Evil and mad - scientists (Apr/13/2008 )
Have a look here:
http://www.evilmadscientist.com/
Not really evil, but funny.
-hobglobin-
Ha ha ha 
The Sierpinski cookies look funny. I might try them in the next lab seminar.
I am sure that the guy who made a gingerbread-microscope (was not even looking like a microscope at all) for the Christmas, is going to be soooo jealous.
-zek-
-Bungalow Boy-
Here is what I want to try but might want to make it even more crazier http://www.evilmadscientist.com/article.php/usbkey
Ideas please
-Bungalow Boy-
talking about mad and crazy scientists...what do you guys think about sharing raw information online? the idea is Science 2.0. there's a further description in scientific american (if you like that journal...) so...do you promise to behave and not steal other people's results?
-toejam-
In theory it is GREAT!! I would love it 
But that we are doing science, does not change the fact we are human. It remains me the stupid Ebay comments people are giving about others.
Am I wrong?
-zek-
QUOTE (zek @ Apr 25 2008, 10:55 PM)
In theory it is GREAT!! I would love it
But that we are doing science, does not change the fact we are human. It remains me the stupid Ebay comments people are giving about others.
Am I wrong?
But that we are doing science, does not change the fact we are human. It remains me the stupid Ebay comments people are giving about others.
Am I wrong?
In an ideal society it might work but here...
. Science and democracy do they really work together? IMO not and in science democracy is not necessary but out of it's element. Wkipedia is the limit, but it is maximal popular science /though it is used here often as source) -hobglobin-
QUOTE (hobglobin @ Apr 25 2008, 04:06 PM)
In an ideal society it might work but here... . Science and democracy do they really work together? IMO not and in science democracy is not necessary but out of it's element. Wkipedia is the limit, but it is maximal popular science /though it is used here often as source)
. Science and democracy do they really work together? IMO not and in science democracy is not necessary but out of it's element. Wkipedia is the limit, but it is maximal popular science /though it is used here often as source)where is democracy completely necessary? democracy is the ultimate method to have insatisfied populations. i think the open information project could be useful in the way that it could improve your research (two brains think better than one...not always, but you know what i mean)
wikipedia was compared to the encyclopedia britannica in an investigation published in nature. the result:
QUOTE
Jimmy Wales' Wikipedia comes close to Britannica in terms of the accuracy of its science entries, a Nature investigation finds.
that was in 2005, should have improved a lot since then, so why shouldn't it be used here (or elsewhere) often as source?
-toejam-
QUOTE (toejam @ Apr 25 2008, 01:44 PM)
talking about mad and crazy scientists...what do you guys think about sharing raw information online? the idea is Science 2.0. there's a further description in scientific american (if you like that journal...) so...do you promise to behave and not steal other people's results?
Steal results or ideas? Patent laws, bioethics, intellectual property thefts, fraud? So what's the idea..if nobody owns anything nor has any claim to anything then we wouldn't be mired in all this ethical wrangling? Who will benefit and who will lose all benefits?
-casandra-
QUOTE (toejam @ Apr 25 2008, 11:17 PM)
QUOTE (hobglobin @ Apr 25 2008, 04:06 PM)
In an ideal society it might work but here... . Science and democracy do they really work together? IMO not and in science democracy is not necessary but out of it's element. Wkipedia is the limit, but it is maximal popular science /though it is used here often as source)
. Science and democracy do they really work together? IMO not and in science democracy is not necessary but out of it's element. Wkipedia is the limit, but it is maximal popular science /though it is used here often as source)where is democracy completely necessary? democracy is the ultimate method to have insatisfied populations. i think the open information project could be useful in the way that it could improve your research (two brains think better than one...not always, but you know what i mean)
wikipedia was compared to the encyclopedia britannica in an investigation published in nature. the result:
QUOTE
Jimmy Wales' Wikipedia comes close to Britannica in terms of the accuracy of its science entries, a Nature investigation finds.
that was in 2005, should have improved a lot since then, so why shouldn't it be used here (or elsewhere) often as source?I'm a fan of democrazy at least in politics...its the least evil of all systems (but thats another topic).
If you write a paper normally many people-scientists are involved, you and your coworkers, the PI, various other scientists and profs you ask for comments, help, translation, corrections. Then the refeeres and editors. Are this not enough?? And after publication someone can write a comment, or review or objection.
But most of them understand soemthing about the topic, are interested ot at leat objective and neutral referees, in a wiki project not. And with this special topics the number of participants is smaller but eh impact bigger, imagine then a GMO-opponent if you want to publish something in this field.
Wikipedia (that I like) it now works, many people are involved ("intelligence of the many") but also many controls (moderators and editors) are necessary.
-hobglobin-