If we expect this animal to spend most of its life living at greater depths, then something is likely amiss with it that is bringing it this near the surface. While this would likely be closer-to-natural for coloration than a dead one, I'm not sure that it is necessarily fully in its natural coloration, either.
Oh come on... you mean the fact that this took place on Mars didn't interest you at all? You have to know who the main character is before you see a movie?
If the title of the movie is the name of a character from said movie - and I have never heard of that character before - then I'm going to need the movie studio to at least give me some useful information in the trailers and commercials. There was nothing particularly Martian or Martian-esque in those to suggest that it was happening in any interesting location. If they had called it "John Carter stranded on Mars" it may have caught my eye - and the eyes of others as well I suspect - enough to get me to consider at least looking in to what it was about.
If someone released a movie tomorrow called "Steve Johnson", would you want to see it based only on that title? What if the commercials just showed Steve running around doing nothing that looked particularly unusual for a movie?
Their marketing utterly failed to tell me anything useful. I suspect I am not the only person who felt that way.
Every trailer and commercial I saw for that movie came across with the message that I should already know who John Carter was. Hence as I had no idea I had no interest in the commercials, trailers, or the movie itself. I'm still not familiar with the character. They could have introduced it much better to get people to care about it; think of how Rambo: First Blood was able to get us to care about a new character for example. Instead they tried to get us to care about the character through brute force, those who didn't go for it just stayed away and the movie flopped.
Hell just a better title would have gone a long ways towards bringing in customers. Even Borat had enough of an extended title to give people some idea what they were getting in to or why they might want to see it.
After all, if the product was such a loser, the proper thing to do would be to allow the market to take over and allow the company to fail, no?
What more needs to be done to "allow the market to take over" when a drug is "not subject to any unexpired patent"? (ref) Any company that wanted to cut into the market could have started manufacturing and selling it for less.
My point is that he is trying to claim this was driven by his altruistic humanistic interests when quite plainly that is not the case. There is no contesting that he bought the company to make money. He can try to weasel out of it any way he wants, but the facts are out there for all to see. Why did he need to interfere with the company who previously made it? Why is he interfering with the market this way?
Just as you said someone could have come in and undercut the original manufacturer, someone could have come in and tried to compete at a higher price as well. We've seen examples before where companies have sold products at higher prices (bottled water comes to mind) with the illusion of "superior quality" or similar malarkey, and made a killing by better marketing and market positioning.
the drug was unprofitable at the former price, so any company selling it would be losing money
That is a really lame excuse to buy out a company and jack up the price of their product. He really should have just said "we did it because we can, and we knew nobody would stop us". If he really thinks he can fool the world with that line of bullshit he'll get another thing coming later. After all, if the product was such a loser, the proper thing to do would be to allow the market to take over and allow the company to fail, no?
Here in the states the janitors make a little more than that (although if we convert Euros to Dollars we are probably close to parity between the US and Netherlands) but the most junior researchers make less than that, and the grad students even less still. Faculty salaries vary dramatically across the country, though in most research universities faculty in the hard sciences start around $80k / year (this doesn't sound too bad until you recognize they are working 80 hour weeks for at least their first three years, when they simultaneously have no tenure). Top faculty - if they are pulling in large grants regularly, fully tenured, with a great research record - get up to $150-160k / year at most research universities but seldom much more than that.
Tragically most labs at our top universities have a total annual salary far below what we pay just to our head university football or basketball coaches.
If a decade after a huge budget increase, maintaining that level of high spending is considered "keeping the lights on," then it's no wonder we have a massive budget deficit.
You're not seeing the forest for the trees, here. The proper way to think about the budget for a lab is as the budget for a small business. You might be able to come up with an exception but I can not imagine a business anywhere in this country that is operating on the same budget they had 10 years ago and seeing the same margins. Literally everything costs more now than it did a decade ago; we pay more for electricity, we pay more for heat and water, we pay more for space. Even if the PI doesn't take a raise - or even cuts their salary - they still have increasing expenses to meet. At most institutions the grad students - even though they make less than janitors - do get annual raises, so that expense has to be met some how as well.
