Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Nobel Prize For Medicine Awarded, Physics Soon To Follow

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 5 years ago | from the tis-the-season dept.

Science 135

Nobel Prize season is here again, and the first award for Physiology or Medicine was split between two virologists who discovered HIV and one who demonstrated that a virus causes cervical cancer. Coming soon is the announcement for Physics. Look to the right for a chance to pit your selection wit against the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences with a poll for which scientific achievement deserves the prize. Front runners, according to Reuters, are; Andre Geim and Kostya Novoselov, discovers of graphene, Vera Rubin, provider of the best evidence yet of dark matter, and Roger Penrose and Dan Shechtman, discoverers of Penrose tilings and quasicrystals.

cancel ×

135 comments

nice. big. cock (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25274569)

anime is for faggots and fuckers.

Anything but (-1, Troll)

Armakuni (1091299) | more than 5 years ago | (#25274581)

dark matter. I hate that cheap cop-out.

Re:Anything but (2, Interesting)

thue (121682) | more than 5 years ago | (#25274613)

Nobel prices in the sciences are usually very conservative. I don't think we will not see a Nobel price for dark matter until the responsible particle(s) has been discovered.

Re:Anything but (1, Redundant)

Forty Two Tenfold (1134125) | more than 5 years ago | (#25274695)

Nobel prices in the sciences are usually very conservative. I don't think we will not see a Nobel price for dark matter until the responsible particle(s) has been discovered.

Do you think the price for a Nobel Prize will be significantly higher than the prize itself?

Re:Anything but (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25274711)

Agreed, these are just the observations. Maybe dark matter and dark energy will be all captured at the same time.

Also, around the same time as Rubin's work (which was all optical), the HI (neutral hydrogen) data gave a far more convincing picture. The surprising flattness of e.g. M31 was already noted several decades before Rubin's work. We all stand on the shoulders of those who came before us.

Re:Anything but (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25275095)

I got your responsible particle(s) right here (makes a crude, vulgar gesture).... Oh wait, this isn't digg, is it

Re:Anything but (1)

geckipede (1261408) | more than 5 years ago | (#25274743)

Don't worry, I'm sure the dark matter still likes you even if you do say such hurtful things.
More seriously, I used to hope that the evidence of gravity anomalies would be some recognisable pattern in the force itself rather than the matter distribution. ANything that threw a spanner in general relativity's works would give clues to a unified field theory. The evidence for invisible extra mass is pretty hard to argue with by now though, to the point where we can produce images of its distribution and work out how it got there.

Re:Anything but (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25274831)

Dark matter may be a cheap cop-out, but "Cowboy Neal's Excited State", that's just plain scary.

Re:Anything but (1)

Firehed (942385) | more than 5 years ago | (#25276385)

As long as they leave Bawls (with an 's' ScuttleMonkey!) the hell alone. The only way to improve upon it is to make the bottles bigger.

Re:Anything but (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25274889)

Anyone but...Sau Lan Wu. I'm sure even now she's ensconced in her office, hovering over a small shrine decorated with J/psi and gluon Phys Rev articles, praying to the gods of physics that she'll win this year. /Former Wuon

The ignorant leading the blind (5, Insightful)

l2718 (514756) | more than 5 years ago | (#25275133)

"[Dark matter --] I hate that cheap cop-out."

How much physics do you know? Dark matter is not a "cheap cop-out". It is a simple model that accounts for observations on many, many scales: from the rotation curves of galaxies, through lensing in galaxy clusters, via cosmic flows, the distance to high-redshift supernovae and all the way up to the fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background. Why do you believe that all matter must be barionic? Or luminous?

For an example of a real cop-outs consider the various "MOND" proposals: in order to account for the rotation curves of galaxies, you change Newtonian gravity at the right length scale. This is easy to do -- and obviuosly by making the right modification you can get the rotation curve exactly on the nose -- but then you'd need a different epicycle for the lensing, yet another one for the fluctuations in the CMB, etc.

In case you are still sceptical, consider the neutrino. Much like today's dark matter, this particle was proposed because laws of mechanics (conservation of momentum in neutron decay) seemed to be violated. Since they are so weakly interacting, it was only much later that neutrinos were observed directly. So was the neutrino a "cheap cop-out"? Should physicists instead have assumed that the laws of mechanics are wrong?

Re:The ignorant leading the blind (1)

mhore (582354) | more than 5 years ago | (#25275865)

You might find this interesting (or might not).

As a preface, "How much physics do you know?": A lot.

Anyway, there was a paper in Astrophysical Journal a few years back, in either 2005 or 2006 from the University of Victoria. They got nice rotation curves for galaxies just from general relativity, without invoking dark matter. Kind of neat.

Mike.

Re:The ignorant leading the blind (1)

Geirzinho (1068316) | more than 5 years ago | (#25276289)

Specifics? Adsabs turned up nothing...

Re:The ignorant leading the blind (2, Informative)

mhore (582354) | more than 5 years ago | (#25276535)

I poked around to try to find it after posting here, and all I could find is something in arxiv. Perhaps the refs didn't like the paper... maybe there was something wrong with it? I'm not sure -- I'm not an astronomer. Looks like my memory is a bit fuzzy... :)

Here's the link to the manuscript [arxiv.org] , though.

Re:The ignorant leading the blind (1)

Geirzinho (1068316) | more than 5 years ago | (#25276859)

Thanks, I'll take a look at it.

And from arxiv, a lesson in how to not do web:
"Sadly, your client does not supply a proper User-Agent, and is consequently excluded."

Re:The ignorant leading the blind (1)

Goaway (82658) | more than 5 years ago | (#25277665)

There was something wrong with it, and it was refuted. So back to dark matter.

Re:The ignorant leading the blind (1)

bertok (226922) | more than 5 years ago | (#25277585)

You might find this interesting (or might not).

As a preface, "How much physics do you know?": A lot.

Anyway, there was a paper in Astrophysical Journal a few years back, in either 2005 or 2006 from the University of Victoria. They got nice rotation curves for galaxies just from general relativity, without invoking dark matter. Kind of neat.

Mike.

