I think the going assumption up until now has been that large theropods of all types, tyrannosaurs and the like, may have had feathers as juveniles but lost them all or most of them in adulthood.
That's all this story is, really. It's not a Facebook problem, it's a bad police work problem. People have been misidentified from photographs as suspects in a crime, and suffered as a result, since as long as there have been such things -- and police have been refusing to admit any wrongdoing, in this or any other aspect of their work, for at least as long.
Do you know how hard it is to transport a body in a hatchback? You've got to make sure it's covered with enough blankets to disguise the outline, or anyone can just peek in and see what's going on.
If they can. We're talking about 51-100 employee companies here, not IBM spinning off Lenovo.
And again, any company that would do this to avoid complying with the (very reasonable) requirements of the PPACA is run by idiots or ideologues, which means that (a) it probably won't last very long anyway, and (b) will be a distinctly unpleasant place to work during the time it has left. If you work for such a company, you should start looking for a new job ASAP.
My prediction is that companies up to 100 people (and some even bigger) will absolutely lose people until they are under 50 limit.
My prediction is that any company which lays off half or more of its employees at one go, for any reason, is not long for the world, and is probably not a place where people want to keep working if they have any reasonable alternative. I also predict that any company which would lay off any significant portion of its employees for the reason you give is and will continue to be a hellish place to work regardless of what the Supreme Court decides.
/. long ago removed the "news for nerds stuff that matters" moniker.
If you don't understand how a major conflict between science and politics is both News For Nerds and Stuff That Matters, please turn in your nerd card immediately, and don't let the door hit you on the ass on your way out.
My band uses these services to facilitate distributing our album and what not
Your label is supposed to handle that for you. If you're not signed with a major label and have the temerity to try to distribute your own music, you're clearly some kind of terrorist socialist pedophile drug dealer pirate, and will be dealt with accordingly.
It really messed me up in first year to be inundated with crappy spreadsheets and "press the magic button to calculate the t-statistic!" in first year.
Gaaah. Yeah. As a statistician, I have a real hatred for that kind of "teaching."
Presumably that's why I've had four separate lectures on the FASTA format.
Heh. It kind of makes sense if you figure that a fair number of people in each class will be coming in without the necessary prior knowledge. But it does get a bit insulting, doesn't it? It's as if every biology class, at every level, started with an explanation of the Krebs cycle. FASTA parsing is really Bioinformatics 101 material, and at some point, I'd like to see teaching in the field mature enough that familiarity with common file formats is assumed for anyone taking a class above the introductory level.
This. Dunno about other fields, but it's pretty routine these days in bioinformatics and biostatistics for authors to post their data either as supplemental material with the article or on their departmental web site. The problem is that the format for the data they post is generally "whatever format I have it in at the moment" -- if your lab chooses to keep everything in Excel, that's your business, but it's no fun for the rest of us. Microarray data all goes into GEO or ArrayExpress these days, but even there the file specifications are much looser than they should be; and of course microarray data, as important as it is, is only one small portion of the bioinformatics data universe.
Example: The Penn State guy who produced a temperature that resembles a hockey stick. It was later discovered he had altered his numbers to give the result desired (and thus become famous to the public & funded by the government).
I don't suppose it bothers you at all that your description of this incident has nothing to do with reality?
Two years from now, you won't be asking this question, and your children may ride on commercial space ships.
I very much hope you're right. But you can't be sure you're right, and neither can anyone else. Meanwhile, you may have noticed that there's a space station in orbit that needs resupply now, not at some indefinite point in the future.
