Slashdot Mirror

This analogy might prove interesting to you.

Another system that is incredibly complex in terms of a lot of moving bodies is a liquid. One cubic centimetre of water (the size of a sugar cube?) will have on the order of 100 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 molecules in it, crashing into each other billions of times every second.

And yet single-molecule condensed phase spectroscopy has been a thing for at least 20 years: https://doi.org/10.1146/annure.... Heck, people can make movies of individual chemical reactions happening at the femtosecond timescale!

M.P. Minitti, J.M. Budarz, A. Kirrander, J.S. Robinson, D. Ratner, T.J. Lane, D. Zhu, J.M. Glownia, M. Kozina, H.T. Lemke, M. Sikorski, Y. Feng, S. Nelson, K. Saita, B. Stankus, T. Northey, J.B. Hastings, and P.M. Weber. Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 255501 – Published 22 June 2015

I am not saying that M87 is similar to a box of water in terms of the challenges it presents. But I am saying that the combined amount of human knowledge surrounding some of these problems can make complex things doable.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.zeme... among other sources.

Here's a question: as the earth's magnetic field is based significantly on the location of the magnetic pole, the strength of any electromagnetic field varies significantly depending on the incidence angle of incoming particles (ie to exclude solar wind) has anyone studied what impact this shift would have on earth's climate?

Yes.

Danish astrophysicist Henrik Svensmark and Danish geophysicists Mads Knudsen and Peter Riisager say those shifts in the magnetic field that allow more charged particles to enter the atmosphere affect cloud formation in the upper atmosphere. They say the current alignment has been reducing cloud formation and precipitation at lower latitudes for the last hundred years, increasing temperatures.

Knudsen, Mads F. and Peter Riisager. "Is there a link between Earth’s magnetic field and low-latitude precipitation?" Geology (2009) 37 (1) pp 71-74.

They didn't have the nerve to title the paper with a declarative, but their abstract says yes, there's a significant statistical correlation.

I wonder if SpaceX are looking at Waverider designs for BFR re-entry.
With a strongly negative dihedral, you can contain the shock wave under the "wings" and use it as a lifting surface - "compression lift".
To change your lift direction you roll the vehicle around the inside of the shock cone.

Since the purpose of such "wings" is to contain the shock rather than generate lift directly, they don't need much thickness, just (a lot of) heat resistance - maybe even something as flimsy as a woven mesh. ...which means they could be folded and stowed for other phases of flight to reduce drag, you could easily swap out the wings for different planetary atmospheres, and by having your payload/CG on a sliding sled you need fewer control surfaces - like a hang glider.

(Citation: https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2015...)

TLDR / WAG: Replacing those huge leg-stablizer-thngs on the "Tintin BFR" with something resembling fold-away mosquito netting would add a lot of lightness....could this be Elon's "delightfully counter-intuitive" new BFR design?

The proposal was made in 2007:
https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.jt...

Clicked the Nature article. It says Some estimate that the combined electricity consumption for bitcoin and ethereum mining, which together represent 88% of the total cryptocurrency market capitalization (G. Hileman and M. Rauchs http://doi.org/cj22; 2017), has already reached a staggering 47 terawatt-hours per year and is on the rise”. Checking source, it says As a reference, it is estmated that Bitcoin alone currently consumes about 10.41 TWh per year, which is close to the yearly energy consumpton of Uruguay, a country with 3.3 million inhabitants” (Filter error: That's an awful long string of letters there - this was supposed to be the PDF URL but Slashdot won't allow it).

Clicked the Forbes article: So all of the hysteria about cryptocurrency energy use is going to go away in the next few months.”

Clicked the The Guardian article. It quotes the same source as seen elsewhere, from Digiconomist (https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption). The issue with it is that it is controversial, with other estimates, within the very same article (https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption#validation) showing a much lower value.

Now I'm not going to say Bitcoin and altcoins aren't large energy consumers, but putting things into perspective, my own (Eastern European) country consumes in one year more than the highest cryptocurrency estimates worldwide. I'm not overly concerned about either.

This next one is, or at least a radar base on this principal. The Chinese are the ones doing this particular experiment, so they are likely ahead of the pack already.

Here is the basis for my concept:
Cao, Y., Li, Y.-H., Cao, Z., Yin, J., Chen, Y.-A., Yin, H.-L., Pan, J.-W. (2017).
Direct counterfactual communication via quantum Zeno effect.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 5.
http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.16...

Basically, you set up a special inferometer where one channel *could* theoretically propagate to the target (Alice->Bob) and potentially reflect back, while the other channel is actually measured (Alice->Alice). The changes on the target side (e.g. Bobs remote configuration) then changes the measured value as seen on the originating side (Alice), but no photons are physically required nor measured propagating to the target! In essence, you now have a radar that does not radiate, thus it isn't giving away your position. It is able to sense changes on the other side using no actual photons. Its a stealth radar, and perfect for my next basement F-35 upgrade project.

Any investors out there?

Here you go, from Scientific American https://www.scientificamerican...

You reference an audio clip? WTF? Here is a real reference: doi: 10.1073/pnas.0803650105

... when quantum computing is capable of breaking current encryption, that same computer will be providing unbreakable encryption.For example:

. A. Ekert, “Quantum cryptography based on Bell’s theorem,” Phys. Rev. Lett.0031-9007 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRe... 67, 661–663 (1991). Google ScholarCrossref, CAS

Genetic diversity does seem to be a factor, but the question is loaded by talking about "the cause". Given the complexity of the systems it's reasonable to expect there to be multiple relevant factors, and there is also evidence that neonicotinoids are a factor. Regulating pesticides falls within existing legislative frameworks, but I'm not sure about regulating breeding practices.

Genetic diversity does seem to be a factor, but the question is loaded by talking about "the cause". Given the complexity of the systems it's reasonable to expect there to be multiple relevant factors, and there is also evidence that neonicotinoids are a factor. Regulating pesticides falls within existing legislative frameworks, but I'm not sure about regulating breeding practices.

ICT use, as currently practised in primary and secondary education, shows no evidence of academic benefit to students or teachers, while also showing an inverse correlation with decreased academic performance (OECD, 2015). iPads/tablets, laptops, smartphones, etc., in schools are more of a problem than a benefit. Why are taxpayers giving all this money and wasting all their children's and young adults' time with this nonsense?

Yes, there is a specific argument for school pupils to learn to use office software and to search databases for post-secondary studying and work. That's not the same thing as current ICT practices in schools.

