TOP 100 SCIENCE SITES
| |||
|
| |||
| |||
|
| |||
| Why would happiness stop at £50k? US scientists have declared that happiness is not increased by earning more than £50,000 a year. Oh really?Until you reach an annual salary of 50 grand, every penny counts in the human quest for happiness: after that, according to US scientists (or "top" US scientists, as I believe they like to be known), it really doesn't make much difference. You could be on £100k or £10m; your net joy will be the same. There is very little emotional difference between Jane Asher and Bill Gates.It has the ring of bollocks, doesn't it? The researchers explain it by saying, "Money can provide only so much cushioning against the pressures of bringing up a family, running a home and holding down a job." What they really mean is, you can't delegate children entirely, unless you live in Victorian times. Running a home is very easy to delegate. So they should, as a control, remove people with children from the study, whereupon they would discover that parents just moan a lot, and money rocks.This study represents an enough-is-as-good-as-a-feast approach, as you might take with food. In fact, money is more like booze: unless you are missing a gene or don't like the taste, you want whatever you've got in front of you, plus some more. Money was only invented as a metaphor for the human trait of insatiability.Huh. So they are right. Fifty grand is all you need, for precisely this reason: no amount is ever enough for anyone. You will never be satisfied. But in this state of dissatisfaction, it helps for overall happiness if you're not also hungry and worrying about rent. They don't call them top scientists for nothing, you know.Who earns close to £50K?£55,921 Senior local government official£51,789 Police chief inspector£50,143 Software consultant£49,466 Inner London headteacher/deputy head£46,451 Inner London consultant midwifeSources: ONS, police-information.co.uk, nhscareers.nhs.uk, tes.co.ukPayPsychologyZoe Williamsguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds guardian.co.uk |
US likely to approve GM 'Frankenfish' A panel of scientific experts has begun two days of hearings in Washington to decide whether a genetically modified salmon - dubbed the 'Frankenfish' - should be approved for human consumption. abc.net.au |
Condom Use Is Highest for Young, Study Finds A study of Americans’ sexual behavior finds teenagers are more responsible than adults about using condoms. feeds.nytimes.com |
String theory and colour-field splash Using images and art to try and understand science can be helpful, misleading, flaky or fun. But it seems to be inescapable.So on a relaxing Saturday morning, where the fact that my daughter and I are recuperating from colds means I am excused swimming, I finally got around to watching this video I was sent some time ago by Mike Bernstein.I'm sceptical about string theory, and about art appropriating science buzzwords to give itself some intellectual frisson. But I like the imagery here (and the hat) and it set me thinking a bit about how I use pictures to help me understand physics.Various concepts wheeled in to discuss the recent CMS results are known as "colour glass condensate" and "quark-gluon plasma". (Personally it doesn't seem likely to me they have anything to do with it, but we shall see). Even the names "gluon" (the boson which carries the strong force) or "string theory" itself tell you that people are latching on to images from the everyday to help label and understand complex mathematical constructs.Pictures can be helpful, they can also mislead. I guess it is the mathematics and the data which nudge them along the right track, discarding false trails and reinforcing genuine insights. Anyway, thanks Mike for making me think, and I thought I would pass it on. And I do like the pictures too. More of them at the Saatchi online gallery.This isn't a queue to mail me zillions of sciency-arty links, but I would be very happy if you wanted to add some in the comments, as Mike did here.Jon Butterworthguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds guardian.co.uk |
You Can't Trust Science! "Science has an agenda! Science is unreliable!" If you've ever heard a religious person say these words, you'll love this videoScience is all about evidence. It is based in reality, in facts and in testable evidence -- individual reputations do not change scientific facts, nor does belief, brainwashing and coercion. Scientists test and re-test scientific hypotheses about how the universe is put together and how it functions using the latest cutting-edge technologies. Despite this, there are adults who are taken seriously when they loudly declare: "Science has an agenda! Science is unreliable!" Using this distraction to begin a conversation that they want to dominate, these people then pontificate about their personal fantasy life as if it is real, demanding that everyone else in the world share their particular delusions, and they are taken seriously -- without having to produce a shred of real evidence to support their statements.GrrlScientistguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds guardian.co.uk |