hope we see some deviations in the standard model at the higher luminosity runs.
You can't possibly mistake a nerf gun for a real gun. Real guns don't have giant nerf darts sticking out of them! Nerf guns look RIDICULOUS, they're brightly colored and shoot big pieces of foam! You'd have to be an idiot to not see the difference! LOOK OUT, THAT PIECE OF FOAM MIGHT HIT YOU IN THE EYE IF THE WIND IS JUST RIGHT AND IF YOU STAND REALLY STILL!
I could see an especially lame campus banning water pistols or toy pistols (on the assumption that they look too real perhaps). Yes, it is pretty crazy, but I could see a bunch of soccer moms getting together and complaining about it. Sure, keep the water pistols out of the elementary schools, whatever. But there can't possibly be ANY justification for banning nerf guns. NONE
I recall a student at the U of Arizona was expelled for sharpening some chop sticks and sticking them to his wall in the honors dorm. THEY'RE CHOP STICKS, and he got EXPELLED. Who the hell arbitrated that case?! "Well you're an honors student spending your first year of college in the dorm. You sharpened some chop sticks and used fun tak to stick them to the wall. Seems like a pretty open and shut case to me, EXPLUSION!" Later that night, that administrator went home and told his wife about it, and that's when she realized that she's married to a completely moron and got a divorce. Okay, so I made that last part up, but it's still stupid.
The people who need or enforce a nerf gun ban are insane. What they need is a mental institution. You bring that case before any shrink and they'll recommend a long stay at a mental health clinic. Even a 10 year-old could correctly diagnosis these people as NUTS.
I can officially say that the author needs to STFU. We have it just as bad (in some cases much worse). I teach engineers physics, and most of them just sound whiny when it comes to grades and assignments. Suck it up and do your work.
Just because another major's grades are inflated doesn't mean your education standards should drop. Your grades are more important than theirs. And please note that the brilliant engineering students are still maintaining an A average even if you can barely hold down a B.
Barely-passed engineers build bridges that collapse and cages that can't hold their tigers. If anything it should be harder to pass, not easier.
Am I the only one that thinks a degree in engineering should actually mean something? I don't care if you got straight As as an art history major; congratulations on your new job in sales or as a secretary. The engineer with straight Bs will be doing the real work.
Whenever some piece of legislation is going to cut a little into profits, the corporations and their lackeys cry out "Free market! Free market!"
These same people are more than happy to accept government contracts that turn their corporation into a monopoly in certain regions. How many people here use an ISP like Comcast and have no alternative for high speed internet?
I've seen people insist that there are no monopolized regions, that they literally do not exist anywhere, yet I have never lived in a house or apartment that offered more than one high speed internet provider (and I've lived throughout the Southwest, from LA to Newport to Phoenix/Tucson in various locations). I'm the kind of guy who shops around and tries to get the best deal for everything. I checked the DSL choices (often they would claim I was "too far" from an access point even though they claimed to provide service to an apartment complex across the street).
I don't think it's right to let these companies have essentially a monopoly in regions across America. What happened to trust busting? Isn't our government supposed to be FOR THE PEOPLE? All I see are aristocrats helping aristocrats (and playing lip service to everyone else).
The poster (Soulskill)indicates that citywide wifi experiences "low profitability" and the article states that the providers have had to "cut their losses" indicating no profitability.
Which is it? Was this a bad idea (not sustainable under current funding), or are these telecomms just out to make a buck? Everyone knows these companies are out to screw the consumer at every chance (specifically Earthlink), but was that what caused the abandonment of municipal wifi?
Both modes of gaming have their merits. PC gaming has free online play and better 3rd party support (mods, etc. although there are some fine console modding communities, the PC mod community has always been and will always be bigger and better). Consoles are more appealing to the masses (you practically don't need a brain to run a console). As a gaming platform, both options will have exclusive titles and both options have their fanboys. Some games are better played with a mouse + keyboard, other games are better played with a controller.