Reference: OECD (2015) Students, Computers and Learning: Making The Connection, Paris, OECD Publishing [Online]. Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789... (Accessed 15 September 2015).

Correction: Apple and Google are competing for your tax dollars to defund effective teaching practices and materials, to siphon them off into corporate tax havens, regardless of whether the replacement teaching practices and materials are at all effective.

BTW, a 2015 OECD study http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789... found a negative correlation between ICT use in K-12 schools and academic outcomes, i.e. literacy, maths, science, etc..

Excitingly, elevated levels of CO2 — such as those found in poorly ventilated rooms, or as atmospheric CO2 levels continue to climb, in our environment at large — also diminish our cognitive ability. See, e.g. this paper among others.

If we don't stop burning coal and hydrocarbons soon, we'll be too stupid to ameliorate the consequences,

I strongly disagree. This article is about technology that's used in training for one of the sports at the Winter Olympics. I fail to see your objection, and it's actually very cool to see the spread of technology that's used to monitor athlete performance.

There's a lot of science and technology going on behind the scenes at the Olympics, and sometimes it's an opportunity to demonstrate new ideas. I'm a meteorologist and I worked for someone who participated in the Sydney forecast demonstration project. That project involved testing several systems for making short-range forecasts on the scale of a few hours to predict thunderstorms. Papers about this were published in meteorology journals, such as: https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0434(2004)019%3C0131:SFDPCS%3E2.0.CO;2, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0434(2004)019%3C0115:TSOGFD%3E2.0.CO;2, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-84-8-1041, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0434(2004)019%3C0168:TSSAEI%3E2.0.CO;2, and https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0434(2004)019%3C0097:TIOANS%3E2.0.CO;2. All of those were published in peer-reviewed journals operated by the American Meteorological Society.

This sort of thing has been done at more recent Olympics. For Beijing 2008, papers include https://doi.org/10.1175/2010WAF2222336.1 and https://doi.org/10.1175/2010WAF2222417.1. For Vancouver 2010, here's a scientific paper about forecasting during the Olympics: https://doi.org/10.1175/WAF-D-11-00114.1. Also for Vancouver 2010, here's an article in a peer-reviewed AMS journal that's intended for a more general audience: https://doi.org/10.1175/2009BAMS2998.1. The UK Met Office developed forecasting systems that they tested at the London Olympics: https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00102.1. There was a similar project called FROST-2014 at the Sochi Olympics: https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-15-00307.1 and https://doi.org/10.1175/WAF-D-16-0048.1.

There's a similar project at the PyeongChang Olympics: https://ams.confex.com/ams/98Annual/webprogram/Paper329045.html and https://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/arep/wwrp/new/SCMREX.html. The latter of those links, the WMO page, has a lot of links about past projects at various Olympics. These aren't journal papers because the project is taking place right now at the Olympics, but I fully expect there will be peer-reviewed papers about this as well.

In my field, the Olympics are frequently opportunities to test out new systems and advance our forecasting capabilities. These are often organized by the World Meteorological Organization and are opportunities for international collaboration that advances the science of meteorology.

Just because something is done in relation to the Olympics doesn't make it PR at all. I've linked to plenty of scientific articles about meteorological research and testing of forecasting systems at the Olympics. You should reconsider your statement.

I strongly disagree. This article is about technology that's used in training for one of the sports at the Winter Olympics. I fail to see your objection, and it's actually very cool to see the spread of technology that's used to monitor athlete performance.

There's a lot of science and technology going on behind the scenes at the Olympics, and sometimes it's an opportunity to demonstrate new ideas. I'm a meteorologist and I worked for someone who participated in the Sydney forecast demonstration project. That project involved testing several systems for making short-range forecasts on the scale of a few hours to predict thunderstorms. Papers about this were published in meteorology journals, such as: https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0434(2004)019%3C0131:SFDPCS%3E2.0.CO;2, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0434(2004)019%3C0115:TSOGFD%3E2.0.CO;2, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-84-8-1041, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0434(2004)019%3C0168:TSSAEI%3E2.0.CO;2, and https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0434(2004)019%3C0097:TIOANS%3E2.0.CO;2. All of those were published in peer-reviewed journals operated by the American Meteorological Society.

This sort of thing has been done at more recent Olympics. For Beijing 2008, papers include https://doi.org/10.1175/2010WAF2222336.1 and https://doi.org/10.1175/2010WAF2222417.1. For Vancouver 2010, here's a scientific paper about forecasting during the Olympics: https://doi.org/10.1175/WAF-D-11-00114.1. Also for Vancouver 2010, here's an article in a peer-reviewed AMS journal that's intended for a more general audience: https://doi.org/10.1175/2009BAMS2998.1. The UK Met Office developed forecasting systems that they tested at the London Olympics: https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00102.1. There was a similar project called FROST-2014 at the Sochi Olympics: https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-15-00307.1 and https://doi.org/10.1175/WAF-D-16-0048.1.

There's a similar project at the PyeongChang Olympics: https://ams.confex.com/ams/98Annual/webprogram/Paper329045.html and https://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/arep/wwrp/new/SCMREX.html. The latter of those links, the WMO page, has a lot of links about past projects at various Olympics. These aren't journal papers because the project is taking place right now at the Olympics, but I fully expect there will be peer-reviewed papers about this as well.

In my field, the Olympics are frequently opportunities to test out new systems and advance our forecasting capabilities. These are often organized by the World Meteorological Organization and are opportunities for international collaboration that advances the science of meteorology.

Just because something is done in relation to the Olympics doesn't make it PR at all. I've linked to plenty of scientific articles about meteorological research and testing of forecasting systems at the Olympics. You should reconsider your statement.

I strongly disagree. This article is about technology that's used in training for one of the sports at the Winter Olympics. I fail to see your objection, and it's actually very cool to see the spread of technology that's used to monitor athlete performance.

There's a lot of science and technology going on behind the scenes at the Olympics, and sometimes it's an opportunity to demonstrate new ideas. I'm a meteorologist and I worked for someone who participated in the Sydney forecast demonstration project. That project involved testing several systems for making short-range forecasts on the scale of a few hours to predict thunderstorms. Papers about this were published in meteorology journals, such as: https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0434(2004)019%3C0131:SFDPCS%3E2.0.CO;2, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0434(2004)019%3C0115:TSOGFD%3E2.0.CO;2, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-84-8-1041, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0434(2004)019%3C0168:TSSAEI%3E2.0.CO;2, and https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0434(2004)019%3C0097:TIOANS%3E2.0.CO;2. All of those were published in peer-reviewed journals operated by the American Meteorological Society.

