Your glow-in-the-dark wristwatch is more likely to cause cancer than walking near a piece of depleted uranium
The difference, of course, is that you're breathing in the radioactive depleted uranium dust. Radioactivitiy is much more dangerous inside your body. Human skin pretty much blocks weak alpha radiation, but such an emitter in lungs is highly dangerous.
"Because it sounds interesting" is OK if you can use it to back up something concrete, like an applied research project.
On another note, I find it disturbing that so many poeple in this thread have the either-or attitude about science. It's either applied or basic research. To me it's so obvious that the best projects should do both that I don't quite understand the reaction I've caused here.
Quite frankly, I find it strange to think one should either be an applied physicist or a basic researcher. That's black-and-white thinking at its worst.
I'm proud to say that I am a physicist. Period. If I get ideas and money from the industry, that's great. If I can get public funding to support that research, thus benefitting both the science and the society now, it gets even better.
Just out of curiosity, what is so wrong about accepting corporate money? Mostly the cries of "unkosher research!" seem to be an excuse for the embittered purists who've never done an applied project and who are starved of funding they can't figure out any worthwhile research projects.
So... you're saying scientific research that contributes to humankind's fundamental understanding of nature is OK if it is guaranteed a predetermined desirable outcome resulting in cool new products for consumers and industry.
Nicely put in a nutshell. It's the best of both worlds. Why? Because the latter condition is usually easy to fulfil. The really hard problems are in the basic research part.
Man... what a bad, bad scientist you would be. I suggest you go for the MBA instead.
Too late.
I've already got my PhD in Physics and I've been a postdoc all around Europe and now I've got my own lab. Not too bad for a bad scientist, eh?
you're saying science should be kept within the confines of the imaginations of industry executives
I don't quite know how you got to that.
When you do applied research, you're supposed to stay on track and research only what's relevant to the company so that they can make a quick buck (and pay for your next project).
However, within the basic research project that supports your applied research you're free to investigate whatever peripheral topic you want - just like in any basic research project. You're free to use your imagination.
Of course this boils down to what "free" means. I don't see that scientists should be free to get public funding for whatever fringe, not-of-this-world project their imagination can dream up - especially if it costs billions in hardware as it does in particle research. In that sense, yes, my definition may be different from yours.
Finally, the your libertarianism jab missed. I vote for the Greens.
No. I define basic research (as opposed to "basic research") as something that contributes both to the immediate applied research problems and accumulates fundamental knowledge of the nature in general.
Without the former, it's just "basic research" and funding it with public funds is questionable at least.
Do I need to explain the difference between science and technology to you?
(See my reply to another poster above)
As someone who runs his own lab, I know perfectly well that there is technology (engineering), applied research and basic research.
There's nothing wrong with mixing these three, but you've got to do it right. First you do applied research and use that research to guide your basic research. The applied research will guide your basic research to problems that are worth investigating both in the acadmic and applied sense.
That's the best of both worlds, unless you believe that getting ideas for basic research by looking at problems the applied research and the engineers are having is somehow unkosher? Tainting the sanctity of science, perhaps? How else should one select topics, then? By rolling a dice? "Because it sounds interesting"?
Indeed the money for basic research should come from the public funds. However, there is basic research and then there is "basic research".
The industry (with the expection of giants like DuPont, IBM or Intel) will not fund either kind of basic research no matter how well you make your case. They want applications that can be applied to their processes now or preferably yesterday. But you should go for that kind of money as well. Do some applied research. Make contacts in the industry. Get your hands dirty!
Now that you're doing the applied research, you'll soon realize that there is usually a huge shortage of well-defined fundamental information. After you see that, then you go and apply for public funding for a basic research project that supports your applied research project.
Now that, my friend, is what basic research is (or should be) about. Not a gamble where you roll the dice and hope to produce something useful, but a coherrent endeavour which will definitely help with problems in the applied research, and consequently industry, but which may also contribute to the humankind's fundamental understanding of the nature.
I'm not saying that we should scrap all basic research.
If you need to do basic research to attack an actual problem in the industry or another branch of science, it's perfectly fine. Researching something just for the sake of research, on the other hand, is nothing but gambling on the tax-payers money. I personally see it as immoral.
