If you outlaw/regulate short-selling it basically means the price will be more likely to rise. This is artificial. Eventually it will crash, and the crash will be much more extreme than if shortselling was allowed the entire time. Then the crash will be blamed on "speculators". Interestingly enough if short selling in a market is banned/discouraged usually a government is investing in that market.
Sorry R^2 is above 0.90. Pearsons R between average gas price at the pump in the US vs Gold/oz from Jan 1976 to Feb 2012 is 0.833. And pearson's R assumes a the most simple (linear) relationship. This has likely only become stronger recently. You can look at what gold and gas prices have done recently on your own.
No that would solve nothing, you have never speculated on anything in your life. Stop talking about things you know nothing about.
Go find the correlation between Gas price and Gold price. It is steady since the 70s, you'll find pearson's R is above.90. It is all inflation/deflation.
Evolutionary genomics has a huge application in GMO foods, etc. Most basic science is like this and could just as well be seen as high risk, high potential reward side projects that spin off those that could provide some immediate benefit, so in that case you should expect limited funding.
I should say that I don't mean to discourage you at all. Doing research is the most rewarding job ever if you like that type of thing.
Biomed just needs more people who are so enthusiastic about what they do that they ignore the rules (publish x papers, etc). There is a strong core of scientists who will do the best possible job and accept nothing less from those they review. Just know that this is the minority, and that, unless you are lucky or exceptionally astute, you really won't be able to tell who is in which group until 4th or 5th year of grad school or later.
I meant it differently. There is far too much money in biomed research right now. As someone in the field I will tell you that most studies end up being near worthless, wasting huge amounts of money in the process. Most researchers are not actually on the forefront of discovery, but have instead been turned into (as you say) mindless, instinctual animals because they don't have time to do things properly. On average, this produces little of value and society is rewarding this behavior appropriately. Further, universities and drug companies then take any of the good research that does result from this system and reap the rewards.
If you really are on the forefront of discovery, figure out a way to use this info and get out of academia.
Most PhD's just coast and do what they are told... the system is set up to encourage this. It turns intelligent, creative people into automata who just want to advance their careers by "discovering something new". The journals are filled with worthless, poorly controlled, poorly analyzed reports. This is the true problem. A large proportion of researchers are not producing anything of value and even those who do get caught up in publish or perish.
If the government is going to fund grad student stipends they also need to fund the R & D jobs later. Since no one knows which R & D will lead to something useful (especially not committees of scientists turned into bureaucrats), it causes a glut. There is widespread dissatisfaction amongst both researchers and the public with the current system.
IMO the systemic change needed is to develop an interface between the public and scientists so that individual projects that are important to people (who may benefit from the results) can be funded directly. It is at least worth a try.
That's a price increase of 1.07^22 = 4.43 vs. 1.03^22 = 1.91 over the 22 years since.
What exactly did you mean to calculate here? The ratio of cornflake price after 22 years of inflation to the starting price?
That is not what you calculated, you calculated the "price increase" of something 22 years after it cost $1 under two different inflation scenarios (3% and 7%).
Well I was referring to drawing conclusions from one experiment which I guess is roughly equivalent to one research paper. Also, obviously some papers are better quality than others. The point is that data can be interpreted (and manipulated, e.g. publication bias) in multiple ways, science tests each theory until one is clearly the most plausible.
The parent referred to "the data", which is what it is. The interpretation of the data has a social aspect and is inherently subjective, many theories have lasted for centuries until finally disproven.
Don't get me wrong, science is the best way to figure things out by far, but we shouldn't pretend it is a completely objective endeavor.
Slashdot Mirror
Ultimately, people who think in the same terms you do are the problem.
If you outlaw/regulate short-selling it basically means the price will be more likely to rise. This is artificial. Eventually it will crash, and the crash will be much more extreme than if shortselling was allowed the entire time. Then the crash will be blamed on "speculators". Interestingly enough if short selling in a market is banned/discouraged usually a government is investing in that market.
Well, I messed up the math but whatever (I have my reasons for failing), there is a strong correlation.