There are too many blithering idiots on the internet claiming that console or PC gaming is in jeopardy. It would be better for the rest of us to ignore the morons and realize that both forms of gaming have their merits and that there really are no big reasons for either form of gaming to die.
I don't like having to recover a system after I screwed something up. That's really not fun in my book (although I do enjoy using the command line)
By the author's argument, wouldn't it be 'fun' for the hardcore linux community to write a single fool-proof distro? Why is there no version of Linux that is dumbed down and easy to use for the masses? Include a command line if you want, but don't force the user to use it!
The average consumer isn't going to adopt Linux exactly because of all of the factors that the author claims makes it fun. If we really want to topple Microsoft's hold on the OS market (and I know there are a number of you who want this pretty badly), then there needs to be a user-friendlier Linux distro. I've seen my fair share of distros (including scientific CERN linux, which comes with OpenOffice 1.0 and does not come with apps that are used in science), and somehow none of them are quite as easy to use as Windows or OS X (and I actually really hate OS X to boot).
I know I'll get crucified for suggesting this, but someone is going to have to write a bloated distro. Once installed, it needs to just work (so you'll have to include a million and one drivers). It needs to come with programs like Open Office and GIMP. It needs to come with VLC.
The point of suggesting a new Linux distro is NOT to force people to 'have fun' while fixing their computer. There are already countless distros that let users do that. If something breaks, most users won't know how to fix it or where to go for help, so they'll get frustrated and go back to using Windows.
Most users don't want to learn Linux, so let's create a Linux that they won't have to learn.
Should scientists date people who believe in astrology? Shouldn't that be up to each individual scientist? I'm a scientist. I'll date whoever the hell I want to date, and the fine members of Slashdot aren't going to influence that. If you're a scientist, you should be able to ask yourself that question and come up with a reasonable response fairly quickly. If you really feel that you can not be with someone who has an illogical belief, then I'm afraid you're cutting yourself off from most of the dating pool (but that's your prerogative).
I see no problem with people who believe in astrology, just as I see no problem with people who believe in yetis.
A person's beliefs are NOT a good indicator of the person's ability to think rationally and clearly.
We've been making singularities for years. Ever heard of particle smashers, like SLAC and the LHC? Oh boy, the LHC is going to be a regular black hole factory!
I don't see it happening in the near-future, but perhaps near the end of my life-time (I'm 20-something). And it won't be like the first computer revolution, with guys in their garages and basements screwing around with computer hardware. The first quantum computers will be only really useful for large Monte-Carlo projects (like the Earth Simulator) that require tons of computing power.
The problem then becomes building a quantum computer that is faster than the supercomputers of the time. The first quantum computer prototype won't just start out as a powerhouse. After we get the first quantum computer working, it may be up to a decade before we see one actually being used. 30-40 years later maybe we'll see quantum computers in the home, but we'll all be long dead by the time that happens.
As far as building a quantum computer goes, this is comparable to making a transistor. There's still a LONG way to go.
Unless you have someone standing next to you guiding you through your first experience with Linux (for the first several days/weeks) things will feel fairly hostile.
There's a general feeling on the internet that if you don't run Linux then you're a noob, but noobs can't figure out how to use Linux because they're noobs. Many people aren't willing to put up with the "shame" of being a linux noob and not knowing anything - they'd rather use Windows, where everyone can hobble by with almost no computer skills.
If you're a Linux noob, it's a very negative feeling. There are many very helpful forums that will help you in any way they can, but the few trolls are enough to ruin the experience and make you feel like an idiot when you're just trying to learn the ropes.
If you're a Windows noob, it's no big deal - so is everyone else. And chances are you aren't on help forums anyway - the problems are usually minor and livable. If you have a more serious problem, you're on the phone with some sort of tech support where you're less likely to be called an idiot (most call centers have active monitoring, the employee never knows when someone else is listening in).
And I know that some people are going to point out that some hardware won't work in Windows. This is only really true with really, REALLY old hardware (and Vista, but I've never had problems with XP).