This sort of thing has been done at more recent Olympics. For Beijing 2008, papers include https://doi.org/10.1175/2010WAF2222336.1 and https://doi.org/10.1175/2010WAF2222417.1. For Vancouver 2010, here's a scientific paper about forecasting during the Olympics: https://doi.org/10.1175/WAF-D-11-00114.1. Also for Vancouver 2010, here's an article in a peer-reviewed AMS journal that's intended for a more general audience: https://doi.org/10.1175/2009BAMS2998.1. The UK Met Office developed forecasting systems that they tested at the London Olympics: https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00102.1. There was a similar project called FROST-2014 at the Sochi Olympics: https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-15-00307.1 and https://doi.org/10.1175/WAF-D-16-0048.1.

There's a similar project at the PyeongChang Olympics: https://ams.confex.com/ams/98Annual/webprogram/Paper329045.html and https://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/arep/wwrp/new/SCMREX.html. The latter of those links, the WMO page, has a lot of links about past projects at various Olympics. These aren't journal papers because the project is taking place right now at the Olympics, but I fully expect there will be peer-reviewed papers about this as well.

In my field, the Olympics are frequently opportunities to test out new systems and advance our forecasting capabilities. These are often organized by the World Meteorological Organization and are opportunities for international collaboration that advances the science of meteorology.

Just because something is done in relation to the Olympics doesn't make it PR at all. I've linked to plenty of scientific articles about meteorological research and testing of forecasting systems at the Olympics. You should reconsider your statement.

I strongly disagree. This article is about technology that's used in training for one of the sports at the Winter Olympics. I fail to see your objection, and it's actually very cool to see the spread of technology that's used to monitor athlete performance.

There's a lot of science and technology going on behind the scenes at the Olympics, and sometimes it's an opportunity to demonstrate new ideas. I'm a meteorologist and I worked for someone who participated in the Sydney forecast demonstration project. That project involved testing several systems for making short-range forecasts on the scale of a few hours to predict thunderstorms. Papers about this were published in meteorology journals, such as: https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0434(2004)019%3C0131:SFDPCS%3E2.0.CO;2, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0434(2004)019%3C0115:TSOGFD%3E2.0.CO;2, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-84-8-1041, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0434(2004)019%3C0168:TSSAEI%3E2.0.CO;2, and https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0434(2004)019%3C0097:TIOANS%3E2.0.CO;2. All of those were published in peer-reviewed journals operated by the American Meteorological Society.

This sort of thing has been done at more recent Olympics. For Beijing 2008, papers include https://doi.org/10.1175/2010WAF2222336.1 and https://doi.org/10.1175/2010WAF2222417.1. For Vancouver 2010, here's a scientific paper about forecasting during the Olympics: https://doi.org/10.1175/WAF-D-11-00114.1. Also for Vancouver 2010, here's an article in a peer-reviewed AMS journal that's intended for a more general audience: https://doi.org/10.1175/2009BAMS2998.1. The UK Met Office developed forecasting systems that they tested at the London Olympics: https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00102.1. There was a similar project called FROST-2014 at the Sochi Olympics: https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-15-00307.1 and https://doi.org/10.1175/WAF-D-16-0048.1.

There's a similar project at the PyeongChang Olympics: https://ams.confex.com/ams/98Annual/webprogram/Paper329045.html and https://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/arep/wwrp/new/SCMREX.html. The latter of those links, the WMO page, has a lot of links about past projects at various Olympics. These aren't journal papers because the project is taking place right now at the Olympics, but I fully expect there will be peer-reviewed papers about this as well.

In my field, the Olympics are frequently opportunities to test out new systems and advance our forecasting capabilities. These are often organized by the World Meteorological Organization and are opportunities for international collaboration that advances the science of meteorology.

Just because something is done in relation to the Olympics doesn't make it PR at all. I've linked to plenty of scientific articles about meteorological research and testing of forecasting systems at the Olympics. You should reconsider your statement.

I strongly disagree. This article is about technology that's used in training for one of the sports at the Winter Olympics. I fail to see your objection, and it's actually very cool to see the spread of technology that's used to monitor athlete performance.

There's a lot of science and technology going on behind the scenes at the Olympics, and sometimes it's an opportunity to demonstrate new ideas. I'm a meteorologist and I worked for someone who participated in the Sydney forecast demonstration project. That project involved testing several systems for making short-range forecasts on the scale of a few hours to predict thunderstorms. Papers about this were published in meteorology journals, such as: https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0434(2004)019%3C0131:SFDPCS%3E2.0.CO;2, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0434(2004)019%3C0115:TSOGFD%3E2.0.CO;2, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-84-8-1041, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0434(2004)019%3C0168:TSSAEI%3E2.0.CO;2, and https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0434(2004)019%3C0097:TIOANS%3E2.0.CO;2. All of those were published in peer-reviewed journals operated by the American Meteorological Society.

This sort of thing has been done at more recent Olympics. For Beijing 2008, papers include https://doi.org/10.1175/2010WAF2222336.1 and https://doi.org/10.1175/2010WAF2222417.1. For Vancouver 2010, here's a scientific paper about forecasting during the Olympics: https://doi.org/10.1175/WAF-D-11-00114.1. Also for Vancouver 2010, here's an article in a peer-reviewed AMS journal that's intended for a more general audience: https://doi.org/10.1175/2009BAMS2998.1. The UK Met Office developed forecasting systems that they tested at the London Olympics: https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00102.1. There was a similar project called FROST-2014 at the Sochi Olympics: https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-15-00307.1 and https://doi.org/10.1175/WAF-D-16-0048.1.

There's a similar project at the PyeongChang Olympics: https://ams.confex.com/ams/98Annual/webprogram/Paper329045.html and https://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/arep/wwrp/new/SCMREX.html. The latter of those links, the WMO page, has a lot of links about past projects at various Olympics. These aren't journal papers because the project is taking place right now at the Olympics, but I fully expect there will be peer-reviewed papers about this as well.

In my field, the Olympics are frequently opportunities to test out new systems and advance our forecasting capabilities. These are often organized by the World Meteorological Organization and are opportunities for international collaboration that advances the science of meteorology.