I know a bit of physics too, having studied it at University, and Dark Matter always gave me the impression that when Physicists computed Galactic rotation, they did the typically lazy "good enough for Physics" mathematics and simplified -- they used Newtonian mechanics. I have not seen even one paper or article mentioning relativity. Not surprisingly, at the galactic scale, Newtonian mechanics doesn't quite work out. Soo.. wait for it.. what's the correct answer? There must be a mysterious, magical force out there! It can't possibly be that we used the equations that are generally known to be inaccurate. No sir. No way. This, err.. inaccuracy is caused by something I just discovered! Can I have my Nobel now?

The paper the parent article mentioned is:

General Relativity Resolves Galactic Rotation Without Exotic Dark Matter
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0507619 [lanl.gov]

Re:The ignorant leading the blind (1)

Goaway (82658) | more than 5 years ago | (#25277685)

Too bad that paper turned out to be wrong.

Re:The ignorant leading the blind (1)

joh (27088) | more than 5 years ago | (#25277365)

How much physics do you know? Dark matter is not a "cheap cop-out". It is a simple model that accounts for observations on many, many scales: from the rotation curves of galaxies, through lensing in galaxy clusters, via cosmic flows, the distance to high-redshift supernovae and all the way up to the fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background.

Dark matter is still nothing else than a placeholder for something not understood and it may very well be that the actual problem is that we're just missing something subtle but crucial in our understanding of mass and gravity. There are other possibly connected things like the Pioneer Anomaly or the Flyby Anomaly which dark matter doesn't help at all to explain.

Dark matter is a name like "x" for something that must be there if our understanding of many things were right, but most probably they just aren't.

Explain me how "dark matter" explains why precisely measured fly-by velocities of probes are consistently off by a tiny amount from the velocities our understanding of mass and gravity dictate and I may start to believe in dark matter.

I'd vote for Penrose (5, Insightful)

tjstork (137384) | more than 5 years ago | (#25274607)

This guy has done so much for physics, that at some point, he deserves it just from such an enormous body of work. He inspires Hawking, does all sorts of work with theories of everything, he then writes it all up in a simple book that explains how everything works without skimping too much on the math, what more do you need a man to do?

Re:I'd vote for Penrose (5, Interesting)

DriedClexler (814907) | more than 5 years ago | (#25274863)

I'm going to have to disagree. I know this sounds trollish, but I'm really not trying to start a flamewar, and I ask that you keep it civil in telling me how wrong I am. Here goes:

Whatever the greatness of Penrose's discovery, he threw it all away when he started advocating the quantum gravity theory of uncomputable physics as the basis for creativity. Right or wrong, he's advocating a theory which a) does not have enough evidence to come anywhere close to favoring it over more deserving theories, and b) was chosen so that it would be lots of work to falsify.

Scientists should hold themselves to a higher standard than the "principle of Epicurus", i.e. accept all hypotheses not yet falsified. They shoud believe whatever the evidence reveals to have the *highest* probability, not just pick their personal favorite theory that hasn't specifically been ruled out yet. To paraphrase Eliezer Yudkowsky, the fact that the map is blurry does not give you the right fill in streets wherever you feel like.

Is it going too far to count his unscientific theory against his previous successes? No. Scientific committees need to consider not just the immediate, but also the long-term consequences of giving their endorsement to individuals. While they should give out degrees to people who like to hold unscientific beliefs in their spare time, they should not hold them out as shining examples of "someone doing it right".

Re:I'd vote for Penrose (5, Insightful)

mblase (200735) | more than 5 years ago | (#25275061)

Whatever the greatness of Penrose's discovery, he threw it all away when he started advocating the quantum gravity theory of uncomputable physics as the basis for creativity.

Bah to that. Nobel prizes are for specific discoveries, not for a person's reputation since then. You might as well say Einstein should be discredited because he changed his mind about the cosmological constant.

Re:I'd vote for Penrose (2, Insightful)

joshrulzzatwork (758329) | more than 5 years ago | (#25275275)

Bah to that. Nobel prizes are for specific discoveries, not for a person's reputation since then.

However, in the context of GGP's point being that a Prize is due for total body of work, GP's point that various controversial acts of subject's career are enough to disqualify him seems valid.

Re:I'd vote for Penrose (1)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | more than 5 years ago | (#25275587)

But alas, many publications, especially more pedestrian ones, often simply cite a person as a Nobel Laureate. As a result, the reality you describe is not necessarily evident to the general public, who will sometimes ask "wait, why do physicists like Einstein so much if he started being wrong when he got older?" in incomprehension, and under the assumption that everything has to be absolute.

Re:I'd vote for Penrose (3, Informative)

fm6 (162816) | more than 5 years ago | (#25276507)

Einstein's changing his mind about a theoretical concept is hardly comparable with what Penrose did. He didn't simply restructure a theory. He tried to rationalize a completely new model of the physics behind human intelligence. This model is popular in some circles because it seems to re-assert the concept of free will. That has a lot of implications outside physics: psychology, ethics, artificial intelligence, etc. When you come with a theory with those kinds of implications, you really have an obligation to make sure your ideas have a solid foundation. And there's a lot of good arguments that Penrose didn't do that.

Now, it's true that the physics prize is awarded for a specific achievement, not for being a good scientist. But there's a lot of science going on out there, and I doubt that half the work that's Nobel quality makes the cut. You might think it a little unfair that a particular achievement doesn't rate a Nobel just because the comittee doesn't want to recognize bad science by the same guy. But given the number of deserving nominees, excluding somebody from the cut because they're guilty of bad science is not unreasonable.

When I was writing the above paragraph, I went back and re-read the post that started this thread, so I could refer to the scientific breakthrough the poster thought was Nobel-worthy. He didn't have one. His argument for recognizing Penrose was based on the fact that Penrose was Hawking's mentor and had also written some good popular science books. Significant achievements, but not what they hand out Nobel Physics medals for. Anybody have some more relevant accomplishments to cite?

Atheism isn't a prerequisite (4, Insightful)

Mr. Underbridge (666784) | more than 5 years ago | (#25275185)

I'm going to have to disagree. I know this sounds trollish, but I'm really not trying to start a flamewar, and I ask that you keep it civil in telling me how wrong I am. Here goes:

I'm just jumping in here, sorry to crash the party. And I'm only being civil because you're a basketball fan (not really, but nice username anyway).

Is it going too far to count his unscientific theory against his previous successes? No. Scientific committees need to consider not just the immediate, but also the long-term consequences of giving their endorsement to individuals. While they should give out degrees to people who like to hold unscientific beliefs in their spare time, they should not hold them out as shining examples of "someone doing it right".

