I am a scientist who believes strongly that government funding of R&D needs to be increased. Often times, I hear the argument that it is not the government's role to do this. Most of our basic R&D now occurs in the universities and the national labs. But it wasn't always so.
Several years ago, I was an intern at Bell Labs, in Murray Hil, NJ, the main research engine of AT&T before the 1984 breakup. Some of the greatest inventions of the 20th century were created there, including the transistor and the laser. The cosmic microwave background was discovered at Murray Hill as well, an example of a pure scientific discovery, serendipitous but yet made more likely by the concentration and dynamic of the brilliant minds working there. As time went on, the research became more and more applied, less basic, less fundamental.
By the time I got there, Bell Labs was part of Lucent, which was a slave to its stock price. All kinds of financial shenanigans were going on in the background, and the business had become focused almost solely on fiber optics and other communications media/equipment. Some of the leftovers from the glory days of basic R&D were retiring, but there were still quite a few more recent hires. These people were let go during my summer. It was sad. It was the death of Bell Labs. All that were left were the old fogies and the people doing work related to the core business. Lucent's stock tanked, and the whole company became a shell of what it once was, and Bell Labs became special only in the history books.
Bell Labs was the greatest death of the old industrial research powerhouses. Few are left, most notably IBM. But even these are more application-oriented than in the past. They depend on the government to fund basic R&D in its labs and universities to keep the technology engine revving. Should that process stop, perhaps industry will revert to its old way, but that will not be a quick process. For almost a generation, we would be left with our pants down while our global competitors assert the lead in the technology race. This will put us at not just an economic disadvantage, but in poor strategic positioning politically. It is paramount that we fund basic R&D via government funds now. If we desire a different system where private industry does the brunt of basic R&D, then we must redesign the system via proper incentives to allow for a smooth transition to such a paradigm. Maintaining science funding at the levels they are at right now is not sustainable in the short term- the quicker we enhance funding, the better off we will be.
If you are a Democrat, blame Bush. If you are a Republican, blame Obama. And if you are neither, blame Bill Gates.
Personally, I blame the Flying Spaghetti Monster. His noodley appendages have a way of getting into everything.
This anti-scientific nonsense spewing out of the mouths of right-wing fundamentalist Christians is bad for the state of Texas. Many well-educated, scientifically-minded people would rather drown in a puddle of sewage than live in an environment where sense and reason are ridiculed, and ancient misinformed, mistranslated, and misread stories become the basis for academic "fact" in the public schools. It is indicative of a larger-scale cultural rejection of the modern world by a faction of Texans that is too huge to be ignored. I would take less money to live in a place where people are not quite so ridiculous and ignorant in their beliefs and knowledge. What is it about people from Texas that allows them to deny the truth when it stares them in the face? Does the hand of God somehow touch them in a way that blinds them to the obvious? What an asshole if He is. And if He isn't, then what assholes those Texans are.
Well, if you are trying to accelerate them with the magnets, you are going to have a problem. That's like try to accelerate your car using just your steering wheel.
High energy physics has a rich history of spinoff technologies. Ever had an MRI? The superconducting magnets used in an MRI machine come out of particle accelerators. Massive amounts of data analysis? Talk to a high energy physicist. And as final tongue-in-cheek example, have you used the Internet lately? Invented at CERN.
Just like drinking ages are set by the States too. And all of them are 21. It is mere coincidence that the Feds threatened to withhold highway funds unless they got their way.
I have used a lot of different stuff in my time as a physicist. Personally, the program that I prefer is not free. It is Igor Pro, which the parent post mentioned. While it is not free, a "student" license is only 90 bucks from Wavemetrics, its vendor. The student license gives you a full working copy of Igor for eternity. You are allowed to install it at work, at home, and on your laptop. It is a "makes sense" license, unlike other programs. If I had more time I would go into the details of why I like Igor so much, but I have a pressing meeting to attend to. Suffice to say that economics is a big motivator (and upgrades are very very reasonable).
Everything I've seen on the effects of marijuana on driving indicate that yes, it's mildly impairing, but that impairment never reaches a level equivalent to that of a 0.8 bac.
Well, I should hope not. If your BAC is 0.8, you are most likely dead. If not, you will have set a new world record for the highest level of alcohol intoxication. Unfortunately, you may not wake up from the alcohol-induced coma to revel in your achievement.
The comet will pass 0.41 Astronomical Units from earth and reach its closest distance to Earth on February 24, about 14.5 times the distance between the Earth and the Moon.
