It always goes in cycles - each science has it's day. The buzzwords at the moment which will secure you large amounts of funding are:
DNA genetic engineering tissue engineering anyone want to add some more?
Use all these in a sentence and submit to your favourite funding agency.
It is seen nowadays as very important for humanity to spend more money on the life sciences and less on physics.
It has been like this for quite some time - research with medical applications has always been well funded because the medical community is very good at procuring and protecting research funding. A decade or so ago it was AIDS/cancer, now it's anything to do with DNA/genes.
a very insightful comment. It's interesting that when you get right down to the morals of it, it's very similar to the Enron scandal. Which had the news headlines?
What does this say about our culture in general and the effect on our scientific community?
Our culture at this point in time is focussed almost entirely on money and possessions (which are really just a measure of money). But this obsession is driven by the public - during the IT job boom for example, people could switch jobs at the drop of a hat or demand outrageous salary increases or they would up and go to the company that would pay up. Why? They wanted more money, pure and simple.
You could see the "methods" sections in papers becoming shorter and more perfunctory, for example.
Along the same lines:
In my experience, it is extremely rare to find a journal/conference publication that includes enough information in the methods section to allow others to either check or verify the work or use the findings themselves. Vital information is almost always missed out - it's an artifial intellectual property control, and, as the parent post says, makes it easier for data to be faked.
With the rise of "corporate universities" and corporate science the drive has been to be more accountable.
Corporate universities are a byproduct of today's corporate society where the emphasis is on money - earning, spending, getting, justifying spending other people's, etc.
The problem has filtered down to universities - because they spend public money (ie. taxes), that money has to be justified. You simply can't justify academia in monetary terms, and so universities have had to change. But that change has been brought on by the public demand that government be accountable and transparent (and so it should be).
The other big problem is that more and more government funding is being cut. The only other avenue for funding is sponsorship by corporate entities who won't sponsor research that doesnt have a product they can make money from (because the companies are accountable themselves), and the problem will continue to spiral downwards.
The real problem here is the money counters trying to put a monetary value on research [output]. In a similar vein, the reason that publication is so out of control now (ie. the emphasis is on getting as many publications as possible) is that people thought this was a good way to measure academic output.
Am I missing something here? I mean, we managed to send a bunch of guys over to the moon over 30 years ago with the combined processing power of today's toasters, yet now we have a 33% failure rate on the latest technology, computer designed craft and all that experience?!
I think one of the things people don't realise about the Apollo program is just how much it cost.
I remember reading that at the height of the Apollo program, the amount of money being spent was 40 cents per day for every single American. Think about that for a minute - it is an absolutely staggering figure, especially when you consider that it's not in today's money terms. There is now way that any project is ever going to get that level of funding again.
couldn't agree more on this. I hate that bloody app. I hate the way it seems to take over every file extension known to man even though that damn startcenter thing is disabled. It has decided that it is the default player for any audio CD's even though I specifically told it not to do that. Then it leaves the 10+MB worth of setup files in it's damn directory (even after uninstalling it!) just in case I uninstall it and ever want to use it again. And how the hell do you switch that stupid message center thing off?
Unfortunately I don't know anything else that plays realmedia and rm seems to be pretty common on the web.
If this streaming is going to become common on mobiles, then please, for the love of everything decent, DON'T USE REALMEDIA.
The parts of a car or any mechanical system suffer from wear and tear, which is an unpredictable process that can cause the system to fail, so it's understandable that engineers cannot predict exactly when a given mechanical system will fail.
Wear and tear is actually quite predictable - it's why you have maintenance intervals for your car. Component failure, for example, is described by MTF (or MTBF - mean time between failure), and components are specifically designed to avoid fatigue failure (a particular type of failure where the failure loads are much lower than the strength of the component/material and is caused by crack propagation). Nowadays, your average modern car is more likely to break down because of electrical failure, rather than mechanical failure. Outright catastrophic failure (ie. not predicted) of any component is quite rare (partly because we have 40+ years of experience behind us), and will almost always result in a recall. How many recalls are there compared to breakdowns?
with respect, your post is complete bullshit. Bridge building is an art, and they are a hell of a lot more complex than your simple analogy implies.