Perhaps NIH should have its budget reduced to Clinton-era levels for one year so they can once again appreciate just how much more money they've been receiving.
If your goal is to encourage the best scientists in the country to leave for other countries and never return, you may well be able to accomplish that with that idea. If your goal is to get good research and rock-bottom prices, you won't get that. There is a certain point where labs simply fold due to lack of funding, and it often has little - if anything - to do with their productivity.
Professors/Principal investigators just hire more graduate students and postdoctoral researchers for the same salary.
Actually it is a little more complicated than that. Grants usually are required to specify who will do the work, what their title is, and why. This is part of why the largest single-PI grants are dozens of pages long, as the PI is specifying the division of labor. It is very difficult to get around it downstream, even if you only want to swap in a postdoc for a grad student (or vice-versa).
Trickle-down economics doesn't work for science.
You forgot to end that with either. It doesn't work in science just as it doesn't work anywhere else.
The NIH increase is not enough to add radical new initiatives. In fact, most funded researchers will be lucky if the increase even results in them getting their full requested budget. Many researchers will likely still see overall decreases, while their institutions will likely ask for more funds to cover expenses (such as electricity, gas, space, water, etc). It's better than nothing, but it's not really much of something, either.
If we want to be a competitive nation in terms of scientific research we need to at least fund the NIH enough to meet operating expense increases so researchers can do work and get paid at (or slightly above, if their lucky) the levels of janitors.
Not one of those candidates said there are no innocents in Syria.
Except for the ones who are tripping over themselves to see who can exclude Syrians from being able to come to our country - which is all of them.
As for the 30 governors, I suppose you'd rather believe Obama's claim regarding background checking refugees.
There are more productive ways that terrorists could get in to our country than as refugees. In fact, refugee is arguably the slowest and least practical way for a terrorist to come in. Why would they be willing to go through 18-24 months of background checks, physical exams, and government investigations when they could get in much more quickly with a fake passport showing them to be coming from a visa exempt country? Being as terrorists are characterized as yearning to die for the cause anyways, they wouldn't really be concerned about whether or not they could get back to where they came from.
Tell us how Tashfeen Malik passed three background checks?
First, the claim of "three background checks" has so far only been brought up by Fox News, so forgive me for not being sold on that reflecting reality yet.
Second, she wasn't a refugee, or from the three countries we are seeing refugees crises from (Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan).
Third, she came as the bride of a US citizen, which made the process that much faster for her.
Timothy usually does better than this, but the slashdot "editors" are busy in job-hunting mode right now with slashdot up on for sale.
What? Timothy and co. generally *introduce* errors into the submitted summaries.
Saying Timothy is a better editor than the rest of the gang of idiots here is like saying I'm a better at cross-country running than most squid. Yeah, it's valid, but it doesn't mean much.
I'm pretty sure it's a typo. The link for "ADB-S" actually goes to a page discussing ADB-S, so it appears that - as often happens - the slashdot "editors" didn't edit for shit before posting to the front page. Timothy usually does better than this, but the slashdot "editors" are busy in job-hunting mode right now with slashdot up on for sale.
We've already been told by all the people running for the GOP nomination to run for POTUS that there are no innocents in Syria, and roughly 30 US governors (including many who are not running for president) have said the same. Clearly, they must be right and samzenpus just did a shitty job of editing that last line.
NY Attorney General Wants Public To Report Broadband Speeds
Strongly suggests that the Attorney General would require people to do this. This could have been worded better to indicate in the headline that this is fully voluntary. Of course, accurate wording would not be as helpful in the standard slashdot demonization of all things liberal.
As usual, thank you "failure machine" samzenpus. I would expect nothing better from you.
I doubt republicans are the majority on slashdot - just that they tend to make more noise.
Slashdot certainly treats the republicans as the majority here, based on how often front-page stories cater to them and how often ads on the website cater to their causes. I agree that they undoubtedly make more noise than any other political faction. I would think that if slashdot was so woefully inaccurately estimating their audience there would have been some blowback by now... if there is any group that outnumbers the republicans here I would say it could only be the unconcerned unaffiliated. The democrats are a small minority here at best.