By that reasoning, you'd be stripping Einstein of his prize as well. Had the Prize been around, Isaac Newton would have been excluded with extreme prejudice. Indeed, that line of reasoning would be tantamount to restricting the Prize to athiests.

There are many scientists who happen to be religious, and it causes many a brilliant scientist degrees of consternation in attempting to reconcile his religion's creation story with his own science. Penrose's attempts seem no different than Einstein's rejection of quantum mechanics because "God does not play dice with the universe".

While I agree with your analysis of why the null state for any hypothesis should be rejected rather than accepted, I don't think that's sufficient reason to ban Penrose or anyone else from consideration for the Prize. Indeed, I would say that all creeping politicization of the Prize should cease, as it has been all too prevalent lately (assuming it ever was otherwise). In this case, while I personally believe in maintaining a barrier between religion and science, I think the pendulum has swung too far against religion in general - indeed, the anti-religious sentiment is so common in the sciences to pretty much amount to bigotry. I've seen it firsthand, and it's disgusting coming from people who claim to be open-minded. So long as your opinion matches theirs, presumably.

In other words, let's accept Penrose's religious choices and not hold it against him with regard to his scientific contributions. Anything else would smack of extreme religious intolerance that is not in keeping with the overall ideals of Prize in advancing humanity.

I do respect your opinion and the civil way in which you've presented it, but I'd strongly urge you to reconsider what you're advocating.

Re:Atheism isn't a prerequisite (1)

3p1ph4ny (835701) | more than 5 years ago | (#25275295)

Penrose's attempts seem no different than Einstein's rejection of quantum mechanics because "God does not play dice with the universe".

Just to be clear when Einstein said this (he really said "I, at any rate, am convinced that He [God] does not throw dice.") he did not mean he was religious.

Einstein rejected QM because it was imprecise. The phrase "does not throw dice" refers to the probabilistic nature of QM. Einstein was convinced that there was an exact way to describe the behavior of the universe, and that we hadn't (still haven't) discovered it yet.

Re:Atheism isn't a prerequisite (1)

who knows my name (1247824) | more than 5 years ago | (#25275847)

yes. Einstein demanded local reality, i.e. that reality is completely deterministic, but Bell's inequality disproves that. Of course, new evidence may force us to overturn quantum theory for a deterministic theory, but so far QM is our best description of reality. If Penrose's reconciliation of his religion and his physics does not cause any contradiction (testable or not), then there is no threat from his religion on his scientific method. Give him the prizes he deserves for his science.

Re:Atheism isn't a prerequisite (2, Informative)

blueg3 (192743) | more than 5 years ago | (#25276477)

It's not imprecise, it's just nondeterministic.

The "still haven't" is misleading. Bell's clearly shows that the only possibility for a deterministic mechanism behind quantum mechanics is a system containing nonlocal hidden variables.

Re:Atheism isn't a prerequisite (1)

Pictish Prince (988570) | more than 5 years ago | (#25276703)

It's not imprecise, it's just nondeterministic.

The "still haven't" is misleading. Bell's clearly shows that the only possibility for a deterministic mechanism behind quantum mechanics is a system containing nonlocal hidden variables.

Right. Bell's theorem gives you a choice between determinism with non-local "extras" and non-determinism (the Copenhagen non-interpretation)

Re:Atheism isn't a prerequisite (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25275395)

By that reasoning

A sure sign of an incoming "reductio ad absurdum"

you'd be stripping Einstein of his prize as well

Einstein wasn't vocal about religion until after he won his prize.

Had the Prize been around, Isaac Newton would have been excluded with extreme prejudice. Indeed, that line of reasoning would be tantamount to restricting the Prize to athiests.

Absurd... he was born in the 17th century during a time when religion was still playing an important role in education.

Taking our modern standards and applying them to cases in previous centeruies and going "AH HA! SEE IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE!" is just retarded. Before the sequencing of DNA, it was still possible to be religious, honest and learned. These days you have to pick only two.

Re:Atheism isn't a prerequisite (1)

DriedClexler (814907) | more than 5 years ago | (#25275435)

Thank you for your reply. But I think we're talking past each other.

I'm not saying that someone should be excluded from the Nobel Prize because of their religious beliefs. (Note I didn't even mention Penrose's religion or the religious aspects of his theory!) I'm saying they should be excluded when a) they promote that relgious belief *as science*, and do it b) in preference to numerous theories for which there is significantly stronger evidence.

So it wouldn't exclude Einstein: despite the metaphorical "God" reference, what he was saying was really, "We should have a strong preference for determinism in positing theories of natural phenomena." And the evidence did justify that preference at the time! And even when he was reluctant to change his mind, he was favoring the second most likely theory, not the 50th, which is what Penrose is doing.

In Newton's case, the level of knowledge at the time did not suffice to reject certain low-level religious beliefs, meaning they could reasonably stick with certain religious "priors". That is, if people have historically lived successful lives based on a religious "theory", it's not unscientific to accept that until counterevidence comes in -- which in Newton's day, it hadn't, or would have required a lot of intelligence to see. What Penrose is doing, in contrast, is saying *after* the evidence comes in, that he's going to reject the top 50 most likely theories for the one below it. Also, Newton never made those religious beliefs a fundamental, defining part of the theories, as others at the time (Descartes I think) pressured him to. He said, F=Gmm/r^2, not "F=Gmm/r^2 as per Psalm 15".

So, in short, I'm not saying, "exclude religious people from the Nobel Prize"; I'm saying, "exclude people from the Nobel Prize who try to promote, as science, very weak theories over numerous more deserving ones."

Re:I'd vote for Penrose (1)

Fanro (130986) | more than 5 years ago | (#25275253)

Scientists should hold themselves to a higher standard than the "principle of Epicurus", i.e. accept all hypotheses not yet falsified. They shoud believe whatever the evidence reveals to have the *highest* probability, not just pick their personal favorite theory that hasn't specifically been ruled out yet.

They did that quite extensively. Noone has come up with a really satisfactory Theory Of Everything yet, so it is time to broaden the search.

Whatever the greatness of Penrose's discovery, he threw it all away when he started advocating the quantum gravity theory of uncomputable physics as the basis for creativity. Right or wrong, he's advocating a theory which a) does not have enough evidence to come anywhere close to favoring it over more deserving theories, and b) was chosen so that it would be lots of work to falsify.