Given that the average earth-moon distance is 384403 km, 14.5 times this is about 5.57 million km. This translates into about 0.0373 AU, which differs from.41 AU by about a factor of 11. Can anyone explain this discrepancy?
I don't hate doctors. I think that the average person's opinion of a doctor is over-inflated when compared to other professions whose training is just as long and difficult, whose societal contributions are just as important, but whose financial reward is not as great.
This leads to greater trust being place in medical professionals, especially when in disagreement with scientific opinion. This can be a dangerous, even deadly proposition.
I know many, many physicians who are clinical researchers. I think much of the work that they do is very good. However, medical research often does not have a lot of science in it, from my own experiences, and those of my colleagues. I cannot speak for everyone, but only that from my own limited interactions with medical people, they have a tendency to oversimplify the science, at times missing rather important points. I believe this is a result of two things- their medical training in how to problem-solve, and a lack of technical knowledge in science. This leads to dangerous statements like MMR causes autism. Or releasing countless, unending and contradictory studies about diet. Not all clinical researchers are like that, but there is a large number that are, and they get a disproportionately loud voice in the national media.
Yes, and I am clear on their training. However, my opinion is that doctors come nowhere close to being scientists. Perhaps, yes, they are closer than a plumber, but that was hyperbole to lend to my point.
When I was in college, I had to take programming courses to demonstrate a basic competence in computer programming. I was tested repeatedly. That experience in no way qualifies me to say that I'm an expert at programming, or even that I am considerably more knowledgeable than a business person writing formulas in an Excel spreadsheet. In the same vein, IMO, doctors don't really qualify as scientists, or even being particularly knowledgeable about the subject. However, the belief among laypeople is that they are knowledgeable. This leads to false weighting of medical opinion versus scientific opinion. They are not one and the same, but many people do not distinguish between the two. I think they should do so.
Right, I see some of what you are saying. However, the point I was trying to make was that doctors don't effectively use the scientific method on a day to day basis. The way they approach research is fundamentally different from how a scientist in biology, chemistry, or physics would approach the same research. Basically, IMHO, calling doctors scientists is an insult to real scientists, and denigrates the work that they do. If you are going to call doctors scientists, you might as well call a biologist a neurosurgeon because they know the science behind how the brain works.
I know this is going to be viewed somewhat as flamebait, but to put it bluntly, doctors are mechanics for the human body. No more, no less. The vast, overwhelming majority of doctors have little to no true scientific training, any more so than a business person or Joe the Plumber. Even those doctors doing active medical research have limited scientific faculties IMO, having heard about this stereotype from others, read about on the internet, and dealt with it myself. Therefore, when it comes to scientific interpretation, anything coming from a doctor's mouth should be taken with at least a grain of salt, if not a shakerful.
Hasn't the government been redistributing the wealth since Reagan took office? They've been taking it from the middle class and poor (in the form of services) and giving it to the superrich, giving us one of the largest income disparities in our nation's history.
Roughly speaking, it should expand by about a factor of 1000, so roughly it should expand to about 700 million liters, or 700,000 cubic meters. This is completely an unqualified guesstimate.
To add to this pretty good explanation, quenching is a normal part of "training" a SC magnet. Basically, when the SC coil is wound, there are slight imperfections that prevent a maximal field from being obtained. So you pump a shit ton of current through the magnet after cooling it for the first time till it quenches. As you put field, you actually are changing the winding configuration ever so slightly, as the field generated by the magnet can actually exert on the force wires containing the current. This process is repeated several times to maximize the attainable field, and make it homogeneous as possible, etc.
The only other problem is that unplanned quenches can also damage the magnet. That is unlikely in this case, but I have a dead hulk of a 9T in my lab to prove that it can happen. To this day, I don't know what went wrong, but my guess is that there was damage at the point that current enters and leaves the system during field changes. Hopefully this is not the case at the LHC, and they can be back up and in business ASAP.
His responses can be found here, but in case of another slashdotting, here is the list. Please excuse the formatting, I am not an html expert.
Barack Obama's answers to the top 14 science questions facing America
1. Innovation. Science and technology have been responsible for half of the growth of the American economy since WWII. But several recent reports question America's continued leadership in these vital areas. What policies will you support to ensure that America remains the world leader in innovation?
Ensuring that the U.S. continues to lead the world in science and technology will be a central priority for my administration. Our talent for innovation is still the envy of the world, but we face unprecedented challenges that demand new approaches. For example, the U.S. annually imports $53 billion more in advanced technology products than we export. China is now the world's number one high technology exporter. This competitive situation may only worsen over time because the number of U.S. students pursuing technical careers is declining. The U.S. ranks 17th among developed nations in the proportion of college students receiving degrees in science or engineering; we were in third place thirty years ago.
