Scientific American's Top 50 75
dptalia writes "It's that time of year again, where everyone is putting out their best of 2006 lists. Last week, Popular Science did it, and today, Scientific American has released their top 50 list. Of note are improvements in RFID technology, discoveries in nantechnology, and net neutrality."
Slashdot's Top 10 (Score:5, Insightful)
Then we can have a poll of the top five, to let the readers decide which one is the top story of 2006.
And I want my 15 min of slashfame for suggesting it.
Re: (Score:1)
If only your subject line had read "Frist psot" or something...tsk tsk
Re: (Score:2)
But thanks for noticing anyway, not that it matters to me much. Now, can we actually dig up suggestions for Top Ten
"Scientific American" missed one. (Score:1, Interesting)
By the way, has anyone noticed that "Scientific American" (SA) changed radically over the last 16 years. SA once rather appealed to the technical elite, and you can discern the elitism from the nature of the advertisements and the article format. They included ads about advanced microscopes for tumor analysis, the latest minicomputers, chemical spectro-analysis instruments, etc. As well, the titles
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
People have stopped caring about fundamentals, all they care is about their own shiny new gadget.
I'd not be surprised if the average intellect of the population has also decreased, thanks to our wonderful media. Not to mention our educational system that cares more about getting better grades and a job than in making you understand the basics.
Sad, that.
Re:"Scientific American" missed one. (Score:5, Insightful)
Why don't you read the article? There are plenty of examples of messing around with fundamentals in the article. Try reading the one about "beginning to see the light". Two dimensional light waves able to take pictures smaller than the wavelength of the originating light. Quite amazing stuff.
Hate to break this to you, but fundamental shifts in science don't happen every day. If they did, they would not be so amazing. Often they come on the back of generations of hard work.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There is a difference. I would imagine that folks like Grigori Perelman who solved the Poincare conjecture would be in there, but instead I find Al Gore in that list. Nice.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If there is a category for folks that make business and policy decisions, don't you think that there should at least be a category for folks that make contributions to the pure sciences?
Almost everything out there is for applied sciences and technology. Observational sciences (astrophysics), theoretical sciences (physics), pure mathematics, applied mathematics etc. are no less i
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
No, my point is simply that both have different goals -- the goal of a physics undergrad is to get into physics, and is largely geared towards the academic/research environs and not get into a lot of other things, while the goal of an engineering major is aimed largely at getting into th
Re: (Score:2)
And yes, Scientific American in general has been going downhill, IMO. It's not yet as bad as Popular Science, but it's getting there.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand he does sound like a cranky old man.
Applied Relativity (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Much more fun... (Score:5, Interesting)
With dupes: Re:Slashdot's Top 5 (Score:5, Funny)
Then we can have a poll of the top five, to let the readers decide which one is the top story of 2006.
Why don't we just pick the top 5, and they can dupe them to get the top "10"?
Re: (Score:2)
Why don't we just pick the top 5, and they can dupe them to get the top "10"?
- too much work. Why not just let me decide that the best story is the one I submitted (and which was rejected,) and then dupe it 9 more times and be done?
Re: (Score:2)
How about a top ten list of the dupes from 2006? Then at least the dupes of that would be recursive.
Summaries (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, if you wish to read the whole shebang online, it's there. I don't think it is the natural meat & potatoes of typical slashdot fare.
Maybe there are newsworthy items in the list, but many compilations of "things achieved" necessarily have that Yesterday's News feeling. And no, you aren
Re: (Score:1)
Well, apparently one of the more notable ones involve Indian bakeries:
Of note are improvements in ..., discoveries in nantechnology, ...
The others seem more fluffed up, but this one is crackin'.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Right automotive achievements to recognize? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The "automakers" work under the constraint that its affordable to the majority of the drivers out there (think 12-25k), its cheap to maintain (think just change the oil and rotate tires), and its reliable (we don't want it back 15 times).
Of course some are going as far as looking down the road "Will we be liable for the technology in this if someo
Re: (Score:2)
Just a minor nitpick but asbestos has been known to cause lung problems for about 100yrs now. The only thing that changed was someone proved it in court in order to get those responsible to "cough up" (bad pun intended).
Re: (Score:1)
If by "sold" you mean "has accepted orders for and promises to build them, no really! Trust us!" then yes, they've been sold.
If by "sold" you mean "customer has taken delivery of a functional instance of a production vehicle", they have not been sold.
Tesla looks cool and all, but I'd rather have two Lotus Elises (which get pretty darn respectable gas mileage if you're judicious with the throttle).
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, the name for the company couldn't be more apt: Nikola Tesla's many great inventions were only eclipsed by his tendency to exaggerate his other, less-real inventions (death rays, anti-gravity machines, mind-reading devices, etc.) I wonder if we'll actually see the claims by Tesla Motors born out, or whether this incredible car will remai
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Pure sciences (Score:5, Insightful)
While some of those projects are science, most seem to be technology projects. The irony of this of course is that business and policy makers are given recognition, rather than some scientists and mathematicians, who probably make more significant contributions (e.g. Grigori Perelman [wikipedia.org]).
What's ironic, of course, is that these magazines are called Scientific American and Popular Science.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. It's because of the sad, indeed tragic, decline of Scientific American to just another science mag. At least New Scientist hasn't changed, but the two together were fantastic. NS gave news and gossip and speculation and fun. SA gave deeply thought out sometimes pioneering articles that you could use as references. They balanced each other.
Sigh
Item #51 (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Slippery Internet Pipes without using PTFE [wikipedia.org]
--
Why Senator Stevens (R-AK)
can't send email for days:
http://senate.gov/~stevens [senate.gov]
Already? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And clearly all of the ones in the southern hemisphere just feel sorry for their northern collegues and put off any significant discoveries until after the new year.
Top 10 (Score:1)
I Wanna Know... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:I Wanna Know... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So where on the top 50 is the... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone notice, this comment is redundant and an oxymoron at the same time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I can see the redundant bit, but how is this an oxymoron?
I have to ask, is English your first language?
Re: (Score:2)
Like I said before, not funny anymore (perhaps it never was, except in my own mind).
Nantechnology (Score:1)
Presidential and Vice-Presidential titles (Score:2)
is policy/advocacy really worthy enough? (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm kinda borderline on this whole thing.
Improvements in RFID? (Score:3, Informative)
SciAm 50 List- Nanotech (Score:1)
Al Gore? (Score:2)
There is very little "science" here. Some interesting engineering projects, to be sure.
But where does Al Gore have anything to do with science OR engineering?
Last I heard he was making documentaries about global warming that are being made fun of on South Park.
MANBEARPIG IS REAL!! FOR SERIAL!!
Stew
Re: (Score:2)
That's what happens when you do too much LSD in college and years-later land a show deal on Comedy Central. The former also explains why everyone dies with their head exploding, acid burnout creates some fear of head explosions?
- Free Hat [wikipedia.org] (Spielberg's head explodes)
- Nintendo Wii episode (Future people have guns that shoot darts. The darts cause a delayed head explosion)
- Chewbacca defense [wikipedia.org] (a juror's head explodes after Cochran makes no sense)
It wo
Growing replacement parts (Score:1, Funny)
Vista (Score:2)
youtube (Score:2)