Average Joe will go out and buy a new printer before bothering to look online for the right drivers. This is true of linux AND windows. Unfortunately, it's more likely that Windows XP will allow you to immediately use the printer whereas your average distro of linux will require some additional work.
I have a model train on a long stretch of track (nearly infinitely long).
I have a strong magnet (an electromagnet if you will).
When I place the magnet in front of the train, the train accelerates forward.
If I keep moving the magnet away from the train (with my hand) then the train continues accelerating. Hooray, the train is accelerating without using any source of power except the magnet! It's perpetual motion! IT'S PERPETUAL MOTION!
This guy has, sadly, not created a perpetual motion device. He has transferred energy from one medium to another (and rather inefficiently at that). If you believe this is a perpetual motion device, then I've got a few other handy devices to sell you (tiger-repelling amulets, oil that is guaranteed to increase your natural lifespan, etc.)
Sadly, scientific funding is not determined by scientists - it is determined by politicians. Scientists are on the boards that assign the grants, but the actual funding is handed down by politicians. If the politicians don't like the kinds of projects that you're supporting, you'll either face a budget cut or you'll lose your seat on the board.
However, your last line certainly has some truth - I encounter students who refuse to believe in the Coriolis effect, inertia, Gauss' Law, and countless other well-proven laws. It's not that they can come up with counterexamples, it's that they just don't want to believe in the billions of experiments that have confirmed previously known results. Would you agree that this is quite a different circumstance? The students who display disbelief often do so without reason (gut instinct). These students fail. I will happily give bonus points to students who can think of counterexamples to famous theories and laws - they can have the A, I'll take the Nobel Prize.
You couldn't be more wrong about... well, everything.
We physicists are most excited when there are EXCEPTIONS to well-proven theory. Case in point, Einstein's General Relativity rapidly gained momentum when it was introduced, and now it is considered the leading theory.
The LHC (Large Hadron Collider) is a particle physicist's dream because it tests a high energy region that has never been seen before. Everyone (except the theorists, who are few and far between) wants to see new physics happening there. It's generally dubbed "beyond the standard model" but that's just fancy wording for "The standard model suddenly doesn't work in this high energy region!"
I can think of countless other examples when a prominent scientific theory was quickly abandoned in favor of a new, better theory. Rutherford's gold scattering experiment, Einstein's relativity, ALL OF QUANTUM PHYSICS, etc.
I know in particle physics we need to leave our computers on overnight quite regularly. We share computing resources and often run simulations for several days (or longer). Shutting down the routers and switches connecting one computer to the rest of the particle computers in the building effectively cancels the simulation since huge datasets might be spread across 7 or 8 computers. At CERN, when the LHC turns on there will be thousands of computers running 24 hours a day for many years. At a university, obtaining your sample set of data may require at least a day (you're expected to pull the data and then work with it rather than using CERN computing resources, although the specifics haven't been worked out yet). Some projects just require that much time and energy. Most days you should be able to shut off large portions of the network, though.
I'm certain there are other sciences that have similar concerns. I think the best way is to send out a friendly e-mail reminding people to turn off their computers when they leave. That should get at least a handful of computers off for the night. Depending on how successful or unsuccessful that strategy is, shutting off computers that are definitely unnecessary (public access terminals for example) would be a fine idea.
In many high school courses SI units are used. Some students will complain, but they're better off for it that way. All science should be taught using the same system of units.
When I took my first (and only) IT job before I went to graduate school, I accepted the starting pay of $7.00/hour and shared an office with 3 other people. I knew that other IT people in the city would generally make more than $15-20/hour to start (I had spoken to some of them), but I was an undergrad and enjoyed the more flexible schedule, even if the work was hell (the IT manager was an idiot and complicated most of the normal IT issues, among other things).
I think the problem is that local IT professionals are generally all expected to do the same jobs. The older, entrenched crowd of IT probably make much more than starting salary. To a younger IT that's just joining the department, making significantly less for doing the some job may seem like a bad deal.