Commercial space ships are a giant wave of the future (http://www.spacex.com/media.php)
This looks like a fun game! Can I play? Social networking is the wave of the future (http://www.facebook.com) Fusion power is the wave of the future (http://www.generalfusion.com) Printed newspapers are the wave of the future (http://www.nytimes.com)
You remind me of this: "Airplanes are interesting toys but of no military value," -- Marechal Ferdinand Foch
Straw man. GPP wasn't questioning the value of space travel; he was questioning the value of the specific approach of SpaceX and other companies which are claiming that they will offer reliable space transportation at dramatically lower costs than government space agencies have so far managed to do. And they may be right, but so far, nobody knows for sure. What we do know for sure is that we have been hearing optimistic "we can do X for $Y" statements pretty much since the beginning of the space age, and no matter who's saying it, the price always turns out to be $ZY, for values of Z much greater than 1.
BTW, that Foch quote was from 1911; I suspect that a few years later, he'd have freely admitted he was wrong. Equally wrong was Giulio Douhet, in 1921: "Would not the sight of a single enemy airplane be enough to induce a formidable panic? Normal life would be unable to continue under the constant threat of death and imminent destruction." Look at the position taken by the pessimists, and that taken by the visionaries, and the reality is usually somewhere in the middle. Also, it's interesting to note that it was precisely the massive government investment (on all sides of the conflict) in aviation technology in WW1 that spurred the growth of the aviation industry in the interwar years, and laid the groundwork for the equally massive, government-investment-funded growth during WW2. In 1911, airplanes were toys. By 1918, they were reliable and sophisticated machines. And this did not happen as a result of visionaries and dreamers, but of hard military necessity.
this resupply mission is hugely expensive compared to what SpaceX will deliver (if nothing goeas wrong in their next launch)
"Will". "If". Those are very significant words. I wish SpaceX the best of luck, but there's an enormous difference between what ESA can do and what SpaceX can do: ESA can do it right now.
I'd rather avoid aspirin and other NSAIDs (like tylenol/acetaminophen).
Acetaminophen's not an NSAID, since it has hardly any anti-inflammatory effect at all. Still something that should IMO be avoided -- aspirin's actually a lot healthier and safer for most people -- but it's important to know what class of drugs you're actually dealing with.
The answers to your questions, in reverse order, are "Yes" and "Only if they're low-level employees; no one above middle management has anything to worry about."
No it's not. What's readily observable is that things fall, and for the slightly more sophisticated, that celestial bodies move as they do. There were a host of attempts at explaining both of these phenomena before the concept of gravity as such was developed. Once a rigorous theory of gravity was presented, almost everyone realized that it did a much better job of explaining the observations than had any previous explanation. Just as readily observable is the fact that living beings are very diverse, but have a surprising amount in common with each other despite this diversity; again, there were many explanations offered for this before evolution came along and displaced previous explanations, in much the same fashion.
That in no way interferes with the proven fact that organisms evolve based on their surroundings.
That's not evolution (or to clarify, "macroevolution"). That's natural selection, which I have often stated is not denied except by the truly obstinate.
Populations of organisms change to fit their environment -- or as we scientists say, "evolve" -- through a combination of two mechanisms: mutation, which makes the changes possible, and natural selection, which rewards those changes which are useful in the environment and punishes those which are deleterious. These changes tend to be very small and subtle, but small changes over time add up to big changes. That's pretty much it.
The "truly obstinate" continue to draw a line between natural selection and evolution, where no such line exists. They also pretend that "macroevolution" is a meaningful word, when it isn't.
If they have 1/2 mil subscriptions, thats great, but realize thats around a third of one percent of the population. Low enough to not have influence on the population anymore.
I guess the question is, how does that number compare to the number of paper subscribers they had in the pre-web days (or, for that matter, the number they have now) especially outside NYC and environs? The NYT has an influence out of proportion to the number of people who actually read the thing; it's the "paper of record," the "Gray Lady," and starting out with "The New York Times reports..." has long been a way to lend a story an air of gravitas.
Slashdot Mirror
But IOKIYAR. Always remember, IOKIYAR.
I think the going assumption up until now has been that large theropods of all types, tyrannosaurs and the like, may have had feathers as juveniles but lost them all or most of them in adulthood.