Sorry R^2 is above 0.90. Pearsons R between average gas price at the pump in the US vs Gold/oz from Jan 1976 to Feb 2012 is 0.833. And pearson's R assumes a the most simple (linear) relationship. This has likely only become stronger recently. You can look at what gold and gas prices have done recently on your own.
No that would solve nothing, you have never speculated on anything in your life. Stop talking about things you know nothing about.
Go find the correlation between Gas price and Gold price. It is steady since the 70s, you'll find pearson's R is above .90. It is all inflation/deflation.
Evolutionary genomics has a huge application in GMO foods, etc. Most basic science is like this and could just as well be seen as high risk, high potential reward side projects that spin off those that could provide some immediate benefit, so in that case you should expect limited funding.
I should say that I don't mean to discourage you at all. Doing research is the most rewarding job ever if you like that type of thing.
Biomed just needs more people who are so enthusiastic about what they do that they ignore the rules (publish x papers, etc). There is a strong core of scientists who will do the best possible job and accept nothing less from those they review. Just know that this is the minority, and that, unless you are lucky or exceptionally astute, you really won't be able to tell who is in which group until 4th or 5th year of grad school or later.
I meant it differently. There is far too much money in biomed research right now. As someone in the field I will tell you that most studies end up being near worthless, wasting huge amounts of money in the process. Most researchers are not actually on the forefront of discovery, but have instead been turned into (as you say) mindless, instinctual animals because they don't have time to do things properly. On average, this produces little of value and society is rewarding this behavior appropriately. Further, universities and drug companies then take any of the good research that does result from this system and reap the rewards.
If you really are on the forefront of discovery, figure out a way to use this info and get out of academia.
Most PhD's just coast and do what they are told... the system is set up to encourage this. It turns intelligent, creative people into automata who just want to advance their careers by "discovering something new". The journals are filled with worthless, poorly controlled, poorly analyzed reports. This is the true problem. A large proportion of researchers are not producing anything of value and even those who do get caught up in publish or perish.
If the government is going to fund grad student stipends they also need to fund the R & D jobs later. Since no one knows which R & D will lead to something useful (especially not committees of scientists turned into bureaucrats), it causes a glut. There is widespread dissatisfaction amongst both researchers and the public with the current system.
IMO the systemic change needed is to develop an interface between the public and scientists so that individual projects that are important to people (who may benefit from the results) can be funded directly. It is at least worth a try.
I don't think this is true at all. There is just a system set up to make people believe such things then take advantage of them.
Or they want to buy something.
This is the case for all currencies:
Average daily turnover in global foreign exchange markets is estimated at $3.98 trillion...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_exchange_market
haha, exactly
nevermind, I'm dumb.
What exactly did you mean to calculate here? The ratio of cornflake price after 22 years of inflation to the starting price?
That is not what you calculated, you calculated the "price increase" of something 22 years after it cost $1 under two different inflation scenarios (3% and 7%).
Why did you compare "price increase" to "factor"? Your "model" also assumes an initial price of $1.00. That makes no sense. It should have been
Actual Price Difference = 11.37 - 3.98
= $7.39
7% estimate of price difference = 3.98 * 1.07^22 - 3.98
= $13.65
3% estimate of price difference = 3.98 * 1.03^22 - 3.98
= $3.64
Here, I made a chart from that data that shows the story pretty well:
http://oi45.tinypic.com/30iul36.jpg
Something will happen to stop this exponential growth.
Do you work as a scientist?
1 % was out of my ass, 80% is commonly thought to be the false positive rate for published "statistically significant" results
Maybe we are using different definitions of science, I would use "science" in both those situations.
Interesting perspective.
Did you mean "wrong 99% of the time"?
Nope. I would question a number of your assumptions though.
Well I was referring to drawing conclusions from one experiment which I guess is roughly equivalent to one research paper. Also, obviously some papers are better quality than others. The point is that data can be interpreted (and manipulated, e.g. publication bias) in multiple ways, science tests each theory until one is clearly the most plausible.
The parent referred to "the data", which is what it is. The interpretation of the data has a social aspect and is inherently subjective, many theories have lasted for centuries until finally disproven.
Don't get me wrong, science is the best way to figure things out by far, but we shouldn't pretend it is a completely objective endeavor.
What is the purpose of the introduction and discussion sections of a research paper?