How long have we had the Standard Model? How many applications has it produced? None? Well, I'm sure the tax-payers who paid for your billion dollar collider are happy to hear that you've got a nice bestiary of subatomic particles. Heck, these strange but oh so charming particles even come in different colours...
And yes. I am in a pissy mood today. My application was turned down while the collider boys got their annual load of tax-payer's money.
Yeah, right. I've always been amazed at how Big Science constantly rakes in billions and billions of dollars without any real applications on the horizon. It's like the collider-boys sitting in their comfy chairs have a such an big and expensive machine that there's no way their research will ever be closed down. It would be too embarrasing to the ones who started funding them in the first place...
Spend the money on Earth sciences or, heck, build a dozen stations on the moon and start beaming energy down here. That would benefit the whole world and it can be done NOW.
National boundaries are being eroded by technology and economics...As the physical and material world gives way to this infosphere, these things become less and less important. The nationalists then go into a kind of death spasm, where they realise where the map is evaporating, and there is only response to that is to dig their hooves in. To stick with nationalism at its most primitive, brutal form. The same thing happens with religion, and that is the reasons behind the Fundamentalist Christians.
Well, I wouldn't dress like him, but he's certainly making excellent points in the interview (the quote above is one of the best; good riddance nationalism and religion!).
As far as his alleged anti-science attitude goes, I wouldn't have a problem with that even though I am a professional scientist myself. We need anti-science people to prevent science from becoming a new religion that cannot be questioned and its practisers (us) new high priests who cannot be defied.
Take the recent decisions (in Europe) to build more nuclear power, for instance. Governments forced through lucrative nuclear power plant projects against the wishes of the general population by referring to economists and scientists as the absolute authority. Yeah, sure they are experts in the technical aspects but when it comes to national decisions that affect the whole population, technical arguments are only a part of the equation. Social issues (like do you want to have nuclear waste buried in your backyard or a nuke plant next to your town) are also important and were never discussed because only the high tech priests were consulted.
Intel could do a lot worse than to revive it. It may need to, to stay competitive with Opteron.
Now that would be wonderful. Alpha was a thing of beauty (I owned one in the late 1990s), but I doubt Intel could pull off the revival. First of all, it would be a suicide to admit that there's anything wrong with the Itanium-line. Secondly, all the engineers and scientists who created and maintained Alpha are long gone.
I have this mental image of Alan Cox a man on the run, moving from country to country
"Do not have any attachments, do not have anything in your life you are not willing to walk out on in 30 seconds flat if you spot the heat around the corner."
If you actually use a credit card for credit you are a sucker. You think 20% interest is a good idea?
As I said, if you already have the money you don't need the credit.
On the other hand, if you need to buy a lot of stuff at once (like getting basic furniture for your new, empty house) you will need a loan anyway. You can get it from a bank, but that means paperwork and waiting for the bank's decision. On the other hand, if you have a credit card with a decent limit (mine is $6000) you don't have to deal with the red tape anymore.
The bank interest for a loan that's going to be spent on a car or furniture is typically about the same as the credit card interest.
I can't believe how much the world has changed in such a short time.
Only a few years ago it was obvious that you can figure out how a piece of hardware works and tell your friends about it. Now every manufacturer is suing practically anybody who just dares to have a peek inside their product.
Debit card. Where I live personal checks (as opposed to corporate checks) became pretty much obsolete in 1980s. You can't cash/use them anymore.
Debit card gives you all the benefits you quote except for the number 6 and 3. Charge back is handled by the shop if you have the receipt.
I don't quite understand your point 7. When you apply for a major credit card like Visa or MasterCard they want to know your income and any debt you might already have. Does using credit card somehow enhance one's credit rating?
Are you charging it to a credit card that you've never had a zero balance on?
Why would you bother keeping a credit card with a zero balance on it? If you can afford to buy stuff without credit, you don't need one.
Does it make you feel happier than no-money fun with friends/family? Why is that?
That's the same line some people have about alcohol. "Why would you go outside drinking with your friends when you can have fun with your friends without alcohol?". What's implied is that the person in question is incapable of having fun without alcohol and is therefore somehow crippled.