I would also like to theorize that IT people spend a lot of time on the internet and may have a good feel for how much other IT people make. People who do the hiring may not have as thorough an understanding, and as such may offer too much or too little money as the starting wage. I think others on Slashdot will agree with me when I say that IT people are generally well-informed.
Slashdot Mirror
Because the Republicans wouldn't actually fix it... they'd spend even MORE rather than be "outRepublicaned" by a Democrat.
Eventually we'd have a government that spends 100s of trillions of dollars yearly and collects no taxes. Say goodbye to the US as you know it, in that circumstance.
We NEED taxes, what we DON'T need are a lot of these unnecessary or redundant services (the entire Dept of Homeland Security, I'm looking at you). Sadly too many people are stupid enough to believe that we can spend as much as we want without taxing anyone anything.
Supply side economics is a failure on paper and in practice. It has been revealed as nothing more than a sham to reduce taxes on the rich, a ploy that was supposed to benefit everyone yet was really only beneficial to the top 5% earners.
It's called caffeine. It's a brilliant drug that can keep the science train rolling long into the night. Sometimes science just won't let you sleep, and caffeine is a perfect boost.
I also drink orange juice in the morning, which supposedly improves cognitive abilities. Does that count?
Mario Typing was one of my favorite games as a young lad, and it vastly increased my typing speeds (from the mid-50s to the low 100s). I was 10. Once you break 100 it's pretty easy to get up to 120-140, and I owe it all to Mario Typing.
The House of the Dead typing game on the Dreamcast was also kickass. It was a lot of fun and your performance was based on typing speed. I played it in college a few times, by then I already had a 140WPM average though.
I also remember learning how to factor and multiply well using an old DOS game that we had in one of the classrooms during recess.
I don't see how anyone can deny that some video games are educational. Obviously Halo isn't going to teach you much, but the games designed toward education are usually get the job done well (and are usually pretty entertaining)
Taking the Iraqi oil fields does NOT increase supply. It would be like if Target took over a Walmart warehouse and started selling their products. The supply did NOT increase; it was always there. It's a different person selling a stolen item.
.com bubble before it). More speculation = artificially higher prices = record-breaking profits for the oil companies for several years in a row. It's true, you can go look up their quarterly reports for yourself.
Our prices are increasing due largely to oil speculation, which has become the new popular way for rich people to become more rich (much like the housing bubble and the
We physicists enjoy watching the public squirm as we go around proclaiming that we can destroy the world at any time. We know that none of this stuff is going to happen, but when journalists overhear us joking around they take things a little too seriously and let their minds wander to the headlines that sell best.
In other words, the experts already know that these concerns are unfounded. The people who are concerned don't actually know the physics behind these doomsday scenarios and why they can not happen.
I really hope we find a magnetic monopole at LHC (I have no idea how we would actually detect it, the doomsday story is just FUD). It won't do anything, but the existence of a magnetic monopole explains the quantization of electric charge (which is fairly important). I also hope we see some deviations in the standard model at the higher luminosity runs.
LOL, I hadn't even seen that. I think these journalists see the word "professor" and instantly assume they are experts in the field.
Just look at Spiderman 3 - Peter Parker is not only a brilliant nuclear physicist, he is also an expert in biology!
ARE YOU KIDDING ME!?
You can't possibly mistake a nerf gun for a real gun. Real guns don't have giant nerf darts sticking out of them! Nerf guns look RIDICULOUS, they're brightly colored and shoot big pieces of foam! You'd have to be an idiot to not see the difference! LOOK OUT, THAT PIECE OF FOAM MIGHT HIT YOU IN THE EYE IF THE WIND IS JUST RIGHT AND IF YOU STAND REALLY STILL!
