Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:the non-empirical research dollar (Score 1) 364 364

You do realize that one reason for the current state of affairs is the complete lack of ability to test ANY new theory? The LHC was really only designed to see what we expected to see. If we don't see some things that will be great but it will mean that the Standard Model is pretty much wrong. But we won't be able to test anything else.

It is naive to believe that everything in the world can be optimized my some market solution. If some group isn't producing results it is not always the case that reducing their funding will produce better results (e.g. education and basic science). We have trained many great theoretical physicists in the past 30 years but have invested very little in experiments that are likely to produce that could falsify any modern theory.

Comment: Re:Science != Biomedical Research (Score 1) 444 444

I am in astrophysics so....

Regardless I think there is a very real difference between fields where you can leave your experiment on and grow significance with square root time and those that you simply cannot. It is not a matter of difficulty but a matter of biology. One cannot study many disease with the quantity of data to make a robust statistical conclusion. Biomedical research needs to accept this. However simply discounting their research because you think they aren't working hard enough isn't going to change anything.

Comment: Re:Science != Biomedical Research (Score 4, Interesting) 444 444

I agree with your general tone and statement. However it is important to note the inherent limitations of biomedical research. Generally one CANNOT do large scale studies needed to get a statistically robust result. All of physics and astrophysics generally use the 5 sigma discover requirement which means you have to measure the effect to 3e-7. You cannot do this with people as subjects. It is hard to do this with ANY biological subject. Many of the issues brought up stem from this.

I think much of the problem is exacerbated by the public-or-perish mentality but is even more affected by the total lack of reporting null results (when you DO NOT see anything). This skews your overall distribution. It is like not accounting for trials (because you aren't). In biomedical research they need to spend more time quantifying their trials and placing their results in the proper statistical context. Just staying that you are less likely to get parkinson's disease if you drink coffee because we asked a bunch of people isn't the whole story. How many questions did you ask? Was it 100? Did you treat all those as essentially trials?

Comment: Re:uhh...warm oceans=wet land (Score 1) 173 173

* The Atacama Desert - 27 degrees South
* The Chihuahua Desert - 30 degrees North
* The Namib Desert - 23 degrees South
* The Sahara Desert - 23 degrees South

What is your point? Two are tropical deserts ( while none lie between 30-35 degrees.

Comment: Re:Yep it is a scam (Score 3, Insightful) 667 667

I think you are confused. If there were no pipeline the oil would have to be refined nearby. This WOULD create lasting jobs and keep much more of the profits near where the oil is being extracted. The whole point of making a pipeline to the Gulf Coast is to enter the global crude oil market or more precisely to benefit the big oil companies who can ship the crude oil to countries with little or no environmental protections but cheaper refineries thereby keeping a larger share of the profits for themselves. The pipeline may not be directly bad for the environment but it is intended to avoid the costs and environmental regulations imposed by refining in Canada or the USA.

Comment: Re:Hypocrisy. (Score 1) 153 153

I see it was the latter. Regardless, the government should be funding pie in the sky academic research. Currently the push is to fund marketable research. How does that benefit society? We all pay for the development of some clearly marketable product and don't actually retain any of the monetary benefit. If the government funded ONLY pie-in-the-sky research that was vetted by scientists we would be close to where we were in the 1950-1960s where dramatic increases in technology were occurring due to funding of basic research and the solving of problems needed to complete that research. You can claim it is is sucking on the government teat or you can realize that we would never have much of the technology we enjoy today if it weren't for funding of basic science.

Comment: Re:Hypocrisy. (Score 1) 153 153

Not sure why this is modded so highly or if you were just trying to troll but I will bite. One main reason to not do what you suggest is that the institutions with large endowments provide a lot of financial support to their undergraduate students. They are also able to maintain their infrastructure without increasing costs for their students. Finally while 3 billion is a big number for one University for one year it isn't much if you are planning out several decades. If you assume a very high ROI on their investment, say 10% per year they are able to access about 300 million per year but they also need grow the endowment to ensure a sustained return over time. So they don't have access to 300 but something in the ball park. If you want to invest in infrastructure, educational tools, labs, faculty and your student body that takes a big chunk out of that 300 million lets just cut in half. So 150 million a year is still a lot but now you have to split it over many departments and many researchers. My group has about 6 people in it and our grant for a very small experiment is about 1 million a year to cover people, travel, etc.. So if we take that rate of about 166k per person they could support about 900 such people which isn't a whole lot for a university with 3100 full time academic staff that isn't a drop in the bucket but it isn't enough to push the field.

Comment: Horrible Summary (Score 4, Insightful) 86 86

The summary is horribly incorrect. There are no new experiments, only new analysis of old experiments. The authors didn't actually do the experiments but "digitize and reanalyze data from both experiments." The summary didn't include the non-paywalled version of the article on arXiv. The summary sensationalizes the results with phrases like "[p]roducing an entirely new particle." (ok it is a quote) which leads non-physicist readers to think this is a new particle as yet unseen when in fact all particles involved are well known. Furthermore, pulling a particle out of the vacuum, especially near such massive and charged objects a nuclei is not at all uncommon. Sure it is a non-electromagnetic process but it isn't odd.

Comment: Re:Congressional Vote? (Score 1) 81 81

I politely disagree with your assertion that my reading of the 21st would lead to prostitution being legal anywhere. My reading implies that my local county could require that NO alcohol be transported through it, which is the case. Now my county cannot make such a claim for any other, not Federally outlawed or restricted, commercial good. My county can say that it is not only illegal to sell it within its jurisdiction but also that it cannot be transported through. That is a huge difference when compared to any other commercial good. For instance California has outlawed the sale of numerous small weapons but said weapons arrive from asia and are transported through California every day because they cannot restrict interstate commerce. That is why the 21st is so messed up. It means I cannot sell my good to Kansas if all the surrounding states refuse to let me transport it through their states.

Comment: Re:Fox/henhouse (Score 1) 81 81

I think that the parent was taking issue with the two together: an entity that cannot be held accountable as a citizen (cannot go to prison), has the revenue generating power of all its employees, access to financial markets unavailable to the majority (or all) citizens, able to live forever, and only accountable (if at all) to its share holders having the same rights as an individual and ability to influence our electoral process with vast sums of money. I suspect that if only humans (or citizens even) could spend money to influence elections then allowing money to be speech would be fine which is a good argument for NOT making an Amendment explicitly stating money is not speech. But if we give the same rights to corporations and ignore the additional rights they have then their power is greatly outweighs that of the humans alone.

Comment: Re:Congressional Vote? (Score 1) 81 81

Have you read the entirety of the 21st Amendment? It completely breaks interstate commerce. Why can't I buy liquor on Sundays in some states and cannot cross a state line with some purchased in a neighboring state ever? Because the 21st Amendment makes alcohol special and allows each locality to have completely crazy laws prohibiting the TRANSPORTATION of alcohol through their jurisdiction.

Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

The program isn't debugged until the last user is dead.