It could be worse, you could have a dozen different McKesson applications that use different platforms (some .NET/SQL Server, some Java/Oracle), don't do everything promised, are way overpriced, pathetic support, and technology that was state-of-the-art back when Clinton was president (two-tier fat apps? really!?!?)

"but the high end is being too greedy"

So that confirms what everyone here has been saying all along.....that it's not because of a job shortage, it's because H1B's are being used to drive down wages.

Unfortunately (er, fortunately?) the Soviets put the same laser reflectors on their unmanned rovers. Conspiracy theorist offer this as "proof" that the reflectors used during the Apollo missions were actually placed there by unmanned missions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...

Oh I see it now. Shame on Ars for not mentioning the initial 381 :-(

So this is crazy....from Ars:

"the team got seven healthy volunteers to start consuming high levels of saccharin (the FDA's recommended maximum daily dose). At the end of a week, four of them ended up with a reduced insulin response."

from cbc.ca:

"gut bacteria were analyzed from 381 non-diabetics averaging age 43"

So which one is correct? Does anybody have the data from the actual Nature publication? It's paywalled on their site.

That's something I wondered as well. I find this intriguing:

"Sucrazit (5% saccharin, 95% glucose), Sucralite (5% Sucralose), Sweet’n Low Gold (4% Aspartame)."

So what are the other ingredients in Sucralite and Sweet' n Low Gold?

I read up on this yesterday when it was posted to ArsTechnica. I'm a type 1 diabetic so studies like this catch my interest. The interesting part is that the mice that were given artificial sweetners had higher glucose levels than those with regular sucrose diets. The theory is that the artificial sweetners are affecting the bacteria in the gut of the mice, which is affecting how glucose is absorbed into the bloodstream.

One should not though that the human trial only included 7 volunteers, which is hardly enough for a good sample. I'm interested to see the findings of a test conducted on a larger sample group.

Really? Have you tried using systemd?

Sure, but can we assume that the other researchers didn't receive grant money from *their* governments?

One of the points of Ig Noble is to "make people laugh, and then make them think". After thinking about some of these nominees, you can sort of think about what their research could impact. However, some seem absolutely silly, and it would seem wrong to give them federal funding at some other projects expense. Deciding which projects are grant worthy is tricky, especially when you have so many PhD's wanting to get their hand in the cookie jar.

You bring up valid points. I'd actually love to see the report if I could find it (I'm sure it's out there somewhere). The most reliable source I can find is from the NY Times, which itself doesn't list any references either.

http://www.nytimes.com/1981/07...

I guess I chose a bad example to run with. The point I'm trying to make is that some science is worth government funding......like Fermilab for example....where as some isn't. If I were to write a grant application on deconstructing the contents of this Slashdot post, I would hope the government would turn me down.

True that it's political nonsense, but can you honestly agree that a study to find out how to buy worcestershire sauce is worthy of government funding?

I'm all for government funding of basic research, but has anyone considered that maybe the lack of funding is due to closer scrutiny of funding bunk?

He's not entirely wrong, especially when some projects like these get government funding...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...

"The difference between someone who's truly great and just sort of okay is really huge"

Especially when you want to keep that person tied to the company for the duration of their visa and pay them less than someone with a non-visa.

Unfortunately, I think the only way to stop such corruption in Liberia would be through massive aid combined with a foreign military presence (probably a U.N. peacekeeping scenario). Such scenarios end-up lasting years with no end-game in sight, and are almost always labeled as empire-building or meddling in the country's internal affairs (like happened in Somalia). It's a nasty catch-22 that doesn't work out for anyone in the end.

I'm not saying that help shouldn't be offered in some way, but as long as such countries have illegitimate governments, I'm not sure there is going to be a non-violent solution.

Interesting, thanks for the info. So is this a tax on service fees or products purchased over the Internet (or are there separate taxes for both)?

Is this tax earmarked for a particular item, or added to the country's general fund? Sorry I realize you may not know the answers to these questions.