Scientific American's Top 50

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

[Archangel Michael]

Why not have a /. top 10 news stories of 2006, as slashback retrospective of the year 2006? Or something.

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.

Summaries

[UbuntuDupe]

Is it too much to ask that a summary say what this is a Top 50 of?

Pure sciences

[metlin]

So, is there a reason that advances in pure sciences (e.g. Theoretical Physics and Mathematics) are not mentioned in these lists?

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. /Rant

Re:Right automotive achievements to recognize?

[Shivetya]

I think the reason to keep the "Tesla" off the chart is this simple, anyone can make an unaffordable solution. They key to success there is marketing it properly.

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 someone deems is a threat in the future?" (think asbestos)

Re:"Scientific American" missed one.

[metlin]

Science has been replaced by technology.

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.

[MyLongNickName]

Wow. What a cranky old man. And one that replies to an unrelated post just to get to the top of the comment list.

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:"Scientific American" missed one.

[metlin]

I was referring to pure sciences (e.g. theoretical physics and mathematics). All the ones out there are applied science/technology.

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.