I know it isn't considered acceptable to mock republicans here on slashdot...
Why not?
Because republicans are in the numeric majority here on slashdot, and they have almost no sense of humor.
If you doubt me, try this. First, make a joke about JFK or Bill Clinton and infidelity; see how many democrats laugh. Then make a joke about Reagan having had no idea what was going on since 1985, and see that not a single republican laughs.
A lot of terror was brought to the society, a lot of innocent people were killed. Just because the shooter wasn't an Islamic radical doesn't mean it wasn't terrorism; a lot of people place the federal building attack in Oklahoma City under the label "domestic terrorism", there is a strong argument for placing Sandy Hook in the same category.
None of the usual rules apply to Trump. He's said so many stupid things that would have ended most campaigns that Anonymous won't be able to stop him, either. If Anonymous wants to make a difference - and not just hand the election to anyone with a (D) after their name (as it is known that all three of the leading democrats poll vastly above Trump in general polling) - then they need to work on building up a republican opponent of Trump.
I should have been a little more verbose, I guess. It is well known that we sell navy ships to other countries, we have done that for quite some time. My question more so was whether any destroyers are made for other branches of the services (ie, army, air force, marines, coast guard). Of course there is a possibility that a destroyer built and sold to another country could end up serving a non-navy part of that country's force, but that is somewhat a different matter.
Slashdot conservatives are largely still living in the 80s (and longing for the second-coming of Saint Ronnie), so they don't see any former soviet-affiliated state as being any different from the (no longer extant) Soviet Union. For that matter they don't see any union being any different from the Soviet Union, but that is another topic...
(and yes, I know I will be down-modded for this but I have my asbestos underwear on today so go ahead and hit me)
Slashdot Mirror
Robots are too logical.
If we expect this animal to spend most of its life living at greater depths, then something is likely amiss with it that is bringing it this near the surface. While this would likely be closer-to-natural for coloration than a dead one, I'm not sure that it is necessarily fully in its natural coloration, either.
I can hardly imagine a better name for a group that is analyzing an OS produced by North Korea.
Those guys likely wouldn't have thought anything of it, as it is the only event with a minimum THC level required to compete.
Oh come on... you mean the fact that this took place on Mars didn't interest you at all? You have to know who the main character is before you see a movie?
If the title of the movie is the name of a character from said movie - and I have never heard of that character before - then I'm going to need the movie studio to at least give me some useful information in the trailers and commercials. There was nothing particularly Martian or Martian-esque in those to suggest that it was happening in any interesting location. If they had called it "John Carter stranded on Mars" it may have caught my eye - and the eyes of others as well I suspect - enough to get me to consider at least looking in to what it was about.
If someone released a movie tomorrow called "Steve Johnson", would you want to see it based only on that title? What if the commercials just showed Steve running around doing nothing that looked particularly unusual for a movie?
Their marketing utterly failed to tell me anything useful. I suspect I am not the only person who felt that way.
Every trailer and commercial I saw for that movie came across with the message that I should already know who John Carter was. Hence as I had no idea I had no interest in the commercials, trailers, or the movie itself. I'm still not familiar with the character. They could have introduced it much better to get people to care about it; think of how Rambo: First Blood was able to get us to care about a new character for example. Instead they tried to get us to care about the character through brute force, those who didn't go for it just stayed away and the movie flopped.
Hell just a better title would have gone a long ways towards bringing in customers. Even Borat had enough of an extended title to give people some idea what they were getting in to or why they might want to see it.
Is that the ex-CEO of ICANN was likely less corrupt than the current goons running the show. Imagine what would happen if they had their say...
After all, if the product was such a loser, the proper thing to do would be to allow the market to take over and allow the company to fail, no?
What more needs to be done to "allow the market to take over" when a drug is "not subject to any unexpired patent"? (ref) Any company that wanted to cut into the market could have started manufacturing and selling it for less.
My point is that he is trying to claim this was driven by his altruistic humanistic interests when quite plainly that is not the case. There is no contesting that he bought the company to make money. He can try to weasel out of it any way he wants, but the facts are out there for all to see. Why did he need to interfere with the company who previously made it? Why is he interfering with the market this way?