You know what, most engineers (I'm talking civil/mech/etc, not programmers) would love to be able to design and build with hundreds and thousands of custom-fabricated parts that do the exact job they are designed for. But you know what else? There is that small factor called manufacturing cost that prohibits this - they have to use standard stock and account for this in their design, and still get the thing to work.
Your analogy is not a good one - you're comparing a program that could potentially have hundreds of applications with a bridge. Bridges are only one very small thing that civil engineers are involved with, so you should be comparing to a program that does a specific thing (for example, instant messaging), not to every program in existence.
I know this will get moderated to death, but what the hell... it needs to be said.
You know, people such as yourself often complain about how those who believe in "religion X" keep trying to sway the non-believers to "the cause", but the non-believers (such as yourself) are just as zealous in trying to sway people away from their beliefs. Congratulations, with your attitude you've just managed to turn being agnostic into the thing you appear to despise the most - a religion.
Your attitude of putting people into classes based on education (which you're linking to believing in Jesus, in this case) quite frankly stinks and displays far less intelligence than the "administration, facilities and utilities" people you obviously look down on . And I resent your implication that believing in a god or religion displays a lack of intelligence. Most religions (yes, sweeping generalisation from a non-expert) are, at their very core, about living your life properly and generally being a nice person (tm). Dunno about you, but to me, that seems to be a pretty smart thing.
What does it matter to you what people choose to believe in? Because by-and-large (yes, there are exceptions and I acknowledge that), people choose to believe in "religion X". In fact, as long as they don't bother you, why is it any of your business at all?
Bet you thought I was a religious nut writing that didn't you? Well, you're wrong (again) - I personally don't believe in religion (I'd probably class myself as agnostic if I had to), but I would never deny anyone the choice to be religious (whatever form that takes). I can understand to some extent what people see and find attractive about being religious, so fair go to them. But at the same time, I would expect someone who is religious to treat me the same way, ie. respect my right to not believe. You know the old adage - "do unto others" etc. And as long as nobody tries to "convert" me, I am more than happy to discuss religion and have spent many alcohol-fuelled nights doing just that.
Just a point of interest, but how many people here on slashdot are actually qualified to discuss evolutionary theory and the beginnings of life? Even more to the point, how many are qualified to responsibly moderate this discussion?
Of the +4/+5 moderated posts here, how many of the posters have read some links on the web (and we all know how reliable these are) and now consider themselves an expert on the subject?
oh wait, I forgot where I am for a second...:)
Re:Favorite Einstein quotes??
on
Einstein Unveiled
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
oooh, there are so many good Einstein quotes, but if I had to pick a favourite, I would probably go for:
"Put your hand on a hot stove for a minute, and it seems like an hour. Sit next to a pretty girl for an hour and it seems like a minute. Now that's relativity!"
interesting - I too loved the series, but it seems that I liked and disliked the opposite parts to you. I thought the first book was the standout of the series (they were all good though) and I loved the whole psychology aspect of it all, though I didn't like the politics much. Just goes to show I guess.
The system has its flaws--but it does mean that anyone who holds a cabinet post has had to win an election.
In theory, this is correct, but in practise, particularly when it comes to ministers, it doesn't really work that way. Australian politics is effectively a two-party system - Liberal and Labour. Although there are minor parties (Democrats, Nationals) and the rare independent, because of the preference system (and voting in Australia is compulsory) they tend not to pick up many seats, though they can have a major effect through their preference allocation. Also, some seats are much safer than others. Often the cabinet ministers can be moved around into these seats if they are in danger of possibly losing their own seat (Kim Beazley did this I think - his old electorate were mighty pissed off with him for it too). Some of these seats are so safe that the voting there is really a foregone conclusion. In effect, these could be considered a "free" election win.