That's all this story is, really. It's not a Facebook problem, it's a bad police work problem. People have been misidentified from photographs as suspects in a crime, and suffered as a result, since as long as there have been such things -- and police have been refusing to admit any wrongdoing, in this or any other aspect of their work, for at least as long.
Do you know how hard it is to transport a body in a hatchback? You've got to make sure it's covered with enough blankets to disguise the outline, or anyone can just peek in and see what's going on.
If they can. We're talking about 51-100 employee companies here, not IBM spinning off Lenovo.
And again, any company that would do this to avoid complying with the (very reasonable) requirements of the PPACA is run by idiots or ideologues, which means that (a) it probably won't last very long anyway, and (b) will be a distinctly unpleasant place to work during the time it has left. If you work for such a company, you should start looking for a new job ASAP.
My prediction is that companies up to 100 people (and some even bigger) will absolutely lose people until they are under 50 limit.
My prediction is that any company which lays off half or more of its employees at one go, for any reason, is not long for the world, and is probably not a place where people want to keep working if they have any reasonable alternative. I also predict that any company which would lay off any significant portion of its employees for the reason you give is and will continue to be a hellish place to work regardless of what the Supreme Court decides.
/. long ago removed the "news for nerds stuff that matters" moniker.
If you don't understand how a major conflict between science and politics is both News For Nerds and Stuff That Matters, please turn in your nerd card immediately, and don't let the door hit you on the ass on your way out.
My band uses these services to facilitate distributing our album and what not
Your label is supposed to handle that for you. If you're not signed with a major label and have the temerity to try to distribute your own music, you're clearly some kind of terrorist socialist pedophile drug dealer pirate, and will be dealt with accordingly.
Child? I like how the pictures show him as a kid, not as an over 6 foot troubled 17 yo that needed help.
I like how quickly you fell for a Stormfront scam.
It really messed me up in first year to be inundated with crappy spreadsheets and "press the magic button to calculate the t-statistic!" in first year.
Gaaah. Yeah. As a statistician, I have a real hatred for that kind of "teaching."
Presumably that's why I've had four separate lectures on the FASTA format.
Heh. It kind of makes sense if you figure that a fair number of people in each class will be coming in without the necessary prior knowledge. But it does get a bit insulting, doesn't it? It's as if every biology class, at every level, started with an explanation of the Krebs cycle. FASTA parsing is really Bioinformatics 101 material, and at some point, I'd like to see teaching in the field mature enough that familiarity with common file formats is assumed for anyone taking a class above the introductory level.
This. Dunno about other fields, but it's pretty routine these days in bioinformatics and biostatistics for authors to post their data either as supplemental material with the article or on their departmental web site. The problem is that the format for the data they post is generally "whatever format I have it in at the moment" -- if your lab chooses to keep everything in Excel, that's your business, but it's no fun for the rest of us. Microarray data all goes into GEO or ArrayExpress these days, but even there the file specifications are much looser than they should be; and of course microarray data, as important as it is, is only one small portion of the bioinformatics data universe.
Example: The Penn State guy who produced a temperature that resembles a hockey stick. It was later discovered he had altered his numbers to give the result desired (and thus become famous to the public & funded by the government).
I don't suppose it bothers you at all that your description of this incident has nothing to do with reality?
Kind of like how reflexively bashing environmentalism is in style among certain segments of the population? Got it.
So you're saying that environmentalists change their opinions as new facts come to light? How dare they? Those flip-floppers!
yes.
Great, who let the Vorlons onto Slashdot?
Two years from now, you won't be asking this question, and your children may ride on commercial space ships.
I very much hope you're right. But you can't be sure you're right, and neither can anyone else. Meanwhile, you may have noticed that there's a space station in orbit that needs resupply now, not at some indefinite point in the future.
Commercial space ships are a giant wave of the future (http://www.spacex.com/media.php)
This looks like a fun game! Can I play?