Just as you said someone could have come in and undercut the original manufacturer, someone could have come in and tried to compete at a higher price as well. We've seen examples before where companies have sold products at higher prices (bottled water comes to mind) with the illusion of "superior quality" or similar malarkey, and made a killing by better marketing and market positioning.
the drug was unprofitable at the former price, so any company selling it would be losing money
That is a really lame excuse to buy out a company and jack up the price of their product. He really should have just said "we did it because we can, and we knew nobody would stop us". If he really thinks he can fool the world with that line of bullshit he'll get another thing coming later. After all, if the product was such a loser, the proper thing to do would be to allow the market to take over and allow the company to fail, no?
Here in the states the janitors make a little more than that (although if we convert Euros to Dollars we are probably close to parity between the US and Netherlands) but the most junior researchers make less than that, and the grad students even less still. Faculty salaries vary dramatically across the country, though in most research universities faculty in the hard sciences start around $80k / year (this doesn't sound too bad until you recognize they are working 80 hour weeks for at least their first three years, when they simultaneously have no tenure). Top faculty - if they are pulling in large grants regularly, fully tenured, with a great research record - get up to $150-160k / year at most research universities but seldom much more than that.
Tragically most labs at our top universities have a total annual salary far below what we pay just to our head university football or basketball coaches.
If a decade after a huge budget increase, maintaining that level of high spending is considered "keeping the lights on," then it's no wonder we have a massive budget deficit.
You're not seeing the forest for the trees, here. The proper way to think about the budget for a lab is as the budget for a small business. You might be able to come up with an exception but I can not imagine a business anywhere in this country that is operating on the same budget they had 10 years ago and seeing the same margins. Literally everything costs more now than it did a decade ago; we pay more for electricity, we pay more for heat and water, we pay more for space. Even if the PI doesn't take a raise - or even cuts their salary - they still have increasing expenses to meet. At most institutions the grad students - even though they make less than janitors - do get annual raises, so that expense has to be met some how as well.
Perhaps NIH should have its budget reduced to Clinton-era levels for one year so they can once again appreciate just how much more money they've been receiving.
If your goal is to encourage the best scientists in the country to leave for other countries and never return, you may well be able to accomplish that with that idea. If your goal is to get good research and rock-bottom prices, you won't get that. There is a certain point where labs simply fold due to lack of funding, and it often has little - if anything - to do with their productivity.
Professors/Principal investigators just hire more graduate students and postdoctoral researchers for the same salary.
Actually it is a little more complicated than that. Grants usually are required to specify who will do the work, what their title is, and why. This is part of why the largest single-PI grants are dozens of pages long, as the PI is specifying the division of labor. It is very difficult to get around it downstream, even if you only want to swap in a postdoc for a grad student (or vice-versa).
Trickle-down economics doesn't work for science.
You forgot to end that with either. It doesn't work in science just as it doesn't work anywhere else.
The NIH increase is not enough to add radical new initiatives. In fact, most funded researchers will be lucky if the increase even results in them getting their full requested budget. Many researchers will likely still see overall decreases, while their institutions will likely ask for more funds to cover expenses (such as electricity, gas, space, water, etc). It's better than nothing, but it's not really much of something, either.
If we want to be a competitive nation in terms of scientific research we need to at least fund the NIH enough to meet operating expense increases so researchers can do work and get paid at (or slightly above, if their lucky) the levels of janitors.
Not one of those candidates said there are no innocents in Syria.
Except for the ones who are tripping over themselves to see who can exclude Syrians from being able to come to our country - which is all of them.
As for the 30 governors, I suppose you'd rather believe Obama's claim regarding background checking refugees.
There are more productive ways that terrorists could get in to our country than as refugees. In fact, refugee is arguably the slowest and least practical way for a terrorist to come in. Why would they be willing to go through 18-24 months of background checks, physical exams, and government investigations when they could get in much more quickly with a fake passport showing them to be coming from a visa exempt country? Being as terrorists are characterized as yearning to die for the cause anyways, they wouldn't really be concerned about whether or not they could get back to where they came from.