You could say that about pretty much every interpretation of quantum theory. Many worlds, Kopenhagen, etc. All pretty much unverifiably with todays methods. All compatible with existing data. All contradicting common sense in their way.

Heck, string theory is much worse in that regard, and still I would not like a world where scientists proposing some variant of string theory are said to have "thrown everything away".

Re:I'd vote for Penrose (1)

jlowery (47102) | more than 5 years ago | (#25275423)

By that logic, Linus Pauling should've been stripped of his TWO Nobels after all that hooey about vitamin C preventing colds.

Re:I'd vote for Penrose (1)

CorporateSuit (1319461) | more than 5 years ago | (#25275739)

While they should give out degrees to people who like to hold unscientific beliefs in their spare time, they should not hold them out as shining examples of "someone doing it right".

I'm going to have to disagree and say anyone who DOESN'T hold to an unscientific belief in their spare time is not "doing it right."

For starters, it's their spare time. If they don't have a hobby outside of established scientific doctrines, they need to find one and learn to live. Being a reclusive, obsessive-compulsive shut-in isn't a "shining example" of what growing scientists should yearn to be.

Also, if they only gave out nobel prizes in physics to the guys who can recite what we already know and have proven, then the prize won't mean anything at all. It's the guys who have to take the random stabs in the dark and then attempt, throughout the years, to quantify that with testing until they have sufficient evidence to call it "good enough for a theory." Bandwagon jumpers and those who only place safe bets have no place among the remembered.

Re:I'd vote for Penrose (1)

khallow (566160) | more than 5 years ago | (#25277483)

Whatever the greatness of Penrose's discovery, he threw it all away when he started advocating the quantum gravity theory of uncomputable physics as the basis for creativity. Right or wrong, he's advocating a theory which a) does not have enough evidence to come anywhere close to favoring it over more deserving theories, and b) was chosen so that it would be lots of work to falsify.

He didn't "throw it all away". Such philosophical musings have no repercussion on scientific endeavors nor should they. Is he allowed to have an opinion on politics or the weather, or is that unbecoming of a scientist? My take is that the need for an open and free exchange of ideas outweighs any need for scientific decorum.

Scientists should hold themselves to a higher standard than the "principle of Epicurus", i.e. accept all hypotheses not yet falsified. They shoud believe whatever the evidence reveals to have the *highest* probability, not just pick their personal favorite theory that hasn't specifically been ruled out yet. To paraphrase Eliezer Yudkowsky, the fact that the map is blurry does not give you the right fill in streets wherever you feel like.

The problem here is threefold. First, that you don't have a set way to assign probability. A lot of the relevant knowledge is contained inside scientists' skulls. So you will get subjective estimates of the probabilities of each theory. Second, that the most likely theory can end not being the correct theory. Over time, this algorithm will embrace repeatedly the wrong theory merely because it was considered most likely. Finally, there's often no way to find the optimal theory to explain the observations. You don't know enough in these cases to formulate the theory.

Re:I'd vote for Penrose (1)

ebuck (585470) | more than 5 years ago | (#25277739)

As another poster already noted: Nobel prizes are for specific discoveries, not a person's reputation since the discovery.

In another reply mblase mentions Einstein. I'm going to do one better than that and mention Linus Pauling. I say one better, because Linus Pauling won two Nobel prizes, and he might still be the only person to have two Noble prizes to his name. His work laid the foundation for viewing shape as a critical element in determining the effects of molecules in living systems. He also won the Nobel Peace Prize.

The man was brilliant, I heard him talk before he passed, and he went to his grave trying to find the chemistry-level solution for the widely accepted idea that vitamin-C provides additional protection against the common cold. Detractors of his efforts joked about Pauling's vitamin C.

We don't want our best minds weighing the benefits of not working after a major discovery should they be in the running for a Nobel.

Re:I'd vote for Penrose (0)

deadmantyping (827232) | more than 5 years ago | (#25275355)

Except that the criteron for choosing a Nobel Prize recipient is that they performed research that has been shown to be of great importance within the previous year.

Re:I'd vote for Penrose (1)

exp(pi*sqrt(163)) (613870) | more than 5 years ago | (#25275463)

Besides quasicrystals, can you name any work by Penrose that has resulted in testable physics?

Re:I'd vote for Penrose (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25275905)

"two virologists who discovered HIV and one who demonstrated that a virus causes cervical cancer."

Both of which are frauds. HIV doesn't exist. Read the Perth Group's site.
A virus does not cause cervical cancer, and the 'vaccine' to 'prevent' it doesn't do anything either.

I wonder why they won't tell us how vaccines are made?

Congrats (-1, Offtopic)

elloGov (1217998) | more than 5 years ago | (#25274643)

What about Bush for discovering "nucular" activities in IRAQ and "freedom"? Seriously, my hat goes off to everyone contributing to these marvelous layers of abstraction upon which we build our future with ease.

Re:Congrats (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25274777)

Wow! Only 4 responses until Bush is bashed, in a thread that has *ABSOLUTELY* nothing to do with him. Hate much?

Re:Congrats (1)

fprintf (82740) | more than 5 years ago | (#25274835)

Is there a name for this trend? So we have Godwin's Law that describes how quickly a comparison will be made to the Nazi's in any (Usenet)online discussion. Perhaps we could name a new law, dubbed "Anonymous Coward's law" that describes how quickly a discussion will turn a) political or b) toward Bush bashing.

Re:Congrats (1)

R2.0 (532027) | more than 5 years ago | (#25274875)

"describes how quickly a discussion will turn a) political or b) toward Bush bashing."

On slashdot, that's a distinction without a difference.

Re:Congrats (1)

Miseph (979059) | more than 5 years ago | (#25276195)

Yes, I've never seen any politician except for Bush bashed on Slashdot. It's simply inconceivable.

Oh, wait...

Re:Congrats (1)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 5 years ago | (#25275077)

> a) political or b) toward Bush bashing.

Isn't (b) a subset of (a)?

Other Fields of Endeavour (0, Offtopic)

pipingguy (566974) | more than 5 years ago | (#25274649)

Who's getting the peace prize this year?

Re:Other Fields of Endeavour (3, Insightful)

onefriedrice (1171917) | more than 5 years ago | (#25274761)

Doesn't matter to me. The whole award means a lot less since even Gore was able to secure one with little but political rhetoric.

