New Scientist video round-up - July 4, 2008

[Shanshou4]

Boy he looks like such a hateful Atheist!

[adamdrouillard]

fag

[FierceGodLink]

wobbling jell ftw!

[WolYou]

Nature is nothing else then a huge set of symbiotic methods. Every organism depends on every organism.

[memorexrd]

wobbling jelly right...

[amymint5]

Well.... also they are good climbers to!....I have seen them climb up my six foot lime tree and also they were seen on the second floor in a flat!

[updownleftup]

i do agree, its a put on smart voice

a tad annoying in my opinion, but its just an opinion

[pcjwss]

i just noticed that i was not the only one to make this comment about that womans voice. glad to see its not just me! again, get rid of her!

[supermotardmario]

i hate her voice

[dontneed]

I love New Scientists fresh-faced announcers....

[albatross111]

you have an enormous forehead

[EmperorEva0001]

it's true

[Truthiness231]

I love scientific research, especially when it involves animals, but this question keeps bugging me (pun intended) about the ant research: why? How does knowing if leafcutter ants can adapt to changes imposed upon them in labs improve our standing? We have yet another fact about a specific ant... and not much else. Maybe if, many years from now, we use them for something, but this kind of research should be done after we have some use for it. Anyway, it seems silly to me.

[adrastea99]

Don't ask why. We do it because we need to know, and because a hundred years from now, it will make someones research a tiny bit easier.

Its called progress.

[Truthiness231]

ROFL, you just said (paraphrased to show how ignorant you are): "Don't ask questions (red flag right there). We have a reason but I won't state it. Plus we don't have to do it later."

That isn't a reason, but rather a glib statement that you just naturally trust that all things scientists do are important. This has absolutely no application whatsoever, aside from circumstances where you would need to know if a particular ant can do a particular act when forced by scientists.

[adrastea99]

Would they waste their time with something unimportant? Would you?

YES there is a conspiracy where scientists are sucking down government dollars to do weir experiments which mean NOTHING!

[Paulginz]

Ok.

No use whatsoever? I think that considering the meager resources needed for the experiment (20$?), it was worth it.

Zoology is essential for proper environmental protection. Ants are important in countless ecosystems.

Learning what animals do and how is important research. Ants probably kill more people than sharks and cause huge property damages.

Plus, maybe someday ants will be a usefull tool.

[Truthiness231]

You think researchers come cheap? I think the researchers would say otherwise...

[Paulginz]

Yes, researchers do come extremely cheap.

Sure, there's some lucky professors in the ivy league, in private sectors or working with the military who get fat cheques.

You'll find that the average researcher gets screwed if you factor in the 8+ years of university etc.

There's plenty of stories about PHDs becoming plumbers & such to make more money.

I'm exagerating things a bit because here in Italy the situation is a lot worse than in the US, but researchersdon't have private jets there either.

[Truthiness231]

I have a study I would like to do: let's see if adrastea99 can find his/her ass with both hands. Don't ask why, because we'll need to know, and in a hundred years it will make someone's research much easier (because he/she will probably be dead by then).

It's called wasting tax money on a scientific study when there are a bunch of much more important types of research we could benefit from first. Why put full force into energy, health, environmental science and the like?

[adrastea99]

"Why put full force into energy, health, environmental science and the like?"

You are officially a retard for not understanding that 1. not all scientists talents can help out in those areas and 2. as long as the overall science is advancing so will every area.

[adrastea99]

Let me make you feel at home with some of your best friends:

"There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in his home."

Ken Olson, President, Digital Equipment, 1977

"Where a calculator on the ENIAC is equpped with 18,000 vaccuum tubes and weighs 30 tons, computers in the future may have only 1,000 vaccuum tubes and perhaps weigh 1 1/2 tons."

Popular Mechanics, March 1949

[adrastea99]

And more:

"I have traveled the length and breadth of this country and talked with the best people, and I can assure you that data processing is a fad that won't last out the year."

The editor in charge of business books for Prentice Hall, 1957.

"But what ... is it good for?"

Engineer at the Advanced Computing Systems Division of IBM, 1968, commenting on the microchip.

"But what ... is it good for?"

Engineer at the Advanced Computing Systems Division of IBM, 1968, commenting on the microchip.

[adrastea99]

The only reason i tell you not to ask questions is because no matter who you ask, they cannot provide you with what you need, vision and imagination.

So, for the sake of our time and yours, don't ask.

[Paulginz]

If you give full control of scientific spending to the government, and they don't ask for the scientific community's opinion it would be a disaster.

Half the budget would got towards fusion research and the other half towards finding a cure for AIDS.

Theoretical academic research is essential if one whishes to achieve scientific advancement. Pouring all the money into what a few narrow-minded people think is important will be less effective than promoting diversity.

[Paulginz]

Let me tell you a story:

You can't tell beforhand that a certain science won't have practical applications.

Algebrists have proved theorems for years, proudly admitting that they had absolutely no practical use whatsoever but were worth it for the beauty of the mathematical objects.

Without them you wouldn't have public key encryption, and hence the internet as we know it.

The biggest scientific advancements take decades. You can't ask for immediate return on the investment.

[ndjarnag]

well said :)

[Truthiness231]

I concur with that. However, it doesn't justify scientists studying such a very specific currently unnecessary fact when there are plenty of very general currently necessary facts we need.

[Paulginz]

How can you study a general fact in experimental science?

The only way I know of is to make lots of special case experiments and then use statistics.

If you want to know how ants behave you'll have to test each species seperately. (if you mix them up they'll just kill each other)

Give me one "very general currently necessary fact we need" that isn't being researched already.

I forgot to mention how cheap PHD students are in my other post. (in many countries they're free)

[RarewareLover]

actually! I am in the mood for listening to recorded jelly!

[Anonymouzor]

i like that idea of drawings as passwords. PASSDRAWINGS :D!!!

[MeebleMeeble]

there's no way thats the first ever recording of wobbling jelly. Foley artists have done it a million times before for the movies.

[ccaptorchen]

happy independence day! new scientists =)

[Arashigeth]

except you know, New Scientist is a British Mag

[ccaptorchen]

I did not know that =P