IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New ..a March for Science, 4-22-17 in D.C. (You'unses Eastward: Be There --> y'Hear!?)
AAAS.

A March for Science—in April: The ScienceInsider briefing


By Catherine Matacic Feb. 1, 2017 , 5:15 PM

Nominations. Confirmations. Boycotts. Things on Capitol Hill are getting messy. And so are things in the scientific community. Yesterday, more than 150 scientific societies sent a letter to U.S. President Donald Trump urging him to rescind his recent executive order on visas and immigration. Meanwhile, scientists from affected countries are getting shut out of major conferences in the United States and making alternate plans for research. And of course the big news of the day—so far—is Trump’s pick for the Supreme Court, Neil Gorsuch.

What does all of this mean for science? Read on!

The front page
On 22 April, empiricists around the country will march for science
SIGN UP FOR OUR DAILY NEWSLETTER
Get more great content like this delivered right to you!


A grassroots team is organizing a March for Science on Washington, D.C., for 22 April. Organizers have said they want to appeal to anyone who, as its mission statement puts it, “champions publicly funded and publicly communicated science as a pillar of human freedom and prosperity.” But the march has spurred debate over whether it is a good idea. Some fear it might only serve to paint scientists as an interest group, further politicizing scientific issues. Science

[. . .]
New I'll be there.
ScienceMarchDC on Twitter

I'm thinking about whether to get a brain hat or just wear a pussyhat. One or the other.

Here's hoping for a good turnout!

I will probably be a the Tax March on April 15 too, but that seems to be much less organized so far.

Cheers,
Scott.
New My daughter and I will be, too.
bcnu,
Mikem

It's mourning in America again.
New Science disconnect
http://www.pewinternet.org/interactives/public-scientists-opinion-gap/

Have humans evolved over time? Inquiring minds...
New I'd like to see a breakdown by field of AAAS response to the Space Station.
I'm guessing that has at least something to do with envy. When Clinton killed the supercollider back in 1993, I was talking to a research chemist about it and he said he thought it was a good thing, "Because many smaller projects in other areas of science can be funded instead." I've long since lost track of him, but I'd love to know how much of the supercollider's savings were redirected to other efforts. My guess is none.
bcnu,
Mikem

It's mourning in America again.
New Congress killed the SSC.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-supercollider-that-never-was/

A good article.

Originally estimated to cost $4.4 billion, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to kill the project in the summer of 1992, when costs had risen to $8.25 billion, but it was saved by the Senate, although a $100-million cut below requested funds put the project further behind schedule, increasing its costs even more. By the fall of 1993 the estimated cost had risen to a minimum of $11 billion (equivalent to $18 billion today), in part because administrative overhead proved larger than anticipated, and refined calculations of expected beam losses lead to a magnet redesign. (There were to be about 10,000 of them in the ring.) The latter’s increased cost, about $2 billion, could have been avoided by accepting a smaller ring and its resulting lower energy, but that idea was rejected by upper scientific and academic management.

But not all of the project’s costs were included in the initial estimates, according to a DoE report completed four years after the ax came down. About $500 million for detectors, $400 million for operations needed before the lab was finished, $60 million for land purchases and $118 million for DoE project management were excluded from cost estimates. Crucial to projects of such a size, a project cost and scheduling system was never fully implemented, concealing substantial cost overruns, according to the report.


There were lots of reasons why it died. Putting it in Hootchitfatchit, Texas rather than at Fermilab in Illinois was one of the first and expensive bad choices (but this article doesn't mention that).

There weren't any "savings" in killing the SSC - it was already far over budget when it was killed.

Cheers,
Scott.
New Who signed it into law? Congress? </me falls over>
WASHINGTON, Oct. 30— Lamenting its death as "a serious loss" to science, President Clinton on Friday signed a bill killing the $11 billion superconducting supercollider project.

Mr. Clinton was forced to accept the termination of the Texas project when a budget-conscious Congress voted to abandon the program, which is one-fifth complete with a 14-mile-long underground tunnel and complex of laboratory buildings.

About $640 million for the project had been in an energy and water spending bill. That money will now be spent to dismantle the project.

"This project was an important element of our nation's science program," Mr. Clinton said in a written statement, "and its termination is a serious loss for the field of high energy physics."

http://www.nytimes.com/1993/10/31/us/stating-regret-clinton-signs-bill-that-kills-supercollider.html

So, the "budget-conscious Congress" wasn't concerned with "saving money"? Let me guess, it's still Congress' fault that WJC signed the bill killing it and that's okay because, after all, WJC "felt our pain" when he did it.

Seriously, can we never expect to see a single criticism of the Clintons from you, ever?
bcnu,
Mikem

It's mourning in America again.
New "forced". HTH.
New Forced on repeal Glass-Stegall, end welfare as we know it, NAFTA, Ruben @ Treasury, etc. right?
bcnu,
Mikem

It's mourning in America again.
New It's very hard to have a conversation with you when you keep bringing up extraneous things...
New Mostly unsurprising, given the level of sci. knowledge in the main tribes.


cf. Alex's Sig, a timeless guidepost to Murican weirdness, generally (?)
     ..a March for Science, 4-22-17 in D.C. (You'unses Eastward: Be There --> y'Hear!?) - (Ashton) - (10)
         I'll be there. - (Another Scott) - (1)
             My daughter and I will be, too. -NT - (mmoffitt)
         Science disconnect - (dmcarls) - (7)
             I'd like to see a breakdown by field of AAAS response to the Space Station. - (mmoffitt) - (5)
                 Congress killed the SSC. - (Another Scott) - (4)
                     Who signed it into law? Congress? </me falls over> - (mmoffitt) - (3)
                         "forced". HTH. -NT - (Another Scott) - (2)
                             Forced on repeal Glass-Stegall, end welfare as we know it, NAFTA, Ruben @ Treasury, etc. right? -NT - (mmoffitt) - (1)
                                 It's very hard to have a conversation with you when you keep bringing up extraneous things... -NT - (Another Scott)
             Mostly unsurprising, given the level of sci. knowledge in the main tribes. -NT - (Ashton)

Cool. What am I breaking?
59 ms