Moderators: I've got karma to burn, but consider that Gore is still a politician who hardly practices what he is preaching. I'm all for preserving Earth, but come on...

Re:Other Fields of Endeavour (5, Insightful)

nomadic (141991) | more than 5 years ago | (#25274839)

The whole award means a lot less since even Gore was able to secure one with little but political rhetoric.

The award meant less when Henry Kissinger won it. Gore's actually more deserving than some of the winners in the past few decades; at least he never actively worked against peace.

Re:Other Fields of Endeavour (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25275549)

Gore may only be interested in peace and science as it relates to him gaining a piece of the action. [google.com] Global Warming is closely tied to making many markets hotter and he is positioned to gain wealth from many of them. He is an evangelistic promoter for Kleiner Perkins and others. World industry is beginning to see the light and governments around the world are joining them in a move to a CO2 based economy, potentially the biggest hot air bubble of all times. If all of this helped to bring about individual energy independence then it could be a good thing but does anyone think that tech would ever see the light of day when it is more advantageous to governments and energy corps to control energy?

Cost efficient energy individual independence would be a great thing, so I hope I am wrong, but the history of greed and power seeking has taught me otherwise. Additionally we don't need a world CO2 trading economy to pretend to work to solve these issues while being the new "gold receipts". Not telling everyone they should think like me, just pointing out the surface does not always reflect what is underneath and asking that all keep their eyes open and think about what they see and know. The peace prize has too often appeared as if it has just become the platform for making statements for those in control of it, not necessarily being for world peace.

Irregardless of the related issues, I do welcome alternative energy research but wish it was more open. The world does need it.

Re:Other Fields of Endeavour (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25276269)

Gore may only be interested in peace and science as it relates to him gaining a piece of the action. Global Warming is closely tied to making many markets hotter and he is positioned to gain wealth from many of them.

What the fuck do you expect? Do you expect people to not put their money where their mouth is? Would you actually support him more if he was investing all his money into oil companies instead? Seems to me like you first didn't like Gore and then found a reason to justify your pre-existing views.

Peace prize is flawed----- (5, Interesting)

shakuni (644197) | more than 5 years ago | (#25277039)

Nobel prize, at least for peace, has no credibility to almost all Indians, as Mahatma Gandhi the absolute paragon of peace and non-violence in modern history, was never awarded the prize. In all sincerity, it would have honored the prize and not the person, in this case. Indians are generally highly divided about most issues, but, on Mahatma Gandhi's commitment to peace and non-violence, there is almost unanimous agreement. Please note that, there were dissenters who thought non-violence wasnt the best way to attain freedom, but nobody doubted Mahatma's non-violent credentials.

Nobel prize, like most western institutions, has an enormous western bias and is unable to see beyond the borders of western civilization, for most parts. This is not a complaint, it is just a fact!!

Re:Peace prize is flawed----- (3, Informative)

nomadic (141991) | more than 5 years ago | (#25277361)

Nobel prize, like most western institutions, has an enormous western bias and is unable to see beyond the borders of western civilization, for most parts. This is not a complaint, it is just a fact!!

It is NOT a fact, in fact the opposite is true. The winners in the last 10 years have been:

4 international organizations,
2 Americans
1 Bangladeshi 1 Bandladeshi organization,
1 Egyptian,
1 Korean,
1 Kenyan, 1 Iranian,
2 Irish (well North Irish),
1 Ghanan.

So, out of the 10 individuals who won, only 4 were western.

Re:Peace prize is flawed----- (1)

nomadic (141991) | more than 5 years ago | (#25277447)

Oops, ignore the HTML typo, meant to do line break instead of bold...

Re:Other Fields of Endeavour (5, Insightful)

gnick (1211984) | more than 5 years ago | (#25274871)

Gore? Really? I think that when Arafat [wikipedia.org] got it in '94, it should have been written off all together. Sure the Gore thing was BS, but at least he didn't have such a long-standing history of organizing terrorist attacks against civilians before receiving his Peace Prize.

Of course, there are a number of legitimate gripes. [wikipedia.org]

Re:Other Fields of Endeavour (1)

truesaer (135079) | more than 5 years ago | (#25275537)

If people want to gripe about Arafat getting it, they might at least not distort what actually happened to make their political point. The award was jointly given to Arafat, Simon Peres, and Yitzak Rabin. The Peace Prize is given typically to a very recent accomplishment so unfortunately by its nature sometimes things that look like they're successful steps toward peace turn out not to be so. Though really they're still trying to implement those agreements, just not very successfully...

Re:Other Fields of Endeavour (1)

gnick (1211984) | more than 5 years ago | (#25275703)

Yes, I neglected to give details on why Arafat (along with Peres and Rabin) were given the award, but I don't think that it makes it any less disgusting. They sat down in Oslo [wikipedia.org] and, for the first time, had a face-to-face negotiation between Israel and the PLO. It was also the first time that the PLO publicly acknowledged Israel's right to exist. They negotiated short-term cease-fires that they hoped would lead to long-term peace. Those are all good things.

But my take on it is that, even though they did some good things, I can't help picturing somebody on the panel appraising the potential recipients:

Sure, Arafat may have spent a couple of decades organizing terrorist attacks, but just think of all of the lives that may be spared now that he's agreed to stop!

Re:Other Fields of Endeavour (4, Insightful)

explosivejared (1186049) | more than 5 years ago | (#25274931)

Gore got one for peace. He did not receive one for any of the hard sciences. The peace prize has always been subjective and controversial. I'm not real sure why you are upset he used political rhetoric to get one either. Whether or not he met your subjective standards for promoting peace enough to earn a Nobel, rhetoric is an acceptable means to peace, probably the most preferable.

The ones for physics and such, however are still very much prestigious. You can be sure that it takes a lot of hard scientific work to get one. So beat up on Gore all you want, but leave the scientists alone. (disclaimer: I am not a supporter of Mr. Gore.)

Re:Other Fields of Endeavour (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25274969)

The peace prize is not really affiliated with the natural science prizes. Different committee, different time of year, different style for different reasons.

The science prizes are given a long time after the fact, for discoveries that has really truly held up. The peace prize is a current thing and often focus on drawing attention to something.

Some would say that the peace prize gets undue respect from sharing it's name with the science prizes.

Re:Other Fields of Endeavour (2, Interesting)

joshrulzzatwork (758329) | more than 5 years ago | (#25275323)

Some would say that the peace prize gets undue respect from sharing it's name with the science prizes.