Tell us how Tashfeen Malik passed three background checks?
First, the claim of "three background checks" has so far only been brought up by Fox News, so forgive me for not being sold on that reflecting reality yet.
Second, she wasn't a refugee, or from the three countries we are seeing refugees crises from (Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan).
Third, she came as the bride of a US citizen, which made the process that much faster for her.
Timothy usually does better than this, but the slashdot "editors" are busy in job-hunting mode right now with slashdot up on for sale.
What? Timothy and co. generally *introduce* errors into the submitted summaries.
Saying Timothy is a better editor than the rest of the gang of idiots here is like saying I'm a better at cross-country running than most squid. Yeah, it's valid, but it doesn't mean much.
what's the difference between ADB-S v ADS-B
I'm pretty sure it's a typo. The link for "ADB-S" actually goes to a page discussing ADB-S, so it appears that - as often happens - the slashdot "editors" didn't edit for shit before posting to the front page. Timothy usually does better than this, but the slashdot "editors" are busy in job-hunting mode right now with slashdot up on for sale.
innocents in Syria
We've already been told by all the people running for the GOP nomination to run for POTUS that there are no innocents in Syria, and roughly 30 US governors (including many who are not running for president) have said the same. Clearly, they must be right and samzenpus just did a shitty job of editing that last line.
You fail, "failure machine" samzenpus.
NY Attorney General Wants Public To Report Broadband Speeds
Strongly suggests that the Attorney General would require people to do this. This could have been worded better to indicate in the headline that this is fully voluntary. Of course, accurate wording would not be as helpful in the standard slashdot demonization of all things liberal.
As usual, thank you "failure machine" samzenpus. I would expect nothing better from you.
I doubt republicans are the majority on slashdot - just that they tend to make more noise.
Slashdot certainly treats the republicans as the majority here, based on how often front-page stories cater to them and how often ads on the website cater to their causes. I agree that they undoubtedly make more noise than any other political faction. I would think that if slashdot was so woefully inaccurately estimating their audience there would have been some blowback by now... if there is any group that outnumbers the republicans here I would say it could only be the unconcerned unaffiliated. The democrats are a small minority here at best.
I know it isn't considered acceptable to mock republicans here on slashdot ...
Why not?
Because republicans are in the numeric majority here on slashdot, and they have almost no sense of humor.
If you doubt me, try this. First, make a joke about JFK or Bill Clinton and infidelity; see how many democrats laugh. Then make a joke about Reagan having had no idea what was going on since 1985, and see that not a single republican laughs.
I know it isn't considered acceptable to mock republicans here on slashdot, but that is funny, there. I'm even eating right now and that was funny...
A lot of terror was brought to the society, a lot of innocent people were killed. Just because the shooter wasn't an Islamic radical doesn't mean it wasn't terrorism; a lot of people place the federal building attack in Oklahoma City under the label "domestic terrorism", there is a strong argument for placing Sandy Hook in the same category.
None of the usual rules apply to Trump. He's said so many stupid things that would have ended most campaigns that Anonymous won't be able to stop him, either. If Anonymous wants to make a difference - and not just hand the election to anyone with a (D) after their name (as it is known that all three of the leading democrats poll vastly above Trump in general polling) - then they need to work on building up a republican opponent of Trump.
I should have been a little more verbose, I guess. It is well known that we sell navy ships to other countries, we have done that for quite some time. My question more so was whether any destroyers are made for other branches of the services (ie, army, air force, marines, coast guard). Of course there is a possibility that a destroyer built and sold to another country could end up serving a non-navy part of that country's force, but that is somewhat a different matter.
Slashdot conservatives are largely still living in the 80s (and longing for the second-coming of Saint Ronnie), so they don't see any former soviet-affiliated state as being any different from the (no longer extant) Soviet Union. For that matter they don't see any union being any different from the Soviet Union, but that is another topic...
(and yes, I know I will be down-modded for this but I have my asbestos underwear on today so go ahead and hit me)