[in no particular order other than the one I remember them in]
* Paul Keating & his pig farm * Joh Bjelke-Peterson (pretty much every time he opened his mouth) * Bob Hawke - "By 1990 no child will live in poverty" * Bob and Blanche * Bob Hawke playing cricket with the PM's XI * Little Johnny playing cricket with the PM's XI * WA Inc, Alan "I'm not your bitch" Bond, Laurie Connell and Christopher "wheezey" Skase * Jeff Kennett's regime * Pauline Hanson and One Nation * Senator Brian "Don't let me catch you looking at naughty pictures" Harradine * The speaker of the house who got an enormous injury payout because he fell off his bike
wait, maybe I do understand where all that political apathy comes from...
Out of curiosity, where did you aussies pick up those people to run your Government? Law firms? Car insurance companies?
My first temptation was to mention George Dubya Bush, but I'm not sure if you're american:)
But seriously (!), as an aussie who has spent a fair amount of time overseas, this is quite an interesting point. The attitude of the average australian to politics is hard to define - complete apathy is the closest thing I can think of but that's not quite right either. All I can say is that it's quite different from anywhere else in the world.
(Yes, I do realise I'm generalising and oversimplifying here)
All of the politicians and most of what they stand for are completely hated (that's too strong a word, but it will do). Australians have accepted that they care for nothing more than the next election and protecting their massive superannuation payouts. Whenever a politician speaks, they are just dribbling the same bullshit (read the interview carefully - is any of the questions actually answered?) and lies, and nothing worthwhile is actually going to happen.
Australians seem to realise that no matter who is elected, they will do the same crap job as whoever was in power before. If the same major party is elected they'll do the same crap job, if the other major party is elected they'll spend 3 years undoing what the previous government did and accomplish nothing anyway. There seems to be a genuine feeling that if every poiltician disappeared tomorrow Australia would actually be better off as a country.
The upshot of this attitude to politics is that nobody with the slightest grain of intelligence wants to be a politician, so we get people like Richard Alston. You just have to look at our prime ministers over the years... ye gods
SciAm should also promote more ethical gifts, such as adopting endangered animals
Perth Zoo actually allow you to sponsor/adopt one (or more!) of the animals/exhibits and use this money to directly improve the zoo. It makes a fantastic, thoughtfull and memorable gift and it really doesn't cost much (AU$40, approx. US$25) when you think about it.
I imagine your local zoo probably has a similar scheme - why not go and find out?
I've read much of Stephen Hawking's work, and while he may be very smart, I really don't think he is a particularly good at explaining concepts to the layman.
If you enjoy this stuff, I would heartily suggest:
John Gribbin, "In Search of Schrodinger's Cat" - great intro to quantum mechanics. The sequel is also very good. Paul Davies, "God and the New Physics " and "The Mind of God" - more general, thought-provoking discussion of science and the world.
Fair point, but it was indeed sarcasm. I actually put a/sarcasm tag at the end enclosed in angled brackets , but didn't realise slashdot would strip that from the post.
yeh, I also realised this when I posted it. I'm not sure where the rest is coming from, but those were the numbers quoted on the websites I referenced. I've heard the US and ESA figures before, so I'm fairly confident of those. The total cost is from ESA's website, so I'd assume that is fairly accurate.
The US, Canada, Japan, Russia and ESA are the partners, so I'm not completely sure where the shortfall is coming from?
TOTAL (ie. not just the US) cost of the ISS is about $100 billion over 30 years (Reference)
The original US Share of this was about US$15 billion (for comparison, ESA's share was US$8 billion) when the plans were finalized in 1993 (I think?). NASA's cost overruns in January were revised to be a little under US$5 billion
For comparison, the American Manned Lunar Program (Mercury, Gemini, Apollo) cost about $100 billion (in 1994 currency terms). Reference
One of the reasons this option was not used is that NASA doesn't have any boosters that could be retrofitted.
Slashdot Mirror
It always goes in cycles - each science has it's day. The buzzwords at the moment which will secure you large amounts of funding are:
DNA
genetic engineering
tissue engineering
anyone want to add some more?
Use all these in a sentence and submit to your favourite funding agency.
It is seen nowadays as very important for humanity to spend more money on the life sciences and less on physics.