Social networking is the wave of the future (http://www.facebook.com)
Fusion power is the wave of the future (http://www.generalfusion.com)
Printed newspapers are the wave of the future (http://www.nytimes.com)
You remind me of this: "Airplanes are interesting toys but of no military value," -- Marechal Ferdinand Foch
Straw man. GPP wasn't questioning the value of space travel; he was questioning the value of the specific approach of SpaceX and other companies which are claiming that they will offer reliable space transportation at dramatically lower costs than government space agencies have so far managed to do. And they may be right, but so far, nobody knows for sure. What we do know for sure is that we have been hearing optimistic "we can do X for $Y" statements pretty much since the beginning of the space age, and no matter who's saying it, the price always turns out to be $ZY, for values of Z much greater than 1.
BTW, that Foch quote was from 1911; I suspect that a few years later, he'd have freely admitted he was wrong. Equally wrong was Giulio Douhet, in 1921: "Would not the sight of a single enemy airplane be enough to induce a formidable panic? Normal life would be unable to continue under the constant threat of death and imminent destruction." Look at the position taken by the pessimists, and that taken by the visionaries, and the reality is usually somewhere in the middle. Also, it's interesting to note that it was precisely the massive government investment (on all sides of the conflict) in aviation technology in WW1 that spurred the growth of the aviation industry in the interwar years, and laid the groundwork for the equally massive, government-investment-funded growth during WW2. In 1911, airplanes were toys. By 1918, they were reliable and sophisticated machines. And this did not happen as a result of visionaries and dreamers, but of hard military necessity.
this resupply mission is hugely expensive compared to what SpaceX will deliver (if nothing goeas wrong in their next launch)
"Will". "If". Those are very significant words. I wish SpaceX the best of luck, but there's an enormous difference between what ESA can do and what SpaceX can do: ESA can do it right now.
I'd rather avoid aspirin and other NSAIDs (like tylenol/acetaminophen).
Acetaminophen's not an NSAID, since it has hardly any anti-inflammatory effect at all. Still something that should IMO be avoided -- aspirin's actually a lot healthier and safer for most people -- but it's important to know what class of drugs you're actually dealing with.
The answers to your questions, in reverse order, are "Yes" and "Only if they're low-level employees; no one above middle management has anything to worry about."
Gravity is readily observable.
No it's not. What's readily observable is that things fall, and for the slightly more sophisticated, that celestial bodies move as they do. There were a host of attempts at explaining both of these phenomena before the concept of gravity as such was developed. Once a rigorous theory of gravity was presented, almost everyone realized that it did a much better job of explaining the observations than had any previous explanation. Just as readily observable is the fact that living beings are very diverse, but have a surprising amount in common with each other despite this diversity; again, there were many explanations offered for this before evolution came along and displaced previous explanations, in much the same fashion.
That in no way interferes with the proven fact that organisms evolve based on their surroundings.
That's not evolution (or to clarify, "macroevolution"). That's natural selection, which I have often stated is not denied except by the truly obstinate.
Populations of organisms change to fit their environment -- or as we scientists say, "evolve" -- through a combination of two mechanisms: mutation, which makes the changes possible, and natural selection, which rewards those changes which are useful in the environment and punishes those which are deleterious. These changes tend to be very small and subtle, but small changes over time add up to big changes. That's pretty much it.
The "truly obstinate" continue to draw a line between natural selection and evolution, where no such line exists. They also pretend that "macroevolution" is a meaningful word, when it isn't.
If they have 1/2 mil subscriptions, thats great, but realize thats around a third of one percent of the population. Low enough to not have influence on the population anymore.
I guess the question is, how does that number compare to the number of paper subscribers they had in the pre-web days (or, for that matter, the number they have now) especially outside NYC and environs? The NYT has an influence out of proportion to the number of people who actually read the thing; it's the "paper of record," the "Gray Lady," and starting out with "The New York Times reports ..." has long been a way to lend a story an air of gravitas.
Again, RTFA; the answer apparently isn't as simple as you think.
This is -omics, not -onomics. It's a completely different set of portmanteau buzzwords.
The last paragraph of his post sounded to me like he was being serious. YMMV.