I could see an especially lame campus banning water pistols or toy pistols (on the assumption that they look too real perhaps). Yes, it is pretty crazy, but I could see a bunch of soccer moms getting together and complaining about it. Sure, keep the water pistols out of the elementary schools, whatever. But there can't possibly be ANY justification for banning nerf guns. NONE
I recall a student at the U of Arizona was expelled for sharpening some chop sticks and sticking them to his wall in the honors dorm. THEY'RE CHOP STICKS, and he got EXPELLED. Who the hell arbitrated that case?! "Well you're an honors student spending your first year of college in the dorm. You sharpened some chop sticks and used fun tak to stick them to the wall. Seems like a pretty open and shut case to me, EXPLUSION!" Later that night, that administrator went home and told his wife about it, and that's when she realized that she's married to a completely moron and got a divorce. Okay, so I made that last part up, but it's still stupid.
The people who need or enforce a nerf gun ban are insane. What they need is a mental institution. You bring that case before any shrink and they'll recommend a long stay at a mental health clinic. Even a 10 year-old could correctly diagnosis these people as NUTS.
I can officially say that the author needs to STFU. We have it just as bad (in some cases much worse). I teach engineers physics, and most of them just sound whiny when it comes to grades and assignments. Suck it up and do your work.
Just because another major's grades are inflated doesn't mean your education standards should drop. Your grades are more important than theirs. And please note that the brilliant engineering students are still maintaining an A average even if you can barely hold down a B.
Barely-passed engineers build bridges that collapse and cages that can't hold their tigers. If anything it should be harder to pass, not easier.
Am I the only one that thinks a degree in engineering should actually mean something? I don't care if you got straight As as an art history major; congratulations on your new job in sales or as a secretary. The engineer with straight Bs will be doing the real work.
Whenever some piece of legislation is going to cut a little into profits, the corporations and their lackeys cry out "Free market! Free market!"
These same people are more than happy to accept government contracts that turn their corporation into a monopoly in certain regions. How many people here use an ISP like Comcast and have no alternative for high speed internet?
I've seen people insist that there are no monopolized regions, that they literally do not exist anywhere, yet I have never lived in a house or apartment that offered more than one high speed internet provider (and I've lived throughout the Southwest, from LA to Newport to Phoenix/Tucson in various locations). I'm the kind of guy who shops around and tries to get the best deal for everything. I checked the DSL choices (often they would claim I was "too far" from an access point even though they claimed to provide service to an apartment complex across the street).
I don't think it's right to let these companies have essentially a monopoly in regions across America. What happened to trust busting? Isn't our government supposed to be FOR THE PEOPLE? All I see are aristocrats helping aristocrats (and playing lip service to everyone else).
The poster (Soulskill)indicates that citywide wifi experiences "low profitability" and the article states that the providers have had to "cut their losses" indicating no profitability.
Which is it? Was this a bad idea (not sustainable under current funding), or are these telecomms just out to make a buck? Everyone knows these companies are out to screw the consumer at every chance (specifically Earthlink), but was that what caused the abandonment of municipal wifi?
Both modes of gaming have their merits. PC gaming has free online play and better 3rd party support (mods, etc. although there are some fine console modding communities, the PC mod community has always been and will always be bigger and better). Consoles are more appealing to the masses (you practically don't need a brain to run a console). As a gaming platform, both options will have exclusive titles and both options have their fanboys. Some games are better played with a mouse + keyboard, other games are better played with a controller.
There are too many blithering idiots on the internet claiming that console or PC gaming is in jeopardy. It would be better for the rest of us to ignore the morons and realize that both forms of gaming have their merits and that there really are no big reasons for either form of gaming to die.
I don't like having to recover a system after I screwed something up. That's really not fun in my book (although I do enjoy using the command line)
By the author's argument, wouldn't it be 'fun' for the hardcore linux community to write a single fool-proof distro? Why is there no version of Linux that is dumbed down and easy to use for the masses? Include a command line if you want, but don't force the user to use it!