I thought it was because Nobel himself regarded the Peace Prize as his most important legacy.

Re:Other Fields of Endeavour (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25275757)

What Nobel thought is irrelevant. These days the science prize is very well respected, and the peace prize is the black sheep of the herd.

Re:Other Fields of Endeavour (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25275931)

also, different country (Norway)

Political satire... (1)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 5 years ago | (#25276225)

...was made sublime when Henry Kissinger received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1973. It became downright ethereal when Yasser Arafat received one in 1994.

Re:Other Fields of Endeavour (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 5 years ago | (#25277551)

To be fair, that's a Nobel PEACE prize. You normally win that one with talk. The prizes for science are a bit more rigorous.

Re:Other Fields of Endeavour (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25274885)

Who's getting the peace prize this year?

Me for not kicking your ass.

1993 HBO Movie (3, Informative)

bhsx (458600) | more than 5 years ago | (#25274729)

"And the Band Played On" was the title of a movie about the CDC tracking the first breakouts of AIDS in San Francisco and then all around the world. Alan Alda played one of the virologists that just got this nod. He played the American who was out to screw the French lab that was onto the same discovery that this was a hantavirus. Very interesting story with TONS of stars including a "young" Ian McKellen.

Re:1993 HBO Movie (1)

bhsx (458600) | more than 5 years ago | (#25274773)

actually, after reading the artcle, perhaps his dickheadery caused him to be left out of the prize; leaving it to Luc's team. let that be a lesson to dickheads everywhere: "you're risking yoiur Nobel there jerk!"

Re:1993 HBO Movie (5, Informative)

R2.0 (532027) | more than 5 years ago | (#25274985)

I did a paper on some of these topics in 1990. In short:
1) the American scientist was a dickhead
2) Even at the time of his "discovery", it was suspected that the lab had stolen the sample from the French - I think they settled on "contamination" so that it wouldn't turn into a political incident (this happened at NIH)
3) The elephant in the room was money - there was a metric fuckton of money to be made for the people to develop a test for HIV that could be applied to the blood supply. The French and the American basically split it.
4) The American scientist made out like a bandidt - not only did he recieve credit where he shouldn't have, the NIH built him a WHOLE BUILDING to be his sandbox.

It is some small measure of justice that the Nobel committee awarded the prise thusly. Too bad the people who award the non-scientific prizes have no such measure of judgment.

Re:1993 HBO Movie (1)

Beryllium Sphere(tm) (193358) | more than 5 years ago | (#25275363)

Do you mean retrovirus?

Hantaviruses and HIV are both RNA viruses but they're different otherwise.

Re:1993 HBO Movie (3, Interesting)

kaliann (1316559) | more than 5 years ago | (#25275485)

Slight correction:
HIV is a lentivirus, one of the types of retroviruses. One of the toughest parts of making the link between HIV and AIDS was identifying this virus that could infect a person and then not cause AIDS for years. (Lenti means "slow".) These researchers, politics aside, cracked a very tough problem with tools that would be considered primitive by today's standards.

The discovery led to greater understanding of lentiviruses in general: we now know that cats (FIV), horses (EIA), cattle (BIV), and monkeys, among others all have lentiviruses of their own.

Secondary to that expansion, advances in non-human lentivirus research are providing leverage for new approaches to HIV. There is currently an effective (>80% protective) vaccine for FIV in cats. Ideally, some of those techniques can be successfully modified for an HIV vaccine.

Dr Farnsworth? (2, Funny)

Jeanius (1369311) | more than 5 years ago | (#25274757)

What about knocking that gigantic garbage ball out of the sky?

Re:Dr Farnsworth? (1)

martinw89 (1229324) | more than 5 years ago | (#25274849)

I think the Globe Trotters are more deserving.

HPV != HIV (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25274767)

That's HPV, not HIV. Please correct summary.

Re:HPV != HIV (3, Informative)

Selfbain (624722) | more than 5 years ago | (#25274803)

The guy who discovered HIV and the guy who discovered HPV shared the award....

OH, boy - can't wait for the Peace Prize (3, Funny)

R2.0 (532027) | more than 5 years ago | (#25274843)

I'm betting on Fidel Castro for the first peaceful transition in power in Cuba in 40 years.

Why isn't Robert Gallo credited for HIV discovery? (5, Informative)

slashdog (256301) | more than 5 years ago | (#25274877)

In the 80's Robert Gallo was celebrated as the discoverer of HIV and that, oh yeah, maybe

some French scientists helped too. Turns out Mr. Gallo either intentionally or mistakenly

(through cross-contamination in a sloppy lab) cultivated a sample of the French-discovered

strain of the virus. Even after he should have realized a mistake, he misled people and

caused the United States blood supply to use a much poorer HIV test (than the French one)

and as a result people needlessly died. His claims of original discovery ultimately fell

apart because HIV mutates with amazing rapidity, and so his HIV strains were traceable to

the French one his so closely matched.

The book "Science Fictions" by John Crewdson is worth your time to read. It's a long read,

not an easy read, but I got hooked.

Have you wondered why some less technically talented coworkers are able to influence

management and, even worse, make you the fall guy when things go wrong? I think this book

gave me insight into that.

If Mr. Gallo had only half the talent for science as he did for obfuscation, he would've

been a great scientist indeed.

Re:Why isn't Robert Gallo credited for HIV discove (2, Insightful)

R2.0 (532027) | more than 5 years ago | (#25275035)

Gallo! Thanks for the name - I did a whole paper on that ass in 1990 and couldn't remember the name.

"If Mr. Gallo had only half the talent for science as he did for obfuscation, he would've been a great scientist indeed."

Don't worry too much about Gallo's fate - the NIH built him a whole new building to house his little empire.

Re:Why isn't Robert Gallo credited for HIV discove (1)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 5 years ago | (#25276877)

Have you wondered why some less technically talented coworkers are able to influence
management and, even worse, make you the fall guy when things go wrong? I think this book
gave me insight into that.

Because they are (corporate) psychopaths, and therefore very persuasive when lying, apt at manipulation and very charismatic.

