You publish in the journal where your work will get read (and hopefully cited). If you publish in a top tier journal, like Science or Nature, then every working scientist will at least read the title in their weekly Table of Contents email. If you publish in a highly regarded specialist journal, then most of the people in your field will read the abstract. My highest cited paper was rejected by Science because the topic wasn't of "general interest to the scientific community", but it has 230 citations in an impact factor 4 journal because it was useful for researchers in my field.
But if you dump your paper in an open source journal (like PLOS ONE) nobody is going to bother reading it because PLOS ONE publishes 20,000 papers a year with no filter on quality or content.
negative health impact of inhaling burning hydrocarbons is well documented
If its so well document, perhaps you can provide a citation or two? What are the exact health effects of inhaling the smoke from 1/2 gram of burning hydrocarbons without any drug content?
Is Germany clearly a nation? You're just asserting that with providing any support. If you have a problem with my criteria, the burden is on you to offer an alternative. What are the conditions that define a nation (as opposed to a country) and does Germany meet them? Tread carefully, because the last guy who tried to define and assert German nationalism isn't well regarded by history.
Countries where one ethnic group make up more than 95% of the population:
Albania, Armenia, Bangladesh, Egypt, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Japan, Lesotho, Maldives, Mongolia, Korea, Poland, Portugal, Swaziland. There are other countries that could be counted as nations, too. But those are the easiest to quantify and you only asked for one.
Most of the US speaks English. Most are nominally Christian
Over 20% of the US doesn't speak English as a primary language. Over 30% doesn't practice Christianity. The various sects of Christianity are not even culturally homogeneous. Can you honestly say that the predominant religious culture in Utah is the same as Vermont? I think not.
There is a common culture, primarily maintained through TV and movies.
National Culture is a inter-generational concept. Do we watch the same movies and TV as our grandparents? Of course not.
everybody's got a McDonald's reasonably close
McDonald's was founded as a bbq restaurant in 1940, the first franchise (with hamburgers and arches) was opened in 1953. Unless you are suggesting that the national identity of the United States less than 80 years old, this doesn't hold up either.
Is the United States a nation? Despite what the ritualistic pledge states, it doesn't meet any of the anthropological criteria. No common language. No common religion. No common culture. No common cuisine. In fact, many scholars have made strong cases that the US is composite of several regional nations.
Although there was no visible reference to Trump, the materials noted the Kushner family’s “celebrity” status.White House officials declined to comment. A spokesman for the Kushner company also declined to comment.
They were specifically NOT invoking the President's name
It was not created by Trump and the Kushner family isn't using it any way that's not available to other businesses to attract foreign investors. Most other countries (like Canada) have similar programs to attract high net worth immigrants.
What scope of history do you think is relevant to consider? And makes you think that the production of superior weapons indicates a more enlightened society?
Diversity isn't very important, but a lack of diversity is indicative of systematic bias. I hope I don't have to explain why systematic bias in the scientific community is bad.
I have bachelors degrees in mathematics and chemistry, a PhD in Biochemistry, 10 years of industry research, two patents, an H-index of 10.
OTOH, there's nothing wrong with being an arts major. Some very talented and intelligent people in that field. Why do you ask? What are your credentials?
SCIENCE doesn't care. It is a process, not an agenda.
You are talking about science, as a process. The article is talking about the scientific community. The phrase "scientific community" shows up 11 times in the article starting in the second paragraph. And the scientific community is no better or worse than any other professional community. It can definitely be biased, it can definitely have an agenda.
Are you on the autism spectrum? Are you from a culture that doesn't understand metaphor?
The phrase "scientific community" shows up 11 times in tfa. The section that you quote is actually a quote from someone else, that the author is citing, which explains a slight inconsistency in phrasing. But even then, it is clearing talking about "scientists as a group", not the process of science itself.
You're attacking a strawman by being too literal. The summary is explicitly clear in the first line that the critique is against the "science community", not the concept of science itself. While the process of science itself is neutral, it is perfectly possible for scientists and scientific institutions to be biased.
She'd have allowed the massive amounts of pollution that the Liar-in-Chief already has via executive orders?
Maybe. She has never been particularly proactive about the environment. For example, she waited until the last minute, when it was politically expedient, to take a position against the Dakota Access Pipeline.
She would've embarrassed all of us with brains?
We've have plenty of embarrassing Presidents before, its not a problem in itself.
Hillary Clinton voted to authorize the invasion of Iraq. As Secretary of State, she sponsored a coup in Honduras. In a choice between someone with actual blood on their hands and someone who is just embarrassing, picking the embarrassing candidate is the moral choice.
Slashdot Mirror
I mean, really, why do they need them?
