What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Check out new footage. view!
DragonAge.BioWare.com - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
83 Comments
- aereaus, on 10/12/2008, -1/+33Unfortunately weapons research will always have funding.
- doublefelix, on 10/12/2008, -0/+26I'm looking forward to the really Small Hadron Colliders.
- Hetman, on 10/12/2008, -1/+13Misleading title. Certain sectors of the science community will be devastated by this financial crisis. But eventually that funding will come back. However other sciences will profit from the economical crisis. It all demands on what you are researching.
- newms32, on 10/12/2008, -1/+11Care to give some evidence to support your baseless *****? Because as I look around, there's a whole lot more technology in my room than there was in Gauss'.
- charlietuna, on 10/12/2008, -0/+10The US is in hock. Of course it will be devastating.
- Khast, on 10/12/2008, -0/+9Newsflash : What isn't going to be affected by the financial crisis?
- JohnFlux, on 10/12/2008, -0/+8Cutting funding to anything for one year, say, does far more damage than just a year's worth of loss. Scientists will move on, equipment will be sold, buildings will be reused and so on.
At my university we built a $2million clean room. As soon as it was built, funding was cut. The clean room end up being eventually demolished with nearly no research done in it at all. - kingmanic, on 10/12/2008, -0/+8You may want to look at things objectively. Geniuses like pascal or Gauss or Einstien are once in every few generation type people. Its a little bit unfair to compare a rare geniuses body of work to everybody else. Some in the past had the advantage of having a lot more undiscovered. You also don't have a clear picture of all the things people study. Even in Pascal's or Gauss's time there is a lot of research into dead ends and academia was much less productive. More discussions on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin and much less on engineering somethign even marginal useful like paint that repairs it's own scratches.
The objective progression of science has accelerated despite your nostalgia. - unitedkronos, on 10/12/2008, -1/+7Was there anything in the $700,000,000,000 bill for science or did it all just go to NASCAR and the fat cats that deserve to be run over by NASCAR drivers? It pains me to read that number out loud.
- Mujokan, on 10/12/2008, -0/+6"Cold brewsion: Converting rainwater into malt liquor"
- scottsutherland, on 10/12/2008, -1/+7Hahaha what? People who follow science rather than religion aren't a demographic, they are just everyone that isn't you.
- Dystopiapanda, on 10/12/2008, -0/+5Look at us still talking to when there's science to do.
- skav, on 10/12/2008, -0/+5Say it ain't so!!
http://bacontoday.com/bacon-prices-rising-sharply/
Seriously, there's a website called "bacon today." Seriously. - Murdats, on 10/12/2008, -0/+5just because rags like the daily mail or the mainstream media in general like to report "scientists say/discover/state the obvious" does not mean that is what happens in science circles.
atm science is making massive leaps and bounds, we have several entirely new fields of science that are advancing at lightning pace (nanotechnology, quantum mechanics, neurology and so on) where major strides are being made on a regular basis, but progress is slow.
partially because it takes time for these things to develop into commercial products, because they are not always ready in ability or price to be commercial products or because of regulations (testing of new procedures) or funds. - Murdats, on 10/12/2008, -0/+5are you saying religous people don't die?
also why would people pray to science? what idols does science present?
science is a way to observe and understand the world, and considering what
the process of science has allowed us to do, I would say its a pretty damn effective one
we went from "what is lightning" to manipulating electrons on an individual level to be able
to develop devices the size of a human blood cell that can do over 10,000,000,000 operations
a second.
if we were all as religious as you, we would have looked at lightning and just said "god did it"
instead of striving to understand the cause, furthering that until we reach the point where
you can now advertise your ignorance to the entire world in less then a second and have
your ignorance archived for many, many years to come. - gordonj, on 10/12/2008, -0/+4Engineering is the product of science. It is the mass application of science. Don't you think science played any part in technological progress?
- tgray, on 10/12/2008, -0/+3There was also a lot less known in Gauss's day. Not implying he wasn't a genius...
- inactive, on 10/12/2008, -1/+4Well hey, great - seeing as how in the past few years, we've been doing everything we can to silence those evil "scientists" anyway, glad to see the financial crisis has a bright side. Thank God our children will no longer be corrupted by their lies and deception. /sarcasm
- Rotzooi, on 10/12/2008, -0/+3Bacon.
- ajimmykid, on 10/12/2008, -1/+3it saddens me that you're not likely being sarcastic
- Scaley, on 10/12/2008, -0/+2Science and education funding: Going away
Prospects of employment in academics or related scientific fields in the coming years: Slim to none
Spending 4-8 years of your life studying only to come out to a dead market: Awesome! /slits wrists - TheMachine1, on 10/12/2008, -1/+3For the record I'm an atheist and would test the LHC even if I thought it had a 99% chance of destroying the Universe.
- kingmanic, on 10/12/2008, -0/+2It's all going to the victims of a giant ponzi scheme. A ponzi scheme the victims engineered for themselves but a ponzi scheme none the less.
- Mujokan, on 10/12/2008, -0/+2Obsessive Christian Troll might be even more accurate.
- Stevethegreat, on 10/12/2008, -1/+3Science is profitable because it is the basis of technology. By cutting back on science you cut back on future economic growth, everybody knows that. Now, due to the economic crisis thinks may slow down but this won't be just science it would be everything in the society.
