RogerToryPete Tweet!
This article was originally published with the title 140-Character Study.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
See Inside
Here is what might happen if the science greats "tweeted."
RogerToryPete Tweet!
This article was originally published with the title 140-Character Study.
Deadline: Jul 25 2013
Reward: Varies
This challenge provides an opportunity for Solvers to build a web-based or mobile “app” to explore data relationships in scholarly conte
Deadline: Jul 15 2013
Reward: $5,000 USD
SciBX: Science-Business eXchange, a joint publication from the makers
Powered By: 
20 Comments
Add CommentJimAlEwing @HairyAlbert E's McTwo
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJimAlEwing @HairyAlbert E's McTwo
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGreat piece! I also appreciated your reference to the Odd Couple episode in which Felix and Oscar were on the Password game show (Aristophanes=Ridiculous)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYeah, nice one. But you're missing an important fact. 99.999% percent of tweets are completely irrelevant to human history, and 99.9% of tweeters are people who just don't matter. Most real scientists don't tweet on their findings like that. I know you know that, but I just don't like Tweeter being given an importance it clearly doesn't have and will never have.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne of your finest pieces. You could put in something like the following.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlancksalot @ hairy albert: did you get my packet (In reference to the fundamental notion of quantum of energy Max Planck came up with in 1900).
But it still is the most elegant burlesque of Twitter.
LikeAShroed @ Plancksalot: Have you seen my cat?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@weltschmerz
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou're missing an important fact: 99.9% of Human History is irrelevant to human history.
Twitter is just a tool, don't disparage just because you don't see any use for it. So what? Don't use it.
Great article...but a real pain to view on the Droid. The pop-over subscription ad really gets in the way and isn't easy to close.
Fun article. Loved the Gretzky reference.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFun article. Loved the Gretzky reference.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBrilliant - you're the Master of the Universe for laugh out loud comedy that manages to by-pass all gastric bodily functions, and make its way to the neuro-circuitry.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't know which made me smile more: the article, or my embarrassment at spending *far* too long working out who OzAScarecrow is... I'm just glad I didn't try to prove his "theorem".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishairy albert@ likeashroed: It is very fuzzy, much like my hair. I'm off to be the head of Israel. Aaaah, Nazi's!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@galaxy_man: you could call him 'likeashroedingstone'.
Very similar thing here: http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1198
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI wrote this a couple of months ago on the same theme http://thirdopinion.nu/2010/01/twitter-philosophy/
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this/P.O.
Brilliant. Loved the "let's make applesauce" line. And wow, there's SJGould too. :)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm confused which Plancksalot one I like more. @quantumgravity666 @galaxy_man :P
Love it. A shot the Huffington Post, too. "seriously, you're embarrassing us." hahaha
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"People who just don't matter"?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWow. Is there still room in your fan club? Oh, I'll bet you have SO many friends already.
I wish I could be like you, so I could do the right thing and kill myself.
99.9% of tweeters are people that don't matter?? I'm not a tweeter . . . do you have a rate of importance on non tweeters?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Weltschmerz
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDon't you know that 99.999% of statistics are erroneous?
@Weltschmerz
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDon't you know that 99.999% of statistics are erroneous?