Just because something is done in relation to the Olympics doesn't make it PR at all. I've linked to plenty of scientific articles about meteorological research and testing of forecasting systems at the Olympics. You should reconsider your statement.

I strongly disagree. This article is about technology that's used in training for one of the sports at the Winter Olympics. I fail to see your objection, and it's actually very cool to see the spread of technology that's used to monitor athlete performance.

There's a lot of science and technology going on behind the scenes at the Olympics, and sometimes it's an opportunity to demonstrate new ideas. I'm a meteorologist and I worked for someone who participated in the Sydney forecast demonstration project. That project involved testing several systems for making short-range forecasts on the scale of a few hours to predict thunderstorms. Papers about this were published in meteorology journals, such as: https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0434(2004)019%3C0131:SFDPCS%3E2.0.CO;2, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0434(2004)019%3C0115:TSOGFD%3E2.0.CO;2, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-84-8-1041, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0434(2004)019%3C0168:TSSAEI%3E2.0.CO;2, and https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0434(2004)019%3C0097:TIOANS%3E2.0.CO;2. All of those were published in peer-reviewed journals operated by the American Meteorological Society.

This sort of thing has been done at more recent Olympics. For Beijing 2008, papers include https://doi.org/10.1175/2010WAF2222336.1 and https://doi.org/10.1175/2010WAF2222417.1. For Vancouver 2010, here's a scientific paper about forecasting during the Olympics: https://doi.org/10.1175/WAF-D-11-00114.1. Also for Vancouver 2010, here's an article in a peer-reviewed AMS journal that's intended for a more general audience: https://doi.org/10.1175/2009BAMS2998.1. The UK Met Office developed forecasting systems that they tested at the London Olympics: https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00102.1. There was a similar project called FROST-2014 at the Sochi Olympics: https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-15-00307.1 and https://doi.org/10.1175/WAF-D-16-0048.1.

There's a similar project at the PyeongChang Olympics: https://ams.confex.com/ams/98Annual/webprogram/Paper329045.html and https://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/arep/wwrp/new/SCMREX.html. The latter of those links, the WMO page, has a lot of links about past projects at various Olympics. These aren't journal papers because the project is taking place right now at the Olympics, but I fully expect there will be peer-reviewed papers about this as well.

In my field, the Olympics are frequently opportunities to test out new systems and advance our forecasting capabilities. These are often organized by the World Meteorological Organization and are opportunities for international collaboration that advances the science of meteorology.

Just because something is done in relation to the Olympics doesn't make it PR at all. I've linked to plenty of scientific articles about meteorological research and testing of forecasting systems at the Olympics. You should reconsider your statement.

I strongly disagree. This article is about technology that's used in training for one of the sports at the Winter Olympics. I fail to see your objection, and it's actually very cool to see the spread of technology that's used to monitor athlete performance.

There's a lot of science and technology going on behind the scenes at the Olympics, and sometimes it's an opportunity to demonstrate new ideas. I'm a meteorologist and I worked for someone who participated in the Sydney forecast demonstration project. That project involved testing several systems for making short-range forecasts on the scale of a few hours to predict thunderstorms. Papers about this were published in meteorology journals, such as: https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0434(2004)019%3C0131:SFDPCS%3E2.0.CO;2, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0434(2004)019%3C0115:TSOGFD%3E2.0.CO;2, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-84-8-1041, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0434(2004)019%3C0168:TSSAEI%3E2.0.CO;2, and https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0434(2004)019%3C0097:TIOANS%3E2.0.CO;2. All of those were published in peer-reviewed journals operated by the American Meteorological Society.

This sort of thing has been done at more recent Olympics. For Beijing 2008, papers include https://doi.org/10.1175/2010WAF2222336.1 and https://doi.org/10.1175/2010WAF2222417.1. For Vancouver 2010, here's a scientific paper about forecasting during the Olympics: https://doi.org/10.1175/WAF-D-11-00114.1. Also for Vancouver 2010, here's an article in a peer-reviewed AMS journal that's intended for a more general audience: https://doi.org/10.1175/2009BAMS2998.1. The UK Met Office developed forecasting systems that they tested at the London Olympics: https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00102.1. There was a similar project called FROST-2014 at the Sochi Olympics: https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-15-00307.1 and https://doi.org/10.1175/WAF-D-16-0048.1.

There's a similar project at the PyeongChang Olympics: https://ams.confex.com/ams/98Annual/webprogram/Paper329045.html and https://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/arep/wwrp/new/SCMREX.html. The latter of those links, the WMO page, has a lot of links about past projects at various Olympics. These aren't journal papers because the project is taking place right now at the Olympics, but I fully expect there will be peer-reviewed papers about this as well.

In my field, the Olympics are frequently opportunities to test out new systems and advance our forecasting capabilities. These are often organized by the World Meteorological Organization and are opportunities for international collaboration that advances the science of meteorology.

Just because something is done in relation to the Olympics doesn't make it PR at all. I've linked to plenty of scientific articles about meteorological research and testing of forecasting systems at the Olympics. You should reconsider your statement.

I strongly disagree. This article is about technology that's used in training for one of the sports at the Winter Olympics. I fail to see your objection, and it's actually very cool to see the spread of technology that's used to monitor athlete performance.

There's a lot of science and technology going on behind the scenes at the Olympics, and sometimes it's an opportunity to demonstrate new ideas. I'm a meteorologist and I worked for someone who participated in the Sydney forecast demonstration project. That project involved testing several systems for making short-range forecasts on the scale of a few hours to predict thunderstorms. Papers about this were published in meteorology journals, such as: https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0434(2004)019%3C0131:SFDPCS%3E2.0.CO;2, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0434(2004)019%3C0115:TSOGFD%3E2.0.CO;2, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-84-8-1041, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0434(2004)019%3C0168:TSSAEI%3E2.0.CO;2, and https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0434(2004)019%3C0097:TIOANS%3E2.0.CO;2. All of those were published in peer-reviewed journals operated by the American Meteorological Society.

This sort of thing has been done at more recent Olympics. For Beijing 2008, papers include https://doi.org/10.1175/2010WAF2222336.1 and https://doi.org/10.1175/2010WAF2222417.1. For Vancouver 2010, here's a scientific paper about forecasting during the Olympics: https://doi.org/10.1175/WAF-D-11-00114.1. Also for Vancouver 2010, here's an article in a peer-reviewed AMS journal that's intended for a more general audience: https://doi.org/10.1175/2009BAMS2998.1. The UK Met Office developed forecasting systems that they tested at the London Olympics: https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00102.1. There was a similar project called FROST-2014 at the Sochi Olympics: https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-15-00307.1 and https://doi.org/10.1175/WAF-D-16-0048.1.

