Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

1. 

   Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2001 @ 9:38am

   
   

   No Subject Given

   sigh.

   Did you laugh when car manufacturers took all those hard and pointy design features out of car interiors?

   Why are you making light of this? This *is* serious research. Eventually, most of us will be old and weaker. I for one would rather my quality of life diminish as little as possible.

   Hmm-- would I rather science make people's life better, or should science masturbate over theoretical particles and then later decide they were fictious in the first place?

   There's all kinds of stuff like this in our society. Take the doors in your house for instance. Instead of having those little weather seal bumps on the bottom of the exterior doorways-- these should be flush with the floor and exterior stoop. This makes it easier on the shuffling feet of the elderly, as well as easing wheel chair access.

   All doors for that matter should be wide enough for wheel chairs and all cabinets and drawers should be easily openable by the arthritic. (Now that the baby boomers are aging, retrofitting these features is becoming a big business-- and retrofitting costs a lot more than initial construction).

   
   Which has had more of an effect on your life?--squeezable condiment bottles-- or quarks? I'd bet it's ketchup.

   Quit being a science snob-- all knowledge is valuable-- but some of it is actually useful too.
   

   [ link to this | view in thread ]

2. 

   Ed, 13 Dec 2001 @ 11:58am

   
   

   Re: No Subject Given

   Anonymous Coward has a point. Just because a topic of research is mundane doesn't mean that isn't worthwhile.
   
   It's probably apocryphal, but E.E.Doc Smith (a pulp SF space opera writer) spent his entire career as an organic chemist working on making powdered sugar stick to donuts. Bravo to him: I have more respect for the guy who does that than the one who builds an energy trading company out of financial smoke and mirrors.

   [ link to this | view in thread ]

3. 

   Mike (profile), 13 Dec 2001 @ 12:34pm

   
   

   Re: No Subject Given

   Okay... okay. Point taken. Perhaps I was a bit overzealous in making fun of this. I do completely understand how such research can be important and relevant and useful. My point was really just the silliness of the idea that the problem with jars being screwed closed too tight is that... well, the jars are screwed closed too tight. I wasn't saying that this type of research shouldn't be done at all.
   
   Apologies to whoever was offended.
   
   I am all for jars that can't be screwed closed too tightly. I will be the first person to line up to buy one when they become available.

   [ link to this | view in thread ]

4. 

   msykes, 13 Dec 2001 @ 2:38pm

   
   

   Re: No Subject Given

   Forget about it, anonymous coward is being a bit of a tool here. It's a valid point, sure, that jars are having their lids scewed on too tight. But the point is, do we really need research to tell us this? It's called common sense. Lids that are screwed on really tightly are hard to remove, and pointy things are dangerous. I could have told you all of that without any research.
   
   Now methods to prevent them from being screwed on too tightly is a little more reasonable a subject for research, but if the best they come up with is "to a set torque specification", well again common sense prevails.
   
   msykes
   

   [ link to this | view in thread ]

5. 

   Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2001 @ 2:39pm

   
   

   Re: No Subject Given

   and yet, before the research, there was no torque specification...
   
   

   [ link to this | view in thread ]

6. 

   Tech "N Artist, 13 Dec 2001 @ 3:19pm

   
   

   Maybe it is barometric pressure or something

   Well I for one am not in the habit of screwing lids on too tight, but sometimes I find it difficult when I go to reopen one.
   
   I wonder how much things like the barometric pressure differential between the outside and the inside makes a difference. Or perhaps food on the screw threads is acting as an adhesive, it sure does with paint.
   
   
   

   [ link to this | view in thread ]

7. 

   msykes, 13 Dec 2001 @ 11:09pm

   
   

   Re: No Subject Given

   Again, the clever anonymous coward misses the point. The point is not that a torque specification is a bad thing, the point is that we really don't need an entire research study to tell us these things!
   
   msykes
   
   PS: I usually have better things to do than reply to this kind of thing, but my darn DVD player is still on the fritz!

   [ link to this | view in thread ]

8. 

   researcher, 14 Dec 2001 @ 1:09am

   
   

   Re: No Subject Given

   Yes we do need research!!! How do you know what they investigated? Have you read the paper? Just because their results show that we screw the lids on too tight doesn't mean that they didn't investigate dozens of causes. It's like the research that demonstrated that fat people eat too much - it was pretty obvious to me, but in particular they eliminated the "it's a medical condition" or "it's my glands" excuses, the people were just greedy.

   [ link to this | view in thread ]

9. 

   Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2001 @ 7:17am

   
   

   Re: No Subject Given

   And you miss my point-- you can't say, with your 20/20 hindsight, oh yeah-- that's obvious, we should have never researched that. That's the point of research, it reveals things, then they will be obvious, and can be applied.
   I could say-- screw on lids should be made of stickier material so people can get a better grip, then the lids will come off easier. That's obvious right? But is it true? Will it really work?
   Of course it will-- let's just change the entire assembly line...
   The point of research is that it's *cheaper* than failed products.
   

   [ link to this | view in thread ]