0
make research more productive
Posted by
treonsverdery
,
23 January 2008
·
779 views
make research more productive: recently I noticed that two decades had passed since people figured out upregulating liver enzymes blocks atherosclerosis; I was recently thrilled to note that a researcher had gotten around to combining high density lipoproteins with immunoreactive material to create an atherosclerosis reducing vaccine; work that could have been done a forty years ago; I also note lots of awesome, appreciated detailed science
I like scientists because they make observations; as a technologist I just make things up out of pieces of existing observed phenomena
If the observers had communicated their knowledge with even whimsical stories more better things would come to be
I'd like to have scientists create a channel of immediate prospective application; a little like the anonymous science humor column Nature magazine features; this is different than the grant wording where they say why their their thing may apply to a specific purpose; I guess you could call it reality optional relevance titillation
hypothesis
methods
results
discussion
Kickstart
everyone's peer scientists might make those brave leaps to application if they put a relevance titillation section as a standard part of their papers to kickstart the possibility of applications
just making one up
method:
Using the optimal keyboard randomization model 7 grams of f3 keys were isolated from the upper portions of 70 Kg of computer keyboards, sorted with an optical alphaspectrometer then divided into fractions of 99 pt purity
700 grams of 3 keys (sigma-aldritch) were layered on a 300 cm sheet of acrylamide gel; lidded, then linearly accelerated at 3 Gs for about half an hour. The faceplantogram was passaged through several rinses of toluene leaving only the morphology profile on the gel
results:
on adhesion angle tests with a placing vibrator at 2 cycles per second f3 keys adhered to the faceplantogram at .9 specificity while shift keys adhered with .1 specificity
discussion:
Our results support the idea that the f3 key shares functional morphology with the 3 key but not the shift key; 3 as well as f3 are members of the character group
the work of dvorak et al suggest that only morphologically variant keys are function keys as well as the hypertrophied "mouse" key
Kickstart
ever since the publication of the Alt-tab phenomenon (wow!) researchers have been asking if perhaps the keys are more than mere shapes; our natural revealed knowledge about the entire human genome suggests the tiresome "codon" word production analogy
I like to think that the morphological characteristics matter right now
there are a couple ways: attach groups of hypertrophied "mouse" keys to your feet to double or triple rolling velocity; perhaps as a new kind of shoe for clinical practice or even recreational ; I've got a dubious feeling about actually glueing keys to the monitor to create "words" but glueing just a particular key to the monitor then splicing the monitor power cord through a pair of key nested zinc fingers could create a kind of "power switch" perhaps giving the organism the ability to hibernate or have a more efficient metabolism
I like scientists because they make observations; as a technologist I just make things up out of pieces of existing observed phenomena
If the observers had communicated their knowledge with even whimsical stories more better things would come to be
I'd like to have scientists create a channel of immediate prospective application; a little like the anonymous science humor column Nature magazine features; this is different than the grant wording where they say why their their thing may apply to a specific purpose; I guess you could call it reality optional relevance titillation
hypothesis
methods
results
discussion
Kickstart
everyone's peer scientists might make those brave leaps to application if they put a relevance titillation section as a standard part of their papers to kickstart the possibility of applications
potentially humorous
just making one up
the f3 key shares functional morphology with the 3 key but not the shift key
method:
Using the optimal keyboard randomization model 7 grams of f3 keys were isolated from the upper portions of 70 Kg of computer keyboards, sorted with an optical alphaspectrometer then divided into fractions of 99 pt purity
700 grams of 3 keys (sigma-aldritch) were layered on a 300 cm sheet of acrylamide gel; lidded, then linearly accelerated at 3 Gs for about half an hour. The faceplantogram was passaged through several rinses of toluene leaving only the morphology profile on the gel
results:
on adhesion angle tests with a placing vibrator at 2 cycles per second f3 keys adhered to the faceplantogram at .9 specificity while shift keys adhered with .1 specificity
discussion:
Our results support the idea that the f3 key shares functional morphology with the 3 key but not the shift key; 3 as well as f3 are members of the character group
the work of dvorak et al suggest that only morphologically variant keys are function keys as well as the hypertrophied "mouse" key
Kickstart
ever since the publication of the Alt-tab phenomenon (wow!) researchers have been asking if perhaps the keys are more than mere shapes; our natural revealed knowledge about the entire human genome suggests the tiresome "codon" word production analogy
I like to think that the morphological characteristics matter right now
there are a couple ways: attach groups of hypertrophied "mouse" keys to your feet to double or triple rolling velocity; perhaps as a new kind of shoe for clinical practice or even recreational ; I've got a dubious feeling about actually glueing keys to the monitor to create "words" but glueing just a particular key to the monitor then splicing the monitor power cord through a pair of key nested zinc fingers could create a kind of "power switch" perhaps giving the organism the ability to hibernate or have a more efficient metabolism