It has been like this for quite some time - research with medical applications has always been well funded because the medical community is very good at procuring and protecting research funding. A decade or so ago it was AIDS/cancer, now it's anything to do with DNA/genes.
a very insightful comment. It's interesting that when you get right down to the morals of it, it's very similar to the Enron scandal. Which had the news headlines?
What does this say about our culture in general and the effect on our scientific community?
Our culture at this point in time is focussed almost entirely on money and possessions (which are really just a measure of money). But this obsession is driven by the public - during the IT job boom for example, people could switch jobs at the drop of a hat or demand outrageous salary increases or they would up and go to the company that would pay up. Why? They wanted more money, pure and simple.
You could see the "methods" sections in papers becoming shorter and more perfunctory, for example.
Along the same lines:
In my experience, it is extremely rare to find a journal/conference publication that includes enough information in the methods section to allow others to either check or verify the work or use the findings themselves. Vital information is almost always missed out - it's an artifial intellectual property control, and, as the parent post says, makes it easier for data to be faked.
With the rise of "corporate universities" and corporate science the drive has been to be more accountable.
Corporate universities are a byproduct of today's corporate society where the emphasis is on money - earning, spending, getting, justifying spending other people's, etc.
The problem has filtered down to universities - because they spend public money (ie. taxes), that money has to be justified. You simply can't justify academia in monetary terms, and so universities have had to change. But that change has been brought on by the public demand that government be accountable and transparent (and so it should be).
The other big problem is that more and more government funding is being cut. The only other avenue for funding is sponsorship by corporate entities who won't sponsor research that doesnt have a product they can make money from (because the companies are accountable themselves), and the problem will continue to spiral downwards.
The real problem here is the money counters trying to put a monetary value on research [output]. In a similar vein, the reason that publication is so out of control now (ie. the emphasis is on getting as many publications as possible) is that people thought this was a good way to measure academic output.
Am I missing something here? I mean, we managed to send a bunch of guys over to the moon over 30 years ago with the combined processing power of today's toasters, yet now we have a 33% failure rate on the latest technology, computer designed craft and all that experience?!
I think one of the things people don't realise about the Apollo program is just how much it cost.
I remember reading that at the height of the Apollo program, the amount of money being spent was 40 cents per day for every single American. Think about that for a minute - it is an absolutely staggering figure, especially when you consider that it's not in today's money terms. There is now way that any project is ever going to get that level of funding again.
couldn't agree more on this. I hate that bloody app. I hate the way it seems to take over every file extension known to man even though that damn startcenter thing is disabled. It has decided that it is the default player for any audio CD's even though I specifically told it not to do that. Then it leaves the 10+MB worth of setup files in it's damn directory (even after uninstalling it!) just in case I uninstall it and ever want to use it again. And how the hell do you switch that stupid message center thing off?
Unfortunately I don't know anything else that plays realmedia and rm seems to be pretty common on the web.
If this streaming is going to become common on mobiles, then please, for the love of everything decent, DON'T USE REALMEDIA.
Wear and tear is actually quite predictable - it's why you have maintenance intervals for your car. Component failure, for example, is described by MTF (or MTBF - mean time between failure), and components are specifically designed to avoid fatigue failure (a particular type of failure where the failure loads are much lower than the strength of the component/material and is caused by crack propagation). Nowadays, your average modern car is more likely to break down because of electrical failure, rather than mechanical failure. Outright catastrophic failure (ie. not predicted) of any component is quite rare (partly because we have 40+ years of experience behind us), and will almost always result in a recall. How many recalls are there compared to breakdowns?
with respect, your post is complete bullshit. Bridge building is an art, and they are a hell of a lot more complex than your simple analogy implies.
You know what, most engineers (I'm talking civil/mech/etc, not programmers) would love to be able to design and build with hundreds and thousands of custom-fabricated parts that do the exact job they are designed for. But you know what else? There is that small factor called manufacturing cost that prohibits this - they have to use standard stock and account for this in their design, and still get the thing to work.