What they miss, however, is that while you can certainly have fun with friends without alcohol, drinking tends to make it even more fun.
So, if we go back to your original argument, sure I can have fun with my friends without money but spending money tends to make it even more fun. Same thing applies to buying stuff like a new hard drive, furniture, clothes or whatever makes you happy just for yourself.
There's nothing wrong with buying stuff. Consumption is what makes a modern society run.
Slashdot Mirror
The difference, of course, is that you're breathing in the radioactive depleted uranium dust. Radioactivitiy is much more dangerous inside your body. Human skin pretty much blocks weak alpha radiation, but such an emitter in lungs is highly dangerous.
Well, why not?
After all, CIA has a site for kids, too.
"Because it sounds interesting" is OK if you can use it to back up something concrete, like an applied research project.
On another note, I find it disturbing that so many poeple in this thread have the either-or attitude about science. It's either applied or basic research. To me it's so obvious that the best projects should do both that I don't quite understand the reaction I've caused here.
I'm proud to say that I am a physicist. Period. If I get ideas and money from the industry, that's great. If I can get public funding to support that research, thus benefitting both the science and the society now, it gets even better.
Just out of curiosity, what is so wrong about accepting corporate money? Mostly the cries of "unkosher research!" seem to be an excuse for the embittered purists who've never done an applied project and who are starved of funding they can't figure out any worthwhile research projects.
No self-respecting scientist thinks otherwise.
And what was the total budget of Rutherford's lab or for the pens of the theoreticians figuring out the relativity?
Ah. Excellent.
You wouldn't have any references, would you?
Nicely put in a nutshell. It's the best of both worlds. Why? Because the latter condition is usually easy to fulfil. The really hard problems are in the basic research part.
Man... what a bad, bad scientist you would be. I suggest you go for the MBA instead.
Too late.
I've already got my PhD in Physics and I've been a postdoc all around Europe and now I've got my own lab. Not too bad for a bad scientist, eh?
I don't quite know how you got to that.
When you do applied research, you're supposed to stay on track and research only what's relevant to the company so that they can make a quick buck (and pay for your next project).
However, within the basic research project that supports your applied research you're free to investigate whatever peripheral topic you want - just like in any basic research project. You're free to use your imagination.
Of course this boils down to what "free" means. I don't see that scientists should be free to get public funding for whatever fringe, not-of-this-world project their imagination can dream up - especially if it costs billions in hardware as it does in particle research. In that sense, yes, my definition may be different from yours.
Finally, the your libertarianism jab missed. I vote for the Greens.
Without the former, it's just "basic research" and funding it with public funds is questionable at least.
(See my reply to another poster above)
As someone who runs his own lab, I know perfectly well that there is technology (engineering), applied research and basic research.
There's nothing wrong with mixing these three, but you've got to do it right. First you do applied research and use that research to guide your basic research. The applied research will guide your basic research to problems that are worth investigating both in the acadmic and applied sense.
That's the best of both worlds, unless you believe that getting ideas for basic research by looking at problems the applied research and the engineers are having is somehow unkosher? Tainting the sanctity of science, perhaps? How else should one select topics, then? By rolling a dice? "Because it sounds interesting"?
The industry (with the expection of giants like DuPont, IBM or Intel) will not fund either kind of basic research no matter how well you make your case. They want applications that can be applied to their processes now or preferably yesterday. But you should go for that kind of money as well. Do some applied research. Make contacts in the industry. Get your hands dirty!
Now that you're doing the applied research, you'll soon realize that there is usually a huge shortage of well-defined fundamental information. After you see that, then you go and apply for public funding for a basic research project that supports your applied research project.
Now that, my friend, is what basic research is (or should be) about. Not a gamble where you roll the dice and hope to produce something useful, but a coherrent endeavour which will definitely help with problems in the applied research, and consequently industry, but which may also contribute to the humankind's fundamental understanding of the nature.
If you need to do basic research to attack an actual problem in the industry or another branch of science, it's perfectly fine. Researching something just for the sake of research, on the other hand, is nothing but gambling on the tax-payers money. I personally see it as immoral.