You publish in the journal where your work will get read (and hopefully cited). If you publish in a top tier journal, like Science or Nature, then every working scientist will at least read the title in their weekly Table of Contents email. If you publish in a highly regarded specialist journal, then most of the people in your field will read the abstract. My highest cited paper was rejected by Science because the topic wasn't of "general interest to the scientific community", but it has 230 citations in an impact factor 4 journal because it was useful for researchers in my field.
But if you dump your paper in an open source journal (like PLOS ONE) nobody is going to bother reading it because PLOS ONE publishes 20,000 papers a year with no filter on quality or content.
negative health impact of inhaling burning hydrocarbons is well documented
If its so well document, perhaps you can provide a citation or two? What are the exact health effects of inhaling the smoke from 1/2 gram of burning hydrocarbons without any drug content?
We're all dying, man. Just at different speeds.
Is Germany clearly a nation? You're just asserting that with providing any support. If you have a problem with my criteria, the burden is on you to offer an alternative. What are the conditions that define a nation (as opposed to a country) and does Germany meet them? Tread carefully, because the last guy who tried to define and assert German nationalism isn't well regarded by history.
Okay, name a country that is a nation.
Countries where one ethnic group make up more than 95% of the population:
Albania, Armenia, Bangladesh, Egypt, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Japan, Lesotho, Maldives, Mongolia, Korea, Poland, Portugal, Swaziland. There are other countries that could be counted as nations, too. But those are the easiest to quantify and you only asked for one.
Most of the US speaks English. Most are nominally Christian
Over 20% of the US doesn't speak English as a primary language. Over 30% doesn't practice Christianity. The various sects of Christianity are not even culturally homogeneous. Can you honestly say that the predominant religious culture in Utah is the same as Vermont? I think not.
There is a common culture, primarily maintained through TV and movies.
National Culture is a inter-generational concept. Do we watch the same movies and TV as our grandparents? Of course not.
everybody's got a McDonald's reasonably close
McDonald's was founded as a bbq restaurant in 1940, the first franchise (with hamburgers and arches) was opened in 1953. Unless you are suggesting that the national identity of the United States less than 80 years old, this doesn't hold up either.
Maybe. But I never claimed that Germany is a nation. So what's your point?
Maybe. That has been a historically controversial issue as well.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
Princeton Election Consortium made a similar predition
http://election.princeton.edu/...
https://www.amazon.com/Nine-Na...
https://www.amazon.com/America...
https://www.amazon.com/Our-Pat...
They were specifically NOT invoking the President's name
Just as a point of fact, the United States has two ruling parties that jointly govern.
It was not created by Trump and the Kushner family isn't using it any way that's not available to other businesses to attract foreign investors. Most other countries (like Canada) have similar programs to attract high net worth immigrants.
What scope of history do you think is relevant to consider? And makes you think that the production of superior weapons indicates a more enlightened society?
You are whistling past the graveyard. History is full of "enlightened civilizations" that were trampled to dust by "ignorant barbarians".
Diversity isn't very important, but a lack of diversity is indicative of systematic bias. I hope I don't have to explain why systematic bias in the scientific community is bad.
OTOH, there's nothing wrong with being an arts major. Some very talented and intelligent people in that field. Why do you ask? What are your credentials?
SCIENCE doesn't care. It is a process, not an agenda.
You are talking about science, as a process. The article is talking about the scientific community. The phrase "scientific community" shows up 11 times in the article starting in the second paragraph. And the scientific community is no better or worse than any other professional community. It can definitely be biased, it can definitely have an agenda.
The phrase "scientific community" shows up 11 times in tfa. The section that you quote is actually a quote from someone else, that the author is citing, which explains a slight inconsistency in phrasing. But even then, it is clearing talking about "scientists as a group", not the process of science itself.
You're attacking a strawman by being too literal. The summary is explicitly clear in the first line that the critique is against the "science community", not the concept of science itself. While the process of science itself is neutral, it is perfectly possible for scientists and scientific institutions to be biased.
She'd have allowed the massive amounts of pollution that the Liar-in-Chief already has via executive orders?
Maybe. She has never been particularly proactive about the environment. For example, she waited until the last minute, when it was politically expedient, to take a position against the Dakota Access Pipeline.
She would've embarrassed all of us with brains?
We've have plenty of embarrassing Presidents before, its not a problem in itself.
Hillary Clinton voted to authorize the invasion of Iraq. As Secretary of State, she sponsored a coup in Honduras. In a choice between someone with actual blood on their hands and someone who is just embarrassing, picking the embarrassing candidate is the moral choice.
Songs are the closer analogue. The performance, the lyrics and any derivative works of a song can all be protected by copyright.
Tribler is a bit torrent client that uses an overlay network for searching. https://www.tribler.org/
https://sourceforge.net/projec...
They'll stop making those kinds of movies when those kinds of movies stop making money.
If a movie can be "spoiled" just by knowing a little bit about the plot, then its not a good movie to begin with.