My administration will increase funding for basic research in physical and life sciences, mathematics, and engineering at a rate that would double basic research budgets over the next decade. We will increase research grants for early-career researchers to keep young scientists entering these fields. We will increase support for high-risk, high-payoff research portfolios at our science agencies. And we will invest in the breakthrough research we need to meet our energy challenges and to transform our defense programs.
A vigorous research and development program depends on encouraging talented people to enter science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) and giving them the support they need to reach their potential. My administration will work to guarantee to students access to strong science curriculum at all grade levels so they graduate knowing how science works - using hands-on, IT-enhanced education. As president, I will launch a Service Scholarship program that pays undergraduate or graduate teaching education costs for those who commit to teaching in a high-need school, and I will prioritize math and science teachers. Additionally, my proposal to create Teacher Residency Academies will also add 30,000 new teachers to high-need schools - training thousands of science and math teachers. I will also expand access to higher education, work to draw more of these students into science and engineering, and increase National Science Foundation (NSF) graduate fellowships. My proposals for providing broadband Internet connections for all Americans across the country will help ensure that more students are able to bolster their STEM achievement.
Progress in science and technology must be backed with programs ensuring that U.S. businesses have strong incentives to convert advances quickly into new business opportunities and jobs. To do this, my administration will make the R&D tax credit permanent.
2. Climate Change. The Earth's climate is changing and there is concern about the potentially adverse effects of these changes on life on the planet. What is your position on the following measures that have been proposed to address global climate change-a cap-and-trade system, a carbon tax, increased fuel-economy standards, or research? Are there other policies you would support?
There can no longer be any doubt that human activities are influencing the global climate and we must react quickly and effectively. First, the U.S. must get off the sidelines and take long-overdue action here at home to reduce our own greenhouse gas emissions. We must also take a leadership role in designing technologies that allow us to enjoy a gr
Re:Use GNU TeXmacs instead, was: Re:OpenOffice.org
on
Modern LaTeX Replacement?
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Can it match the styles advocated by the various journals?
Slashdot Mirror
not 50mT. 50 MICROtesla. like .05 mT. or 5*10^-5 tesla.
I guess there is no room for scientists to have a say? They must be whack-jobs too. How the hell was this modded up to insightful? Total flamebait.
I am a scientist who believes strongly that government funding of R&D needs to be increased. Often times, I hear the argument that it is not the government's role to do this. Most of our basic R&D now occurs in the universities and the national labs. But it wasn't always so.
Several years ago, I was an intern at Bell Labs, in Murray Hil, NJ, the main research engine of AT&T before the 1984 breakup. Some of the greatest inventions of the 20th century were created there, including the transistor and the laser. The cosmic microwave background was discovered at Murray Hill as well, an example of a pure scientific discovery, serendipitous but yet made more likely by the concentration and dynamic of the brilliant minds working there. As time went on, the research became more and more applied, less basic, less fundamental.
By the time I got there, Bell Labs was part of Lucent, which was a slave to its stock price. All kinds of financial shenanigans were going on in the background, and the business had become focused almost solely on fiber optics and other communications media/equipment. Some of the leftovers from the glory days of basic R&D were retiring, but there were still quite a few more recent hires. These people were let go during my summer. It was sad. It was the death of Bell Labs. All that were left were the old fogies and the people doing work related to the core business. Lucent's stock tanked, and the whole company became a shell of what it once was, and Bell Labs became special only in the history books.
Bell Labs was the greatest death of the old industrial research powerhouses. Few are left, most notably IBM. But even these are more application-oriented than in the past. They depend on the government to fund basic R&D in its labs and universities to keep the technology engine revving. Should that process stop, perhaps industry will revert to its old way, but that will not be a quick process. For almost a generation, we would be left with our pants down while our global competitors assert the lead in the technology race. This will put us at not just an economic disadvantage, but in poor strategic positioning politically. It is paramount that we fund basic R&D via government funds now. If we desire a different system where private industry does the brunt of basic R&D, then we must redesign the system via proper incentives to allow for a smooth transition to such a paradigm. Maintaining science funding at the levels they are at right now is not sustainable in the short term- the quicker we enhance funding, the better off we will be.
If you are a Democrat, blame Bush. If you are a Republican, blame Obama. And if you are neither, blame Bill Gates. Personally, I blame the Flying Spaghetti Monster. His noodley appendages have a way of getting into everything.