There's a similar project at the PyeongChang Olympics: https://ams.confex.com/ams/98Annual/webprogram/Paper329045.html and https://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/arep/wwrp/new/SCMREX.html. The latter of those links, the WMO page, has a lot of links about past projects at various Olympics. These aren't journal papers because the project is taking place right now at the Olympics, but I fully expect there will be peer-reviewed papers about this as well.

In my field, the Olympics are frequently opportunities to test out new systems and advance our forecasting capabilities. These are often organized by the World Meteorological Organization and are opportunities for international collaboration that advances the science of meteorology.

Just because something is done in relation to the Olympics doesn't make it PR at all. I've linked to plenty of scientific articles about meteorological research and testing of forecasting systems at the Olympics. You should reconsider your statement.

I strongly disagree. This article is about technology that's used in training for one of the sports at the Winter Olympics. I fail to see your objection, and it's actually very cool to see the spread of technology that's used to monitor athlete performance.

There's a lot of science and technology going on behind the scenes at the Olympics, and sometimes it's an opportunity to demonstrate new ideas. I'm a meteorologist and I worked for someone who participated in the Sydney forecast demonstration project. That project involved testing several systems for making short-range forecasts on the scale of a few hours to predict thunderstorms. Papers about this were published in meteorology journals, such as: https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0434(2004)019%3C0131:SFDPCS%3E2.0.CO;2, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0434(2004)019%3C0115:TSOGFD%3E2.0.CO;2, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-84-8-1041, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0434(2004)019%3C0168:TSSAEI%3E2.0.CO;2, and https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0434(2004)019%3C0097:TIOANS%3E2.0.CO;2. All of those were published in peer-reviewed journals operated by the American Meteorological Society.

This sort of thing has been done at more recent Olympics. For Beijing 2008, papers include https://doi.org/10.1175/2010WAF2222336.1 and https://doi.org/10.1175/2010WAF2222417.1. For Vancouver 2010, here's a scientific paper about forecasting during the Olympics: https://doi.org/10.1175/WAF-D-11-00114.1. Also for Vancouver 2010, here's an article in a peer-reviewed AMS journal that's intended for a more general audience: https://doi.org/10.1175/2009BAMS2998.1. The UK Met Office developed forecasting systems that they tested at the London Olympics: https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00102.1. There was a similar project called FROST-2014 at the Sochi Olympics: https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-15-00307.1 and https://doi.org/10.1175/WAF-D-16-0048.1.

There's a similar project at the PyeongChang Olympics: https://ams.confex.com/ams/98Annual/webprogram/Paper329045.html and https://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/arep/wwrp/new/SCMREX.html. The latter of those links, the WMO page, has a lot of links about past projects at various Olympics. These aren't journal papers because the project is taking place right now at the Olympics, but I fully expect there will be peer-reviewed papers about this as well.

In my field, the Olympics are frequently opportunities to test out new systems and advance our forecasting capabilities. These are often organized by the World Meteorological Organization and are opportunities for international collaboration that advances the science of meteorology.

Just because something is done in relation to the Olympics doesn't make it PR at all. I've linked to plenty of scientific articles about meteorological research and testing of forecasting systems at the Olympics. You should reconsider your statement.

I strongly disagree. This article is about technology that's used in training for one of the sports at the Winter Olympics. I fail to see your objection, and it's actually very cool to see the spread of technology that's used to monitor athlete performance.

There's a lot of science and technology going on behind the scenes at the Olympics, and sometimes it's an opportunity to demonstrate new ideas. I'm a meteorologist and I worked for someone who participated in the Sydney forecast demonstration project. That project involved testing several systems for making short-range forecasts on the scale of a few hours to predict thunderstorms. Papers about this were published in meteorology journals, such as: https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0434(2004)019%3C0131:SFDPCS%3E2.0.CO;2, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0434(2004)019%3C0115:TSOGFD%3E2.0.CO;2, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-84-8-1041, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0434(2004)019%3C0168:TSSAEI%3E2.0.CO;2, and https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0434(2004)019%3C0097:TIOANS%3E2.0.CO;2. All of those were published in peer-reviewed journals operated by the American Meteorological Society.

This sort of thing has been done at more recent Olympics. For Beijing 2008, papers include https://doi.org/10.1175/2010WAF2222336.1 and https://doi.org/10.1175/2010WAF2222417.1. For Vancouver 2010, here's a scientific paper about forecasting during the Olympics: https://doi.org/10.1175/WAF-D-11-00114.1. Also for Vancouver 2010, here's an article in a peer-reviewed AMS journal that's intended for a more general audience: https://doi.org/10.1175/2009BAMS2998.1. The UK Met Office developed forecasting systems that they tested at the London Olympics: https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00102.1. There was a similar project called FROST-2014 at the Sochi Olympics: https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-15-00307.1 and https://doi.org/10.1175/WAF-D-16-0048.1.

There's a similar project at the PyeongChang Olympics: https://ams.confex.com/ams/98Annual/webprogram/Paper329045.html and https://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/arep/wwrp/new/SCMREX.html. The latter of those links, the WMO page, has a lot of links about past projects at various Olympics. These aren't journal papers because the project is taking place right now at the Olympics, but I fully expect there will be peer-reviewed papers about this as well.

In my field, the Olympics are frequently opportunities to test out new systems and advance our forecasting capabilities. These are often organized by the World Meteorological Organization and are opportunities for international collaboration that advances the science of meteorology.

Just because something is done in relation to the Olympics doesn't make it PR at all. I've linked to plenty of scientific articles about meteorological research and testing of forecasting systems at the Olympics. You should reconsider your statement.

I strongly disagree. This article is about technology that's used in training for one of the sports at the Winter Olympics. I fail to see your objection, and it's actually very cool to see the spread of technology that's used to monitor athlete performance.