Your analogy is not a good one - you're comparing a program that could potentially have hundreds of applications with a bridge. Bridges are only one very small thing that civil engineers are involved with, so you should be comparing to a program that does a specific thing (for example, instant messaging), not to every program in existence.
it's called civil engineering. Your point is? :-)
I know this will get moderated to death, but what the hell ... it needs to be said.
...
You know, people such as yourself often complain about how those who believe in "religion X" keep trying to sway the non-believers to "the cause", but the non-believers (such as yourself) are just as zealous in trying to sway people away from their beliefs. Congratulations, with your attitude you've just managed to turn being agnostic into the thing you appear to despise the most - a religion.
Your attitude of putting people into classes based on education (which you're linking to believing in Jesus, in this case) quite frankly stinks and displays far less intelligence than the "administration, facilities and utilities" people you obviously look down on . And I resent your implication that believing in a god or religion displays a lack of intelligence. Most religions (yes, sweeping generalisation from a non-expert) are, at their very core, about living your life properly and generally being a nice person (tm). Dunno about you, but to me, that seems to be a pretty smart thing.
What does it matter to you what people choose to believe in? Because by-and-large (yes, there are exceptions and I acknowledge that), people choose to believe in "religion X". In fact, as long as they don't bother you, why is it any of your business at all?
Bet you thought I was a religious nut writing that didn't you? Well, you're wrong (again) - I personally don't believe in religion (I'd probably class myself as agnostic if I had to), but I would never deny anyone the choice to be religious (whatever form that takes). I can understand to some extent what people see and find attractive about being religious, so fair go to them. But at the same time, I would expect someone who is religious to treat me the same way, ie. respect my right to not believe. You know the old adage - "do unto others" etc. And as long as nobody tries to "convert" me, I am more than happy to discuss religion and have spent many alcohol-fuelled nights doing just that.
OK, rant over. peace out
Just a point of interest, but how many people here on slashdot are actually qualified to discuss evolutionary theory and the beginnings of life? Even more to the point, how many are qualified to responsibly moderate this discussion?
... :)
Of the +4/+5 moderated posts here, how many of the posters have read some links on the web (and we all know how reliable these are) and now consider themselves an expert on the subject?
oh wait, I forgot where I am for a second
oooh, there are so many good Einstein quotes, but if I had to pick a favourite, I would probably go for:
"Put your hand on a hot stove for a minute, and it seems like an hour. Sit next to a pretty girl for an hour and it seems like a minute. Now that's relativity!"
My other favourite would be:
"The important thing is not to stop questioning."
Let's stick to the facts and stay away from zany assumptions.
... :)
yeh, this is slashdot after all
that would be the old "if it ain't broke, why fix it?" or "why change something that works?" argument.
...
It's called progress
interesting - I too loved the series, but it seems that I liked and disliked the opposite parts to you. I thought the first book was the standout of the series (they were all good though) and I loved the whole psychology aspect of it all, though I didn't like the politics much. Just goes to show I guess.
Disclaimer: IANAA (I am not an Australian).
:)
That's OK, it's not your fault
The system has its flaws--but it does mean that anyone who holds a cabinet post has had to win an election.
In theory, this is correct, but in practise, particularly when it comes to ministers, it doesn't really work that way. Australian politics is effectively a two-party system - Liberal and Labour. Although there are minor parties (Democrats, Nationals) and the rare independent, because of the preference system (and voting in Australia is compulsory) they tend not to pick up many seats, though they can have a major effect through their preference allocation. Also, some seats are much safer than others. Often the cabinet ministers can be moved around into these seats if they are in danger of possibly losing their own seat (Kim Beazley did this I think - his old electorate were mighty pissed off with him for it too). Some of these seats are so safe that the voting there is really a foregone conclusion. In effect, these could be considered a "free" election win.
Don't forget such great moments as:
...