Discovered? (-1, Flamebait)

anonieuweling (536832) | more than 5 years ago | (#25274907)

Discovered HIV? Was it ever isolated? HPV? Was it ever proven that it *causes* cervical cancer? (yes they force the expen$ive and toxic medicine on us to `prevent` HPV to increase profit$) Just refuse 'medicine' shots without proper explanation. Don't believe the hype. Relation between HIV and AIDS is far from clear. Effectiveness versus risks of medicine against HPV or even cervical cancer is far from clear. Do your research.

Coinky-Dink (1)

Stringer Bell (989985) | more than 5 years ago | (#25274937)

Roger Penrose just happened to discover a phenomenon that has the same name as he does? Wow. What are the odds?

Cowboy Neal's Excited State should win (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25274961)

That is the closest to absolute zero ever achieved.

Graphene? Unlikely... (2, Insightful)

Wdi (142463) | more than 5 years ago | (#25274995)

The 1996 Nobel prize was already given for the discovery of Buckyballs. Graphene is the same field (so the general area is already covered), and not really a surprize. It is just a monolayer of graphite. Preparing it and measuring its properties is (highly interesting) engineering, but not groundbreaking science.

HPV does NOT cause cervical cancer (0)

megamerican (1073936) | more than 5 years ago | (#25274999)

HPV does not cause cervical cancer and FDA documents admit it.

The FDA news release of March 31, 2003 acknowledges that "most infections (by HPV) are short-lived and not associated with cervical cancer", in recognition of the advances in medical science and technology since 1988. In other words, since 2003 the scientific staff of the FDA no longer considers HPV infection to be a high-risk disease when writing educational materials for the general public whereas the regulatory arm of the agency is still bound by the old classification scheme that had placed HPV test as a test to stratify risk for cervical cancer in regulating the industry.

http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/07p0210/07p-0210-ccp0001-01-vol1.pdf [fda.gov]

As the reclassification petition reveals, HPV infections are naturally self-limiting -- meaning that they are controlled naturally, without requiring intervention with drugs or vaccines. It is not the HPV virus itself that causes cervical cancer but rather a persistent state of ill-health on the part of the patient that makes her vulnerable to persistent infections.

As the petition states:

Based on new scientific information published in the past 15 years, it is now generally agreed that identifying and typing HPV infection does not bear a direct relationship to stratification of the risk for cervical cancer . Most acute infections caused by HPV are self-limiting [1, 4-7]. ...Repeated sequential transient HPV infections, even when caused by "high-risk" HPVs, are characteristically not associated with high risk of developing squamous intraepithelial lesions, a precursor of cervical cancer.

A woman found to be positive for the same strain (genotype) of HPV on repeated testing is highly likely suffering from a persistent HPV infection and is considered to be at high risk of developing precancerous intraepithelial lesions in the cervix . It is the persistent infection, not the virus, that determines the cancer risk."

Taking Gardasil can actually make you 44.6% more likely to get pre-cancerous lesions if you already have HPV (many sexually active people do).

PCR-based HPV detection device with provision for accurate HPV genotyping is more urgently needed now because vaccination with Gardasil of the women who are already sero-positive and PCR-positive for vaccine-relevant genotypes of HPV has been found to increase the risk of developing high-grade precancerous lesions by 44.6%, according to an FDA VRBPAC Background Document : Gardasil HPV Quadrivalent Vaccine. May 18, 2006 VRBPAC Meeting. www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/06/briefing/2006-4222B3.pdf

Not only that, but cervical cancer is one of the most treatable forms of cancer out there. If you are healthy and get regular testings you should have no problem. There is no need for this vaccine.

This guys work was done in the early 80's and is obviously out of date.

Where is my Nobel Prize? :)

Re:HPV does NOT cause cervical cancer (4, Informative)

Beryllium Sphere(tm) (193358) | more than 5 years ago | (#25275633)

Most HPV infections do not lead to cervical cancer.

Most cervical cancers are caused by HPV.

These two statements are logically consistent.

The mechanism of action is even known: HPV blocks the action of tumor-suppressing gene p53.

Re:HPV does NOT cause cervical cancer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25275659)

"A woman found to be positive for the same strain (genotype) of HPV on repeated testing is highly likely suffering from a persistent HPV infection and is considered to be at high risk of developing precancerous intraepithelial lesions in the cervix . It is the persistent infection, not the virus, that determines the cancer risk."

So someone who has an HPV infection is more likely to get HPV. Sounds like HPV causes cervical cancer to me.

Re:HPV does NOT cause cervical cancer (4, Informative)

spectecjr (31235) | more than 5 years ago | (#25275729)

Please stop spreading misinformation.

1. You're not supposed to take the vaccine if you've already been exposed to HPV. That's why they only prescribe it to young girls - not older people.
2. There is a genetic component to the risk from HPV.
3. Yes, the HPV virus itself causes the cancer. It messes with apoptosis gene expression, causing the cells to proliferate without the normal cell death mechanism kicking in.

What are you talking about? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25275831)

As the reclassification petition reveals, HPV infections are naturally self-limiting -- meaning that they are controlled naturally, without requiring intervention with drugs or vaccines.

Where did you see that? It says most acute infections are self-limiting, not all.

It is not the HPV virus itself that causes cervical cancer but rather a persistent state of ill-health on the part of the patient that makes her vulnerable to persistent infections.

It's not the vulnerability to persistent infection that causes cervical cancer, ti's the persistent infection to certain high-risk strains of HPV. Regardless, the vaccine removes the vulnerability and helps prevent roughly 70% of cervical cancers. In addition, it also prevents infection of many strains that don't cause cancer, but still cause genital warts...it's a win all around.

Taking Gardasil can actually make you 44.6% more likely to get pre-cancerous lesions if you already have HPV (many sexually active people do).

So start vaccination earlier, before they're sexually active. Actually, this is the biggest problem with the vaccine, and I suspect it plays a big role in why some people are against it. The virus is sexually transmitted, so idiots start thinking, "My daughter isn't sexually active! She's not going to be sexually active until she marries! Only sluts need this so-called vaccine!"

Not only that, but cervical cancer is one of the most treatable forms of cancer out there.

Prevention is always better than the cure, even if the cure is available.

If you are healthy and get regular testings you should have no problem.

Says you. Regular testing helps catch the problem early on. Vaccines help you never get the problem in the first place.

There is no need for this vaccine.

There's a clear benefit to taking the vaccine, and no disadvantages as long as it's started early enough so that you can be assured to not already have HPV. Why the hell would you avoid it?