There's a lot of science and technology going on behind the scenes at the Olympics, and sometimes it's an opportunity to demonstrate new ideas. I'm a meteorologist and I worked for someone who participated in the Sydney forecast demonstration project. That project involved testing several systems for making short-range forecasts on the scale of a few hours to predict thunderstorms. Papers about this were published in meteorology journals, such as: https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0434(2004)019%3C0131:SFDPCS%3E2.0.CO;2, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0434(2004)019%3C0115:TSOGFD%3E2.0.CO;2, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-84-8-1041, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0434(2004)019%3C0168:TSSAEI%3E2.0.CO;2, and https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0434(2004)019%3C0097:TIOANS%3E2.0.CO;2. All of those were published in peer-reviewed journals operated by the American Meteorological Society.

This sort of thing has been done at more recent Olympics. For Beijing 2008, papers include https://doi.org/10.1175/2010WAF2222336.1 and https://doi.org/10.1175/2010WAF2222417.1. For Vancouver 2010, here's a scientific paper about forecasting during the Olympics: https://doi.org/10.1175/WAF-D-11-00114.1. Also for Vancouver 2010, here's an article in a peer-reviewed AMS journal that's intended for a more general audience: https://doi.org/10.1175/2009BAMS2998.1. The UK Met Office developed forecasting systems that they tested at the London Olympics: https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00102.1. There was a similar project called FROST-2014 at the Sochi Olympics: https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-15-00307.1 and https://doi.org/10.1175/WAF-D-16-0048.1.

There's a similar project at the PyeongChang Olympics: https://ams.confex.com/ams/98Annual/webprogram/Paper329045.html and https://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/arep/wwrp/new/SCMREX.html. The latter of those links, the WMO page, has a lot of links about past projects at various Olympics. These aren't journal papers because the project is taking place right now at the Olympics, but I fully expect there will be peer-reviewed papers about this as well.

In my field, the Olympics are frequently opportunities to test out new systems and advance our forecasting capabilities. These are often organized by the World Meteorological Organization and are opportunities for international collaboration that advances the science of meteorology.

Just because something is done in relation to the Olympics doesn't make it PR at all. I've linked to plenty of scientific articles about meteorological research and testing of forecasting systems at the Olympics. You should reconsider your statement.

You mean like this?

large scale medical study of Americans and fruit or fruit juice intake diabetic risk factors

now stop pretending you have any idea how google or tech works - AND DO YOUR OWN SEARCHES

While research on non-offending pedophiles is certainly scarce, so far it suggests that your prejudices are unfounded, and even detrimental. See https://doi.org/10.1007/s11930....

This is not unexpected. In all case studies so far availability and decriminalization of child pornography were found to be inversely correlated with child sexual abuse. (Kutchinsky, 1973; Diamond & Uchiyama, 1999; Diamond, Jozifkova, & Weiss, 2011)

This is not unexpected. In all case studies so far availability and decriminalization of child pornography were found to be inversely correlated with child sexual abuse. (Kutchinsky, 1973; Diamond & Uchiyama, 1999; Diamond, Jozifkova, & Weiss, 2011)

This is not unexpected. In all case studies so far availability and decriminalization of child pornography were found to be inversely correlated with child sexual abuse. (Kutchinsky, 1973; Diamond & Uchiyama, 1999; Diamond, Jozifkova, & Weiss, 2011)

several issues remain to be addressed prior to clinical trials. While an AAV serotype with broad tropism is ideal for proof-of-concept studies, replication competent HIV is rare (present only in one of every 10,000 to 1,000,000 CD4+ T cells), and thus identifying delivery vectors with high specificity to the HIV reservoir remains a significant hurdle. There is currently no known viral or non-viral agent that is capable of efficiently and selectively delivering and expressing transgenes in these cells. An ideal delivery candidate should possess the ability to carry a relatively large cargo to relevant reservoir cells and facilitate pharmacologically significant enzymatic activity. It should also exhibit little to no toxicity irrespective of the duration of its presence in vivo, whether transient or long term.

(emphasis mine)

Still, this is a very encouraging development toward a possible HIV cure.

Yes, lots of Americans say that they're OK with it. Abused wives often say they're OK with their husbands for years. And what of those opinion poll predictions of a landslide victory for Clinton in the 2016 election?

At the same time, when we actually test people's abilities, the picture looks very different. Only a small minority can effectively look stuff up on the web and find out whether the information is valid and reliable (OECD, 2016), and 25% of university students can't distinguish between meaningless strings of nice sounding expressions generated by an algorithm and actually meaningful sentences (Pennycook, et. al., 2015).

References

OECD. (2016). Skills Matter: Further Results from the Survey of Adult Skills. Paris: OECD Publishing. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789...

Pennycook, G., Cheyne, J. A., Barr, N., Koehler, D. J., & Fugelsang, J. A. (2015). On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit. ResearchGate, 10(6), 549–563. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/p...

Circadian rhythms, entrained both to light and activity, are starting to look pretty important to metabolism of consumed food. They're definitely important to the consumption of food, in that mucking up the internal clock results in overeating (in animal models). Body weight is not a simple arithmetic of calories eaten - calories exercised.

https://youtu.be/hXeO8Kzz3bo In this work, we present an all-memristive neuromorphic architecture comprising neurons and synapses realized by using the physical properties and state dynamics of phase-change memristors. The architecture employs a novel concept of interconnecting the neurons in the same layer, resulting in level-tuned neuronal characteristics that preferentially process input information. We demonstrate the proposed architecture in the tasks of unsupervised learning and detection of multiple temporal correlations in parallel input streams. The efficiency of the neuromorphic architecture along with the homogenous neuro-synaptic dynamics implemented with nanoscale phase-change memristors represent a significant step towards the development of ultrahigh-density neuromorphic co-processors. http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0957...

I love these kinds of deluded bets. Instead of betting if UNIPCC FAR's 'hot spot' over the equator works, lets bet if land based temperature sensors record a hotter temperature while being simultaneously heated by nearby air conditioners and the asphalt parking lot they are usually found with.

Meanwhile http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep... dropped demonstrating the air over land warms 3x faster than the ocean. So if the ocean covers 2/3 of the planet, and all temperature sensors are on asphalt, would you expect the "earths temperature" to be higher or lower?

Meanwhile has anyone figured out at what date the Guardian will run out of money? Science has never been as vicious and poisonous since the Guardian and green peace teamed up.

For anyone interested, the "quantized inertia" explanation was proposed by McCulloch, and is here: http://dx.doi.org/10.1209/0295-5075/111/60005

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) is a 68 year-old international organisation consisting of 34 member states including the USA, UK, Canada, Germany, France, Denmark, Finland, Belgium, South Korea, Switzerland, and Turkey. Every 3 years, they publish the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) report. That's where all those statistics about who's education system is better than who's and everyone declares an education crisis (except Finland).