[in no particular order other than the one I remember them in]
* Paul Keating & his pig farm
* Joh Bjelke-Peterson (pretty much every time he opened his mouth)
* Bob Hawke - "By 1990 no child will live in poverty"
* Bob and Blanche
* Bob Hawke playing cricket with the PM's XI
* Little Johnny playing cricket with the PM's XI
* WA Inc, Alan "I'm not your bitch" Bond, Laurie Connell and Christopher "wheezey" Skase
* Jeff Kennett's regime
* Pauline Hanson and One Nation
* Senator Brian "Don't let me catch you looking at naughty pictures" Harradine
* The speaker of the house who got an enormous injury payout because he fell off his bike
wait, maybe I do understand where all that political apathy comes from
Out of curiosity, where did you aussies pick up those people to run your Government? Law firms? Car insurance companies?
:)
... ye gods
My first temptation was to mention George Dubya Bush, but I'm not sure if you're american
But seriously (!), as an aussie who has spent a fair amount of time overseas, this is quite an interesting point. The attitude of the average australian to politics is hard to define - complete apathy is the closest thing I can think of but that's not quite right either. All I can say is that it's quite different from anywhere else in the world.
(Yes, I do realise I'm generalising and oversimplifying here)
All of the politicians and most of what they stand for are completely hated (that's too strong a word, but it will do). Australians have accepted that they care for nothing more than the next election and protecting their massive superannuation payouts. Whenever a politician speaks, they are just dribbling the same bullshit (read the interview carefully - is any of the questions actually answered?) and lies, and nothing worthwhile is actually going to happen.
Australians seem to realise that no matter who is elected, they will do the same crap job as whoever was in power before. If the same major party is elected they'll do the same crap job, if the other major party is elected they'll spend 3 years undoing what the previous government did and accomplish nothing anyway. There seems to be a genuine feeling that if every poiltician disappeared tomorrow Australia would actually be better off as a country.
The upshot of this attitude to politics is that nobody with the slightest grain of intelligence wants to be a politician, so we get people like Richard Alston. You just have to look at our prime ministers over the years
SciAm should also promote more ethical gifts, such as adopting endangered animals
Perth Zoo actually allow you to sponsor/adopt one (or more!) of the animals/exhibits and use this money to directly improve the zoo. It makes a fantastic, thoughtfull and memorable gift and it really doesn't cost much (AU$40, approx. US$25) when you think about it.
I imagine your local zoo probably has a similar scheme - why not go and find out?
I've read much of Stephen Hawking's work, and while he may be very smart, I really don't think he is a particularly good at explaining concepts to the layman.
I find John Gribbin and Paul Davies to be much better.
If you enjoy this stuff, I would heartily suggest:
John Gribbin, "In Search of Schrodinger's Cat" - great intro to quantum mechanics. The sequel is also very good.
Paul Davies, "God and the New Physics " and "The Mind of God" - more general, thought-provoking discussion of science and the world.
Fair point, but it was indeed sarcasm. I actually put a /sarcasm tag at the end enclosed in angled brackets , but didn't realise slashdot would strip that from the post.
:)
my bad
yeh, I also realised this when I posted it. I'm not sure where the rest is coming from, but those were the numbers quoted on the websites I referenced. I've heard the US and ESA figures before, so I'm fairly confident of those. The total cost is from ESA's website, so I'd assume that is fairly accurate.
The US, Canada, Japan, Russia and ESA are the partners, so I'm not completely sure where the shortfall is coming from?
The whole space program - from Mercury to Apollo - cost only $25 billion
actually, it's much closer to $100 billion
and it did REAL science.
I would argue that much of what was achieved was engineering rather than science.
Wow ... someone mod this post up as high as possible. One of the most insightful posts I've seen on slashdot.
Your numbers are way off base:
Cost of Skylab was about US$10 billion.
TOTAL (ie. not just the US) cost of the ISS is about $100 billion over 30 years (Reference)
The original US Share of this was about US$15 billion (for comparison, ESA's share was US$8 billion) when the plans were finalized in 1993 (I think?). NASA's cost overruns in January were revised to be a little under US$5 billion
For comparison, the American Manned Lunar Program (Mercury, Gemini, Apollo) cost about $100 billion (in 1994 currency terms). Reference
One of the reasons this option was not used is that NASA doesn't have any boosters that could be retrofitted.