The average consumer isn't going to adopt Linux exactly because of all of the factors that the author claims makes it fun. If we really want to topple Microsoft's hold on the OS market (and I know there are a number of you who want this pretty badly), then there needs to be a user-friendlier Linux distro. I've seen my fair share of distros (including scientific CERN linux, which comes with OpenOffice 1.0 and does not come with apps that are used in science), and somehow none of them are quite as easy to use as Windows or OS X (and I actually really hate OS X to boot).
I know I'll get crucified for suggesting this, but someone is going to have to write a bloated distro. Once installed, it needs to just work (so you'll have to include a million and one drivers). It needs to come with programs like Open Office and GIMP. It needs to come with VLC.
The point of suggesting a new Linux distro is NOT to force people to 'have fun' while fixing their computer. There are already countless distros that let users do that. If something breaks, most users won't know how to fix it or where to go for help, so they'll get frustrated and go back to using Windows.
Most users don't want to learn Linux, so let's create a Linux that they won't have to learn.
Should scientists date people who believe in astrology? Shouldn't that be up to each individual scientist? I'm a scientist. I'll date whoever the hell I want to date, and the fine members of Slashdot aren't going to influence that. If you're a scientist, you should be able to ask yourself that question and come up with a reasonable response fairly quickly. If you really feel that you can not be with someone who has an illogical belief, then I'm afraid you're cutting yourself off from most of the dating pool (but that's your prerogative).
I see no problem with people who believe in astrology, just as I see no problem with people who believe in yetis.
A person's beliefs are NOT a good indicator of the person's ability to think rationally and clearly.
We've been making singularities for years. Ever heard of particle smashers, like SLAC and the LHC? Oh boy, the LHC is going to be a regular black hole factory!
I don't see it happening in the near-future, but perhaps near the end of my life-time (I'm 20-something). And it won't be like the first computer revolution, with guys in their garages and basements screwing around with computer hardware. The first quantum computers will be only really useful for large Monte-Carlo projects (like the Earth Simulator) that require tons of computing power.
The problem then becomes building a quantum computer that is faster than the supercomputers of the time. The first quantum computer prototype won't just start out as a powerhouse. After we get the first quantum computer working, it may be up to a decade before we see one actually being used. 30-40 years later maybe we'll see quantum computers in the home, but we'll all be long dead by the time that happens.
As far as building a quantum computer goes, this is comparable to making a transistor. There's still a LONG way to go.
Unless you have someone standing next to you guiding you through your first experience with Linux (for the first several days/weeks) things will feel fairly hostile.
There's a general feeling on the internet that if you don't run Linux then you're a noob, but noobs can't figure out how to use Linux because they're noobs. Many people aren't willing to put up with the "shame" of being a linux noob and not knowing anything - they'd rather use Windows, where everyone can hobble by with almost no computer skills.
If you're a Linux noob, it's a very negative feeling. There are many very helpful forums that will help you in any way they can, but the few trolls are enough to ruin the experience and make you feel like an idiot when you're just trying to learn the ropes.
If you're a Windows noob, it's no big deal - so is everyone else. And chances are you aren't on help forums anyway - the problems are usually minor and livable. If you have a more serious problem, you're on the phone with some sort of tech support where you're less likely to be called an idiot (most call centers have active monitoring, the employee never knows when someone else is listening in).
And I know that some people are going to point out that some hardware won't work in Windows. This is only really true with really, REALLY old hardware (and Vista, but I've never had problems with XP).
Average Joe will go out and buy a new printer before bothering to look online for the right drivers. This is true of linux AND windows. Unfortunately, it's more likely that Windows XP will allow you to immediately use the printer whereas your average distro of linux will require some additional work.
I have a model train on a long stretch of track (nearly infinitely long).
I have a strong magnet (an electromagnet if you will).
When I place the magnet in front of the train, the train accelerates forward.
If I keep moving the magnet away from the train (with my hand) then the train continues accelerating. Hooray, the train is accelerating without using any source of power except the magnet! It's perpetual motion! IT'S PERPETUAL MOTION!