It's part of my job to read the research and try to make sense of where the strengths and weaknesses of education systems and their approached lie, especially with regard to technology enhanced learning (That's what I make my living out of). I can quite confidently tell you that any education system that replaces its teachers with computers would suffer massive losses in learning outcomes. The invention of the printing press didn't replaced teachers, neither did radio, audio recordings, video recordings, or TV, as was boldly promised by educational technologists over the past few decades. When you look at the research, the biggest effect sizes (how much students learn) come from students' relationships with their teachers. In other words, the quality (training and experience) of teachers and that they're given the autonomy, freedom, and responsibility to do their best for their learners makes far more difference than anything else. Finland regularly outperforms most other countries because this is exactly what they focus on.

You can read the report for yourself: OECD (2015) Students, Computers and Learning: Making The Connection, Paris, OECD Publishing, [online] Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789... (Accessed 15 September 2015).

I hope this makes my position clearer.

Reading the actual article has something for everyone -- particularly scientists. Those who want to claim that scientists all basically think we have a problem will see that these scientists who've actually studied things agree. Those who want to believe it's not going to be as much of a disaster as some think may be partially vindicated, though only very partially. Those who believe scientists are honestly struggling to figure out what the future will bring will feel good.

Here is Richard Tol's response to that: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.en...

Some things take expert domain knowledge, some things do not. For example: having non-anonymous raters but claiming otherwise. It's fundamental. You can't explain that away by hiding behind claims of 'expert domain knowledge'.

And what expert domain knowledge does Cook have exactly? He initially described himself as a cartoonist and self employed web-dev when he started his activist blog. He explicitly stated that he was NOT a climatologist or a scientist. And now he is a "communication fellow" or whatever and he is working on a PhD in cognitive psychology?? If you want to appeal to authority you should find a better expert.

Meanwhile you reject criticisms from a PhD in social psychology and an IPCC lead author, despite a mountain of blatant evidence. Someone dismissed Judith Curry's views because she wrote about it in her blog. Imagine that: dismissing Judith Curry as a mere 'blogger' when defending a paper written by... a mere blogger. Unbelievable.

Apparently alarmists will defend crap science as long as it produces 'correct' results.

Sigh.

"transsexualism is now known to have a physical cause".

I provided the DSM 5 definition. Please stop trying to subvert it.

"Also, you;re linking to outdated info."

I provided information from the DSM 5. This is not preliminary information and it is most certainly not outdated. The information you found is a proposal for the DSM 5. You'll note that your link refers to it as the now deprecated Gender Identity Disorder (that's how old it is).

Along those lines, how is newer information (the DSM 5 was published in 2013) outdated compared to the information you've provided (the last edit on that website was 2012, but I believe those proposals were floated around 2010)?

Here's the DSM 5 text if you can view it: http://dx.doi.org/10.1176/appi...

Go search for a "we propose" line, you won't find it.

I have university access to the DSM. I quoted the information directly as a courtesy.

Doctors, psychologists, and psychiaratrists use the DSM. They also use the SOC. Additionally they will use published peer reviewed journals. You switching to a new source of information is misdirection to save face. Why? Read on.

Lets go back a bit shall we... "You seem to believe that transsexualism is a mental disorder. The American Psychiatric Association says otherwise"

That's you quoting the APA as the basis for your argument. Your whole argument was based on the APA. Now you're saying "Physicians, even in the US, follow WPATH recommendations, not the APA, which was a late-comer to the process" Lol. Please.

By the way I have the SOC 7 right here. It's published in 2011, 2 years before the much newer DSM 5.

"WPATH recognizes that there is a difference between gender-non-conforming individuals and those with gender dysphoria.

And? Red-herring, you're redirecting away from your original point so you don't have to address it.

"As I said, try to keep up. :-)"

You're getting pretty boring. I doubt I'll engage in further conversation.

This is the study:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748...

"Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."

We have already observed recent mitochondrial evolution in the human population, with a few mutations specific to Polynesian populations that must have arisen during radiative settlement a few hundred years ago:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/jour...

Well put.

Number of people killed by homeopathy: zero.

Number of people killed by the medical system. Well, that's awkward, the medical system itself if the third leading cause of death in the United States today.

Examining the actual evidence on all sides is appropriate at this juncture.

The medical system third-leading cause of death in the United States.
Starfield B (July 2000). "Is US health really the best in the world?". JAMA 284 (4): 483–5. doi:10.1001/jama.284.4.483. PMID 10904513.

Ioannidis JPA (2005) Why Most Published Research Findings Are False. PLoS Med 2(8): e124. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
http://journals.plos.org/plosm...

What is medicine's 5 sigma? - Richard Hortonemail - DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S014... http://www.thelancet.com/journ...

Pharmecutical companies write their own "clinical reports", then bribe doctors to put their names on them.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/soci...

Such "ghostwriting" is not uncommon at all.
Lacasse JR, Leo J (2010) Ghostwriting at Elite Academic Medical Centers in the United States. PLoS Med 7(2): e1000230. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000230
http://www.plosmedicine.org/ar...

There have been efforts underway to standardize acknowledgement of data that came from other scientists. Most of us in the field have been calling the concept 'data citation' for a while (but it also refers to the act of linking, plus the string of text in the paper ... so it's a bit of a polysemous term at this point).

The basic idea is that for each grouping of data (I won't get into trying to define what a 'data set' is) that's being released, the group that's doing the release puts out a web page of information describing the data.

It would have the DataCite fields to specify how the data should be listed in the reference section of your paper, plus the w3c DCATterms to explain how to obtain the data. The DataCite schema allows you to acknowledge many different roles for people, allowing you to more clearly describe what different people's contributions were ... instead of just a long list of people, you'd have something more like movie credits.

This would solve much of the super collider issues, as you'd separately acknowledge the people who obtained & processed the data, who might have had no hand in the specific research that the paper describes. In my opinion, the authors should be people who agree with the findings that are being presented -- the folks who made the data should be acknowledged, but if they've had no chance to review the research that's being published (or have no ability to understand the researcher), they should not be listed as an author.