This anti-scientific nonsense spewing out of the mouths of right-wing fundamentalist Christians is bad for the state of Texas. Many well-educated, scientifically-minded people would rather drown in a puddle of sewage than live in an environment where sense and reason are ridiculed, and ancient misinformed, mistranslated, and misread stories become the basis for academic "fact" in the public schools. It is indicative of a larger-scale cultural rejection of the modern world by a faction of Texans that is too huge to be ignored. I would take less money to live in a place where people are not quite so ridiculous and ignorant in their beliefs and knowledge. What is it about people from Texas that allows them to deny the truth when it stares them in the face? Does the hand of God somehow touch them in a way that blinds them to the obvious? What an asshole if He is. And if He isn't, then what assholes those Texans are.
Well, if you are trying to accelerate them with the magnets, you are going to have a problem. That's like try to accelerate your car using just your steering wheel.
true that, www. but you all knew what i meant.
High energy physics has a rich history of spinoff technologies. Ever had an MRI? The superconducting magnets used in an MRI machine come out of particle accelerators. Massive amounts of data analysis? Talk to a high energy physicist. And as final tongue-in-cheek example, have you used the Internet lately? Invented at CERN.
Just like drinking ages are set by the States too. And all of them are 21. It is mere coincidence that the Feds threatened to withhold highway funds unless they got their way.
You can convert your AAC files to MP3 assuming they are iTunes Plus files.
I have used a lot of different stuff in my time as a physicist. Personally, the program that I prefer is not free. It is Igor Pro, which the parent post mentioned. While it is not free, a "student" license is only 90 bucks from Wavemetrics, its vendor. The student license gives you a full working copy of Igor for eternity. You are allowed to install it at work, at home, and on your laptop. It is a "makes sense" license, unlike other programs. If I had more time I would go into the details of why I like Igor so much, but I have a pressing meeting to attend to. Suffice to say that economics is a big motivator (and upgrades are very very reasonable).
i o?
Everything I've seen on the effects of marijuana on driving indicate that yes, it's mildly impairing, but that impairment never reaches a level equivalent to that of a 0.8 bac.
Well, I should hope not. If your BAC is 0.8, you are most likely dead. If not, you will have set a new world record for the highest level of alcohol intoxication. Unfortunately, you may not wake up from the alcohol-induced coma to revel in your achievement.
The comet will pass 0.41 Astronomical Units from earth and reach its closest distance to Earth on February 24, about 14.5 times the distance between the Earth and the Moon.
Given that the average earth-moon distance is 384403 km, 14.5 times this is about 5.57 million km. This translates into about 0.0373 AU, which differs from .41 AU by about a factor of 11. Can anyone explain this discrepancy?
I don't hate doctors. I think that the average person's opinion of a doctor is over-inflated when compared to other professions whose training is just as long and difficult, whose societal contributions are just as important, but whose financial reward is not as great.
This leads to greater trust being place in medical professionals, especially when in disagreement with scientific opinion. This can be a dangerous, even deadly proposition.
I know many, many physicians who are clinical researchers. I think much of the work that they do is very good. However, medical research often does not have a lot of science in it, from my own experiences, and those of my colleagues. I cannot speak for everyone, but only that from my own limited interactions with medical people, they have a tendency to oversimplify the science, at times missing rather important points. I believe this is a result of two things- their medical training in how to problem-solve, and a lack of technical knowledge in science. This leads to dangerous statements like MMR causes autism. Or releasing countless, unending and contradictory studies about diet. Not all clinical researchers are like that, but there is a large number that are, and they get a disproportionately loud voice in the national media.
Yes, and I am clear on their training. However, my opinion is that doctors come nowhere close to being scientists. Perhaps, yes, they are closer than a plumber, but that was hyperbole to lend to my point.
When I was in college, I had to take programming courses to demonstrate a basic competence in computer programming. I was tested repeatedly. That experience in no way qualifies me to say that I'm an expert at programming, or even that I am considerably more knowledgeable than a business person writing formulas in an Excel spreadsheet. In the same vein, IMO, doctors don't really qualify as scientists, or even being particularly knowledgeable about the subject. However, the belief among laypeople is that they are knowledgeable. This leads to false weighting of medical opinion versus scientific opinion. They are not one and the same, but many people do not distinguish between the two. I think they should do so.
Right, I see some of what you are saying. However, the point I was trying to make was that doctors don't effectively use the scientific method on a day to day basis. The way they approach research is fundamentally different from how a scientist in biology, chemistry, or physics would approach the same research. Basically, IMHO, calling doctors scientists is an insult to real scientists, and denigrates the work that they do. If you are going to call doctors scientists, you might as well call a biologist a neurosurgeon because they know the science behind how the brain works.