How long have we had the Standard Model? How many applications has it produced? None? Well, I'm sure the tax-payers who paid for your billion dollar collider are happy to hear that you've got a nice bestiary of subatomic particles. Heck, these strange but oh so charming particles even come in different colours...
And yes. I am in a pissy mood today. My application was turned down while the collider boys got their annual load of tax-payer's money.
Yeah, right. I've always been amazed at how Big Science constantly rakes in billions and billions of dollars without any real applications on the horizon. It's like the collider-boys sitting in their comfy chairs have a such an big and expensive machine that there's no way their research will ever be closed down. It would be too embarrasing to the ones who started funding them in the first place...
Spend the money on Earth sciences or, heck, build a dozen stations on the moon and start beaming energy down here. That would benefit the whole world and it can be done NOW.
Well, I wouldn't dress like him, but he's certainly making excellent points in the interview (the quote above is one of the best; good riddance nationalism and religion!).
As far as his alleged anti-science attitude goes, I wouldn't have a problem with that even though I am a professional scientist myself. We need anti-science people to prevent science from becoming a new religion that cannot be questioned and its practisers (us) new high priests who cannot be defied.
Take the recent decisions (in Europe) to build more nuclear power, for instance. Governments forced through lucrative nuclear power plant projects against the wishes of the general population by referring to economists and scientists as the absolute authority. Yeah, sure they are experts in the technical aspects but when it comes to national decisions that affect the whole population, technical arguments are only a part of the equation. Social issues (like do you want to have nuclear waste buried in your backyard or a nuke plant next to your town) are also important and were never discussed because only the high tech priests were consulted.
Now that would be wonderful. Alpha was a thing of beauty (I owned one in the late 1990s), but I doubt Intel could pull off the revival. First of all, it would be a suicide to admit that there's anything wrong with the Itanium-line. Secondly, all the engineers and scientists who created and maintained Alpha are long gone.
Now why would you want to spoil a perfectly good 64-bit CPU?
Check out the pictures taken using the other end of the spectrum, namely X-rays.
Take the wonderfully violent Crab Nebula for instance. Just marvellous.
"Do not have any attachments, do not have anything in your life you are not willing to walk out on in 30 seconds flat if you spot the heat around the corner."
As I said, if you already have the money you don't need the credit.
On the other hand, if you need to buy a lot of stuff at once (like getting basic furniture for your new, empty house) you will need a loan anyway. You can get it from a bank, but that means paperwork and waiting for the bank's decision. On the other hand, if you have a credit card with a decent limit (mine is $6000) you don't have to deal with the red tape anymore.
The bank interest for a loan that's going to be spent on a car or furniture is typically about the same as the credit card interest.
Why would you want to do such a thing? You would only end up with a substandard version of Windows...
Only a few years ago it was obvious that you can figure out how a piece of hardware works and tell your friends about it. Now every manufacturer is suing practically anybody who just dares to have a peek inside their product.
Debit card. Where I live personal checks (as opposed to corporate checks) became pretty much obsolete in 1980s. You can't cash/use them anymore.
Debit card gives you all the benefits you quote except for the number 6 and 3. Charge back is handled by the shop if you have the receipt.
I don't quite understand your point 7. When you apply for a major credit card like Visa or MasterCard they want to know your income and any debt you might already have. Does using credit card somehow enhance one's credit rating?
Why would you bother keeping a credit card with a zero balance on it? If you can afford to buy stuff without credit, you don't need one.
Does it make you feel happier than no-money fun with friends/family? Why is that?
That's the same line some people have about alcohol. "Why would you go outside drinking with your friends when you can have fun with your friends without alcohol?". What's implied is that the person in question is incapable of having fun without alcohol and is therefore somehow crippled.
What they miss, however, is that while you can certainly have fun with friends without alcohol, drinking tends to make it even more fun.
So, if we go back to your original argument, sure I can have fun with my friends without money but spending money tends to make it even more fun. Same thing applies to buying stuff like a new hard drive, furniture, clothes or whatever makes you happy just for yourself.
There's nothing wrong with buying stuff. Consumption is what makes a modern society run.