If you're interested in the topic, here are a few links that might be of interest:

• (2014) Joint Declaration of Data Citation Principles, a manifesto merging principles from a few different groups (that we could all live with, as some were overly restrictive on larger data volumes)
• (2013) Out of Cite, Out of Mind: The Current State of Practice, Policy, and Technology for the Citation of Data, a paper on the deeper issues of citation & acknowledgement.
• (2015) Achieving human and machine accessibility of cited data in scholarly publications (a paper that I was a co-author for, that explains some of the technical issues in implementing 'data landing pages')
• (2015) How to Cite Datasets and Link to Publications, a longer overview discussing more of the issues, with a long list of references (and actively maintained over the years)

If you're interested in participating in these efforts, either find a group in your research area, or for wider efforts, the Research Data Alliance's Data Citation Work Group.

I should also mention that there are similar efforts going on with scientific software. I've participating in some workshops (eg, RENCI's on data & software), but I'm not as active in that field. Some RDA have discussed starting up a group on software issues, but I think they'll be focusing more on Software Carpentry issues; for software citation I'd suggest contacting the Software Sustainability Institute.

ps. I've been included as a 'co-author' on papers where I've never had a chance to review the paper first. I think that all journals should check with all listed authors if they approve of the paper. (I've also peer reviewed a paper that had so many grammar errors in it that I suspect that none of the co-authors (most were native english speakers) had reviewed it) ... and it didn't reference the co-authors' earlier related articles). PeerJ does this and it also requi

There have been efforts underway to standardize acknowledgement of data that came from other scientists. Most of us in the field have been calling the concept 'data citation' for a while (but it also refers to the act of linking, plus the string of text in the paper ... so it's a bit of a polysemous term at this point).

The basic idea is that for each grouping of data (I won't get into trying to define what a 'data set' is) that's being released, the group that's doing the release puts out a web page of information describing the data.

It would have the DataCite fields to specify how the data should be listed in the reference section of your paper, plus the w3c DCATterms to explain how to obtain the data. The DataCite schema allows you to acknowledge many different roles for people, allowing you to more clearly describe what different people's contributions were ... instead of just a long list of people, you'd have something more like movie credits.

This would solve much of the super collider issues, as you'd separately acknowledge the people who obtained & processed the data, who might have had no hand in the specific research that the paper describes. In my opinion, the authors should be people who agree with the findings that are being presented -- the folks who made the data should be acknowledged, but if they've had no chance to review the research that's being published (or have no ability to understand the researcher), they should not be listed as an author.

If you're interested in the topic, here are a few links that might be of interest:

• (2014) Joint Declaration of Data Citation Principles, a manifesto merging principles from a few different groups (that we could all live with, as some were overly restrictive on larger data volumes)
• (2013) Out of Cite, Out of Mind: The Current State of Practice, Policy, and Technology for the Citation of Data, a paper on the deeper issues of citation & acknowledgement.
• (2015) Achieving human and machine accessibility of cited data in scholarly publications (a paper that I was a co-author for, that explains some of the technical issues in implementing 'data landing pages')
• (2015) How to Cite Datasets and Link to Publications, a longer overview discussing more of the issues, with a long list of references (and actively maintained over the years)

If you're interested in participating in these efforts, either find a group in your research area, or for wider efforts, the Research Data Alliance's Data Citation Work Group.

I should also mention that there are similar efforts going on with scientific software. I've participating in some workshops (eg, RENCI's on data & software), but I'm not as active in that field. Some RDA have discussed starting up a group on software issues, but I think they'll be focusing more on Software Carpentry issues; for software citation I'd suggest contacting the Software Sustainability Institute.

ps. I've been included as a 'co-author' on papers where I've never had a chance to review the paper first. I think that all journals should check with all listed authors if they approve of the paper. (I've also peer reviewed a paper that had so many grammar errors in it that I suspect that none of the co-authors (most were native english speakers) had reviewed it) ... and it didn't reference the co-authors' earlier related articles). PeerJ does this and it also requi

It's unfortunate when speeds are set by the fastest 15% of drivers in a country where 80% of drivers think they are above average and are therefore unqualified to determine a reasonable and prudent speed.

Thank you for posting this link, this is really cool.

For the record, the US 15% number is actually their 2001 stat (14.7%), whereas the 2011 stat is 14.4% (which presumably you would round to 14% instead).

This is from the XLS which I assume you used for the data: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932942241.

Just to chime in with fun theory feminists and masculinists often forget about when they start sperging about muh gender online: The mean IQ scores between men and women vary little. The variability of male scores is greater than that of females, however, resulting in more males than females in the top and bottom of the IQ distribution. What this means that yes, in absolute numbers, there are more males with above average IQ, but also higher amount of dullards, with women sticking closer to the center of the bell curve.

My personal pet theory is that back in the day, this didnt matter that much as computers were too much of a niche. When this niche became a mainstream subject though, this distribution (in absolute numbers) started to show. Overgeneralized pet theory: intelligent people flock towards computers, others to sports and other endeavors. In absolute numbers, theres more males of smae iq than females.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037%2F00...
http://dx.doi.org/10.1126%2Fsc...
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017%2Fs1...

Just to chime in with fun theory feminists and masculinists often forget about when they start sperging about muh gender online: The mean IQ scores between men and women vary little. The variability of male scores is greater than that of females, however, resulting in more males than females in the top and bottom of the IQ distribution. What this means that yes, in absolute numbers, there are more males with above average IQ, but also higher amount of dullards, with women sticking closer to the center of the bell curve.

My personal pet theory is that back in the day, this didnt matter that much as computers were too much of a niche. When this niche became a mainstream subject though, this distribution (in absolute numbers) started to show. Overgeneralized pet theory: intelligent people flock towards computers, others to sports and other endeavors. In absolute numbers, theres more males of smae iq than females.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037%2F00...
http://dx.doi.org/10.1126%2Fsc...
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017%2Fs1...

Just to chime in with fun theory feminists and masculinists often forget about when they start sperging about muh gender online: The mean IQ scores between men and women vary little. The variability of male scores is greater than that of females, however, resulting in more males than females in the top and bottom of the IQ distribution. What this means that yes, in absolute numbers, there are more males with above average IQ, but also higher amount of dullards, with women sticking closer to the center of the bell curve.

My personal pet theory is that back in the day, this didnt matter that much as computers were too much of a niche. When this niche became a mainstream subject though, this distribution (in absolute numbers) started to show. Overgeneralized pet theory: intelligent people flock towards computers, others to sports and other endeavors. In absolute numbers, theres more males of smae iq than females.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037%2F00...
http://dx.doi.org/10.1126%2Fsc...
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017%2Fs1...