I know this is going to be viewed somewhat as flamebait, but to put it bluntly, doctors are mechanics for the human body. No more, no less. The vast, overwhelming majority of doctors have little to no true scientific training, any more so than a business person or Joe the Plumber. Even those doctors doing active medical research have limited scientific faculties IMO, having heard about this stereotype from others, read about on the internet, and dealt with it myself. Therefore, when it comes to scientific interpretation, anything coming from a doctor's mouth should be taken with at least a grain of salt, if not a shakerful.
Hasn't the government been redistributing the wealth since Reagan took office? They've been taking it from the middle class and poor (in the form of services) and giving it to the superrich, giving us one of the largest income disparities in our nation's history.
Roughly speaking, it should expand by about a factor of 1000, so roughly it should expand to about 700 million liters, or 700,000 cubic meters. This is completely an unqualified guesstimate.
To add to this pretty good explanation, quenching is a normal part of "training" a SC magnet. Basically, when the SC coil is wound, there are slight imperfections that prevent a maximal field from being obtained. So you pump a shit ton of current through the magnet after cooling it for the first time till it quenches. As you put field, you actually are changing the winding configuration ever so slightly, as the field generated by the magnet can actually exert on the force wires containing the current. This process is repeated several times to maximize the attainable field, and make it homogeneous as possible, etc.
The only other problem is that unplanned quenches can also damage the magnet. That is unlikely in this case, but I have a dead hulk of a 9T in my lab to prove that it can happen. To this day, I don't know what went wrong, but my guess is that there was damage at the point that current enters and leaves the system during field changes. Hopefully this is not the case at the LHC, and they can be back up and in business ASAP.
His responses can be found here, but in case of another slashdotting, here is the list. Please excuse the formatting, I am not an html expert.
Barack Obama's answers to the top 14 science questions facing America
1. Innovation. Science and technology have been responsible for half of the growth of the American economy since WWII. But several recent reports question America's continued leadership in these vital areas. What policies will you support to ensure that America remains the world leader in innovation?
Ensuring that the U.S. continues to lead the world in science and technology will be a central priority for my administration. Our talent for innovation is still the envy of the world, but we face unprecedented challenges that demand new approaches. For example, the U.S. annually imports $53 billion more in advanced technology products than we export. China is now the world's number one high technology exporter. This competitive situation may only worsen over time because the number of U.S. students pursuing technical careers is declining. The U.S. ranks 17th among developed nations in the proportion of college students receiving degrees in science or engineering; we were in third place thirty years ago.
My administration will increase funding for basic research in physical and life sciences, mathematics, and engineering at a rate that would double basic research budgets over the next decade. We will increase research grants for early-career researchers to keep young scientists entering these fields. We will increase support for high-risk, high-payoff research portfolios at our science agencies. And we will invest in the breakthrough research we need to meet our energy challenges and to transform our defense programs.
A vigorous research and development program depends on encouraging talented people to enter science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) and giving them the support they need to reach their potential. My administration will work to guarantee to students access to strong science curriculum at all grade levels so they graduate knowing how science works - using hands-on, IT-enhanced education. As president, I will launch a Service Scholarship program that pays undergraduate or graduate teaching education costs for those who commit to teaching in a high-need school, and I will prioritize math and science teachers. Additionally, my proposal to create Teacher Residency Academies will also add 30,000 new teachers to high-need schools - training thousands of science and math teachers. I will also expand access to higher education, work to draw more of these students into science and engineering, and increase National Science Foundation (NSF) graduate fellowships. My proposals for providing broadband Internet connections for all Americans across the country will help ensure that more students are able to bolster their STEM achievement.
Progress in science and technology must be backed with programs ensuring that U.S. businesses have strong incentives to convert advances quickly into new business opportunities and jobs. To do this, my administration will make the R&D tax credit permanent.
2. Climate Change. The Earth's climate is changing and there is concern about the potentially adverse effects of these changes on life on the planet. What is your position on the following measures that have been proposed to address global climate change-a cap-and-trade system, a carbon tax, increased fuel-economy standards, or research? Are there other policies you would support?
There can no longer be any doubt that human activities are influencing the global climate and we must react quickly and effectively. First, the U.S. must get off the sidelines and take long-overdue action here at home to reduce our own greenhouse gas emissions. We must also take a leadership role in designing technologies that allow us to enjoy a gr
Can it match the styles advocated by the various journals?
I don't have a real name, you insensitive clod!
Not if they hold their breaths. Time for a new law!