I see this argument a lot - "we need to work out what we are best at in the long term". I don't understand it - there's a pre-supposition there that such an advantage exists. As far as I can see, advantages from nation to nation come about from two sources: geographical location (rich mineral deposits, large-scale renewable natural resources compared to population size etc.) or culture (education, work ethics, technical expertise). Neither of these two last "long term".
Natural resources run out, or population increases to diminish any advantage. Cultural advantages also dissipate in the long term - the next generation of top-class engineers, scientists and business-men could come from North America, or Europe. Or Japan. Or India, or China. The next-next gen may come from any of the above, or Bangladesh, or somewhere in Africa maybe. The "Western world" will compete with, but not dominate, these guys. The only long-term advantage you can obtain is to expand, artificially limit your population or deliberately use your current advantage to permanently disable your "competitors".
Since the last two are morally dubious, the first is pretty much your only option. And since no-one is keen on invading a country, slaughtering the natives and re-settling it, the only place to go is off-world. If the States and Europe were to race out to the moon right now, they may be able to keep an advantage for the next few hundred years, getting themselves a monopoly on off-world exploration. That would diminish after a while too, but it would last until there was no such thing as nations, maybe. But in "the long term", we're all just people.
"Engineers will be better than scientists or academics, despite similarly high intelligence levels, because engineers actually have to show results with their projects."
I think that you will find that even us fizzysists need to show results. No papers, no grant money. No commercial products, no commercial sponsorship money. No money, no job. If you know any people who don't have to show results with what they do, please ask them if they're hiring! Sounds sweet!
PRL will continue to exist, and continue to dictate to academics, for as long as funding agencies hand out grant money based on how many publications an academic has. It is as simple, and as sad, as that. Setting up your own open access journal is really not that easy - since it has no impact factor, one does not receive any funding credit for publishing in it. So why publish there?
Incidentally, all the major conferences demand something similar, requiring even copyrights on the plots contained in the papers. Their "copyright" is usually ignored by all the major collaborations (to my knowledge JLab, ZEUS, H1, HERMES and anything at CERN) who re-use the same plots in various talks, papers and presentations regardless. And yes, IAAP.
Slashdot Mirror
I see this argument a lot - "we need to work out what we are best at in the long term". I don't understand it - there's a pre-supposition there that such an advantage exists. As far as I can see, advantages from nation to nation come about from two sources: geographical location (rich mineral deposits, large-scale renewable natural resources compared to population size etc.) or culture (education, work ethics, technical expertise). Neither of these two last "long term".
Natural resources run out, or population increases to diminish any advantage. Cultural advantages also dissipate in the long term - the next generation of top-class engineers, scientists and business-men could come from North America, or Europe. Or Japan. Or India, or China. The next-next gen may come from any of the above, or Bangladesh, or somewhere in Africa maybe. The "Western world" will compete with, but not dominate, these guys. The only long-term advantage you can obtain is to expand, artificially limit your population or deliberately use your current advantage to permanently disable your "competitors".
Since the last two are morally dubious, the first is pretty much your only option. And since no-one is keen on invading a country, slaughtering the natives and re-settling it, the only place to go is off-world. If the States and Europe were to race out to the moon right now, they may be able to keep an advantage for the next few hundred years, getting themselves a monopoly on off-world exploration. That would diminish after a while too, but it would last until there was no such thing as nations, maybe. But in "the long term", we're all just people.
"Engineers will be better than scientists or academics, despite similarly high intelligence levels, because engineers actually have to show results with their projects."
I think that you will find that even us fizzysists need to show results. No papers, no grant money. No commercial products, no commercial sponsorship money. No money, no job. If you know any people who don't have to show results with what they do, please ask them if they're hiring! Sounds sweet!
The engineers got at it! BASTARDS!!!!
P.S. Where is the following quote from?
"Before I went to school, I couldn't spell engineer. Now I are one!"
PRL will continue to exist, and continue to dictate to academics, for as long as funding agencies hand out grant money based on how many publications an academic has. It is as simple, and as sad, as that. Setting up your own open access journal is really not that easy - since it has no impact factor, one does not receive any funding credit for publishing in it. So why publish there?
Incidentally, all the major conferences demand something similar, requiring even copyrights on the plots contained in the papers. Their "copyright" is usually ignored by all the major collaborations (to my knowledge JLab, ZEUS, H1, HERMES and anything at CERN) who re-use the same plots in various talks, papers and presentations regardless. And yes, IAAP.