Re:HPV does NOT cause cervical cancer (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25275877)

This is interesting?? This should be modded "astroturfing fundamentalist douchebag."

Your scientific evidence is based on a "classification petition" from a private company to the FDA? More like you're another one of those dittoheads with a right wing agenda who is trying to get Gardasil banned, and is willing to let thousands of young women die so that our scientific norms will comply with your intrusive "abstinence-only" view of reality.

That briefing, you idiot, simply states that the risk of cancer is potentially increased in already sero-positive women who accidentally receive the vaccine...which only makes a case for better detection, but does not implicate the vaccine's effectiveness in HPV-negative women (whom it is designed to PROTECT!)

My girlfriend is a survivor of HPV induced cervical cancer, and in my America, people like you who try to mess with science and public opinion in order to push a Disneyland worldview would be taken out back and shot.

Look, if you itinerants don't want the vaccine for your ingrate children, don't give it to them, but don't try to prevent me and mine from having access to it. Especially by twisting science, and quoting ridiculously pseudo-scientific sources.

FOOL. DIAF.

Re:HPV does NOT cause cervical cancer (1)

truesaer (135079) | more than 5 years ago | (#25275899)

Seems to me like what you're saying is the same as HIV doesn't kill you, the secondary effects of chronic infection from HIV kill you. That's not a reason to stop trying to prevent HIV infection.

As for Gardasil, it is only recommended for pre-pubescent girls and the FDA rejected a request to expand usage to women in their teens and 20s.

Re:HPV does NOT cause cervical cancer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25276905)

but cervical cancer is one of the most treatable forms of cancer out there

It's a shame that HPV doesn't cause penis cancer, I bet even the ardent fundies would think twice before chopping their dick off to prove a point.

Re:HPV does NOT cause cervical cancer (2, Informative)

kaliann (1316559) | more than 5 years ago | (#25277257)

a) Persistent infection with HPV can cause cancer. Gardasil is designed to prevent infection with the 2 of the high risk strains associated with 50% of cervical cancer. Saying that HPV doesn't cause cervical cancer is like saying viruses don't cause colds: not all viruses cause colds, but infection with certain rhinoviruses combined with not clearing them leads to the disease. It's true that most HPV infections are cleared spontaneously, usually withing 2 years. However, almost all cases of cervical cancer require infection with HPV.

b) The evidence that the vaccine increases the risk of lesions is equivocal. One group of the several groups examined had an increase in lesions in the women who already had HPV infections. The treatment group, in that case, was also found to be higher in risk factors for lesions with comparison to the placebo group. Several of the other groups showed no significant increase in lesions. Not saying that it's not possible, but the evidence is weak due to the study being confounded by other risk factor differences and a lack of repeatability. More investigation is required.

c) Cervical cancer is NOT one of the more treatable forms of cancer. It's very PREVENTABLE in many cases with safer sex protocols (though condoms are not as effective in prevention of HPV transmission versus, say, HIV), regular checkups, and treatment of precancerous lesions. Unfortunately it's quite a serious disease to try to treat: even early stages are addressed with a radical hysterectomy in most cases.

Honestly, I'm not sure that Gardasil is the hot thing that everybody thinks, but exaggerating the risks of the vaccine while minimizing the potential danger of the disease scares me. Educating yourself is important. This is the number 2 cancer in women and it's due to an STI. People should know a lot more about it.

How come these guys win awards? (5, Funny)

MosesJones (55544) | more than 5 years ago | (#25275051)

Come on, they've discovered hugely dangerous things through their "scientific" discoveries. HIV and HCV kill millions of people every year and these people are being praised for discovering them. Much like the lauded Newton who discovered gravity which has led to millions of deaths through falling and having heavy things land on people it is typical of the scientific community to reward these people who discover things that only give harm to people. These claims of "evolving" viruses are really just more proof that scientists are waging a war against normal people.

Only the other day I was hearing that scientists were poisoning our children by suggesting that di-Hydrogen Monoxide should be drunk instead of Sunny Delight, its appalling what we let these scientists get away with.

Brought to you by the people who think that Evolution is a scientific conspiracy.

Re:How come these guys win awards? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25275209)

"Troll"???? Wow. People Unclear On The Concept.

Although, he did forget that Nobel himself invented dynamite.

Re:How come these guys win awards? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25275775)

So, the discoveries of X-rays (Rontgen, Physics Nobel 1901) and DNA (Watson and Crick, Medicine Nobel 1962) weren't really all that important?

Re:How come these guys win awards? (1)

Pictish Prince (988570) | more than 5 years ago | (#25277195)

"Troll"???? Wow. People Unclear On The Concept.
Although, he did forget that Nobel himself invented dynamite.

Yes. To clear up confusion I suggest that the prize be renamed, "The Fisherman's Friend Award"

how about the nobel for economics this year? (4, Funny)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 5 years ago | (#25275431)

please announce the nobel for economics this year, so we can tar and feather him, and set him afire as he protests that its like blaming the weatherman for a bad hurricane

maybe then the gods will be happy and we can get free houses and credit cards again

Re:how about the nobel for economics this year? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25275969)

please announce the nobel for economics this year, so we can tar and feather him, and set him afire as he protests that its like blaming the weatherman for a bad hurricane

maybe then the gods will be happy and we can get free houses and credit cards again

Except there is no Nobel Prize for economics. Economics is not an area in which Alfred Nobel would have wanted to award a prize.

It is the "The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel" sponsored by the Sveriges Riksbank. It is a self serving prize to justify the actions of the Sveriges Riksbank.

You left out dark phlogiston (1)

grikdog (697841) | more than 5 years ago | (#25275619)

Although dark phlogiston actually increases the mass of combustible residua by leaving behind oxidized molecules, just as the so-called "Lavoisier Combustion Theory" predicts, just not as much, until the LHC it was impossible to determine that the mass gained actually exceeds the contribution of oxygen less light pressure by a significant delta, leading to the darkly immaterial conclusion that mentioning Schödinger's Cat without actually examining it requires it to be simultaneously alive or dead in wherever fine products are sold.
FEE, FIE, FOE, FOO... >*Poof!*

Re:You left out dark phlogiston (1)

Pictish Prince (988570) | more than 5 years ago | (#25277225)

LMFAO
Where are my mod points????

Re:You left out dark phlogiston (1)

Abreu (173023) | more than 5 years ago | (#25277487)

You win

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...