Anyhow the present model of funding scientific pursuits is broken, it relies too much on bureaucracy, and from experience we can say that science advances much faster when it happens outside bureaus. In fact I'm far more interested in ventures like the Space One, Virgin Galactic and Craig Venter's labs, than most of the things that NASA do, really... - WoollyMittens, on 10/12/2008, -0/+2Yes, but those people argue for more government funding and you can just forget about that for the next coming 3 decades.
- derekivey, on 10/12/2008, -0/+2Maybe we should be sending money to the scientists rather than bailing out these banks.
I'd rather see a cure for cancer than keep a bank from failing... - TheGuruStud, on 10/12/2008, -0/+2Christians don't want science. I don't think that's philosophy. I think that's the cult talking.
Remember the Dark Ages? Yeah, that's where we're going. And guess what? It's not ***** fun at all.
Obviously, it all comes down to power and control. You can't have people with knowledge, otherwise, they wouldn't behave like sheep. It's always been that way and always will be until we kill these *****. But instead you have 25-40% of the country that wants to stay enslaved. Pathetic. - ambalek, on 10/12/2008, -1/+3Some people have argued there should be less commercial scientific funding anyway, because of the narrow economic focus it places on research.
- lysdexia, on 10/12/2008, -0/+2The inevitability of death.
- danielttt, on 10/12/2008, -0/+2Is there's any chance it could be converted into a single malt scotch...?
- fallingdamage, on 10/12/2008, -0/+1Why would it hurt the scientific community?
if things deflate, then deflate the cost of research comparatively.
If costs were reduced across the board, the books would remain the same. - painhertz, on 10/12/2008, -0/+1"Could do with making their mind up."
Then it would be making your mind up for you. - Naieve, on 10/12/2008, -0/+1Dugg for destroying the universe.
- Mujokan, on 10/12/2008, -0/+1Bums don't like Laphroaig.
- stutimandal, on 10/12/2008, -1/+2Good scientists who present honest work after sound understanding are rare. Those are good folks to have around. I'm not against scientists in general.
- Lewie, on 10/12/2008, -0/+1This is madness!
- Teddsy, on 10/12/2008, -0/+1Knowledge is Power
- TheMachine1, on 10/12/2008, -0/+1There were some tax credits for alternative energy but I'm not sure on the details.
- JohnFlux, on 10/12/2008, -0/+1The Germans felt the same way - they associated German engineering with something useful and beneficial now, and the generally-Jewish theoretical scientists as useless wastes of time and money.
Fate has an interesting sense of humour - Einstein left Germany because of the rise of the Nazis and the increasingly hostile attitude to theoretical science. Yet it was his theoretical work (E=mc^2) that ended up ending the war.
Technologies take a long time to get to market. The computer that you are using was built using the knowledge that quantum mechanics gave us. This took 50 years or so to complete. If everybody had your attitude, then we would not have modern computers. - AlaskaLoneWolf, on 10/13/2008, -0/+1...as well as a f***ing sh**load of money they spend actually making the weapons, that don't seem to ever appear on the itemized balance sheets. Anyone wonder how much they spend?
http://opencrs.com/document/RL34048
...and once again:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsUdC-pqiqo - siplus, on 10/13/2008, -0/+1If ignorance == power, then all hail 4NDr01D
BTW: 'big pharma' is running trials for 'a real cure for cancer', and much research is done in academia, which is not 'big pharma' - danielttt, on 10/12/2008, -0/+1 Science may indeed provide hope for independence from foreign oil and or to provide an alternative source in the future. Isn't it great they'll have the opportunity to show what they can do with out a government handout. It will be nice to see all that corruption wounded and hopefully mortally. I don't know where you get your notion about religious organizations besides your acquired bias and bigotry. You sound unenlightened and very bitter.
- JohnFlux, on 10/12/2008, -0/+1I agree with skav. There was an article on digg a few months ago about 'silly' papers. And yet when looked at, they were genuinely useful.
- motters, on 10/12/2008, -0/+1Big budget science will no doubt suffer, but the kinds of science which require more time than money may fare better. If you take a long term view though the current financial troubles are just a blip, meaning that things may be put on ice for the next few years.
- inactive, on 10/12/2008, -0/+1I don't care about sciance. will i still be able to play my World of warcraft?
- OneOfNone, on 10/12/2008, -0/+1Here's the debt-clearing superinvention, crystal clear for most humans since ~100,000 years ago: don't take on debt that you can't return quickly, unless you want to become someone's bitch. More recent invention, banks, helped to blur the line by letting to borrow for some time and becoming their bitch a little bit. As time progressed, socially acceptable sold-off percent of your ass rose. At some point, even banks started to believe their own ***** on large scale and everyone essentially became everyone's bitch. Money is backed by little now and manufacturing went with the wind of globalism. Major fraction of capital assets is already owned by foreign investors. So, in a flash of lightning, everyone realizes that they own nothing but a part of other sorry, destitute ass.
Crash course in prison economics aside, you may have noticed that Dr. Leaky is a paleontologist/paleoarcheologist. His task was to discover how long ago humans were smart enough to discern that taking on debt makes you someone's bitch. IF he were an economics professor, he would be one more voice among countless economics profs that warned that creating immense derivative markets out of thin air and doing it in non-transparent, unregulated manner is a recipe for disaster. - inactive, on 10/12/2008, -0/+1it saddens me that no one can post a clearly sarcastic comment on digg without the use of a "/sarcasm" tag.
- 4NDr01D, on 10/12/2008, -0/+1maybe the should innovating instead of getting research grants (handouts)
stop working for big pharma and make a real cure for cancer -
Show 51 - 85 of 85 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is