This guy has, sadly, not created a perpetual motion device. He has transferred energy from one medium to another (and rather inefficiently at that). If you believe this is a perpetual motion device, then I've got a few other handy devices to sell you (tiger-repelling amulets, oil that is guaranteed to increase your natural lifespan, etc.)
Sadly, scientific funding is not determined by scientists - it is determined by politicians. Scientists are on the boards that assign the grants, but the actual funding is handed down by politicians. If the politicians don't like the kinds of projects that you're supporting, you'll either face a budget cut or you'll lose your seat on the board.
However, your last line certainly has some truth - I encounter students who refuse to believe in the Coriolis effect, inertia, Gauss' Law, and countless other well-proven laws. It's not that they can come up with counterexamples, it's that they just don't want to believe in the billions of experiments that have confirmed previously known results. Would you agree that this is quite a different circumstance? The students who display disbelief often do so without reason (gut instinct). These students fail. I will happily give bonus points to students who can think of counterexamples to famous theories and laws - they can have the A, I'll take the Nobel Prize.
You couldn't be more wrong about... well, everything.
We physicists are most excited when there are EXCEPTIONS to well-proven theory. Case in point, Einstein's General Relativity rapidly gained momentum when it was introduced, and now it is considered the leading theory.
The LHC (Large Hadron Collider) is a particle physicist's dream because it tests a high energy region that has never been seen before. Everyone (except the theorists, who are few and far between) wants to see new physics happening there. It's generally dubbed "beyond the standard model" but that's just fancy wording for "The standard model suddenly doesn't work in this high energy region!"
I can think of countless other examples when a prominent scientific theory was quickly abandoned in favor of a new, better theory. Rutherford's gold scattering experiment, Einstein's relativity, ALL OF QUANTUM PHYSICS, etc.
I know in particle physics we need to leave our computers on overnight quite regularly. We share computing resources and often run simulations for several days (or longer). Shutting down the routers and switches connecting one computer to the rest of the particle computers in the building effectively cancels the simulation since huge datasets might be spread across 7 or 8 computers. At CERN, when the LHC turns on there will be thousands of computers running 24 hours a day for many years. At a university, obtaining your sample set of data may require at least a day (you're expected to pull the data and then work with it rather than using CERN computing resources, although the specifics haven't been worked out yet). Some projects just require that much time and energy. Most days you should be able to shut off large portions of the network, though.
I'm certain there are other sciences that have similar concerns. I think the best way is to send out a friendly e-mail reminding people to turn off their computers when they leave. That should get at least a handful of computers off for the night. Depending on how successful or unsuccessful that strategy is, shutting off computers that are definitely unnecessary (public access terminals for example) would be a fine idea.
In many high school courses SI units are used. Some students will complain, but they're better off for it that way. All science should be taught using the same system of units.
When I took my first (and only) IT job before I went to graduate school, I accepted the starting pay of $7.00/hour and shared an office with 3 other people. I knew that other IT people in the city would generally make more than $15-20/hour to start (I had spoken to some of them), but I was an undergrad and enjoyed the more flexible schedule, even if the work was hell (the IT manager was an idiot and complicated most of the normal IT issues, among other things). I think the problem is that local IT professionals are generally all expected to do the same jobs. The older, entrenched crowd of IT probably make much more than starting salary. To a younger IT that's just joining the department, making significantly less for doing the some job may seem like a bad deal. I would also like to theorize that IT people spend a lot of time on the internet and may have a good feel for how much other IT people make. People who do the hiring may not have as thorough an understanding, and as such may offer too much or too little money as the starting wage. I think others on Slashdot will agree with me when I say that IT people are generally well-informed.
You're right, it's not the #2 item, IT'S THE NUMBER ONE ITEM!!!!
Have fun living without the hundreds of things invented by NASA that we now get to enjoy as consumer products thanks to their research efforts.
NASA just won a nanotechnology award and people STILL think they're useless? Are you retarded or something?