You base that on Amazon review? Are you stupid, or just mildly retarded?
Let me see.. the last consumer grade electronic that didn't live past it's warranty was. hmm. Nothing, actually. wait, there was a monitor, but I broke it, so not their fault.
and I have been a consumer for WELL over 30 years.
I'm sure if I tried to save more and buy cheaper things my experience may not be true.
"Reviewers' comments should be made public, with their names attached, after the review process is over." no, absolutely not. Knowing their name will be published might change wording, or have people not want to be involved for human dynamic reasons. Scientists are human, not some cold emotionless being. And while they learn to critically think and apply the methods of science to the area of expertise, doesn't mean they can apply it to anything outside their expertise.
Anon. comments? sure.
Really, peer reviewing should be a requirement for experts. I wouldn't mind if uni. counted peer reviewing as part of the 'publish' requirement. If I hired scientist, I would make a certain amount of there hours could be scheduled to do peer review.
Because once you loose trust, people go away. It's not worth weeding through a pile of crap just to publish something, and if no one rusts you all you will get is crap papers showing that if you simple rewrite physics, then acupuncture will work! with QUANTUM!
Respect is part of science, because no one can look at every aspect of everything. There must be trust. Madoff was respected simply because he had money. Science journals gain respect by having a history of quality reviewed papers.
If a scientist commits fraud, he loses respect and has shown himself not to be trustworthy. If the scientist then discovers something great, he will need to work harder to show he isn't lying this time, and that is his own damn fault. That's why it's appalling when a scientist commits fraud, because we all lose.
How much time are you going to spend [peer reviewing papers of someone known to lie? How long will you keep reading a magazine that publishes papers based on fraud?
Maybe you are new, so I will clue you in: Respect and trust are critical for human society to thrive.
This is , of course, regarding quality peer reviewed magazines and papers. The scientist is free to publish his finding on a blog, or talk to his peers outside the journal. They could add a name to the paper of someone who isn't known for lying or sloppy methodology. He can present his paper at conferences, and he can work to show he isn't a lying.
I understand your point, and they are ones with bring up; however I think a general bubble in society about common natural events helps keep people interested. another grain of sand on the 'We must keep a better eye in the sky' pile.
Because I can say, without hyperbole, that we can be rendered extinct by a large rock from space. So the sooner we find them, the better are chance at diverting it.
at 11 meters? no it certainly would not be 'interesting times'. It would be a cool fire show. If some is really unlcuck, it might how a city. While bad for the the city, certainly nothing for anyone else. It would weight, what 50,000 tons?(approx) a 747 has a min. operational weight of around 40,000 tons. Up to 9It could weight about the same as a 747. It would be travelling at 40K. It would be nothing like the craters you link to. Awesome link, btw. Add tio that it would probably break up into at least two large pieces.
also, the earth is covered in craters, most of them have grown over, or are underwater.
True, but we don't know. TO me the real interesting bit is the fact that huff-po had this article two days before. Except the WSJ added paragraphs, some of which make no sens in the article.
I think the guy copied the article and the just added stuff to make it seem relevant. Clearly he didn't do any research.
RnD costs a lot of money, as does advertising; however you make the mistake of assuming the money comes from the same pot, and for all practical reasons, it does not.
Here is the disconnect: "pharmaceutical industry spent 24.4% of the sales dollar on promotion, versus 13.4% for research and development, as a percentage of US domestic sales of US$235.4 billion."
Money for RnD doesn't come from sales of the drug that's been released. Also, RnD is just one part of the overall drug creation.
Promotion also includes the cost for samples. It's almost like it's a complex business! Now, lets look at this: “In our paper, we make the case for the need for a new estimate of promotional expenditures by the U.S. pharmaceutical industry,” says Gagnon. “We then explain how we used proprietary databases to construct a revised estimate and finally, we compare our results with those from other data sources to argue in favor of changing the priorities of the industry.”
SO theya re saying there needs to be a new way to estimates promotional expenditures. Fine, but then they used proprietary data they wont release? FAIL.
"Thus, the study’s findings supports the position that the U.S. pharmaceutical industry is marketing-driven and challenges the perception of a research-driven, life-saving, pharmaceutical industry," No it doesn't. all it shows, using there special data know one can look at, is that pharmacy companies can spend more on advertising the RnD. They STILL do RnD, the still create life saving drugs.
Look, there are two sides to Pharmaceutics. marketing, and research. They hire the best marketing people, and also the Best research people. They ahven't different goals.
While I agree we need to go back to no medical advertising for a great many reasons, noting the a company spends a.lot on advertising doesn't prove that point.
That's not the question at hand. The Question is:Did Larry Page know about it?
DO you have an actual link of the prosecutor saying that, besides the article? because it doesn't appear in any documents about the Chief executives agreeing to let this happen.
Sorry, didn't mean to go to the source and mellow your harsh.
Presenting lines from the article on now way couters my 2 points:
1) The articel is poorly written, and ripped onff from the hufpo.
2) No evidence outside what that con man claims exists that Larry page knew about this. Since he is a con man, and looking for any reason to get out early, I need better evidence. and YOU should too.
The Newspaper Paradox: When there is an article about something you know about, it's wrong. When there is an article outside your knowledge, it newspaper is 100% correct.
I mean you as in whomever reading the paper, not just YOU.
I would also like to point out that the author makes money form just this sort of controversy, so not exactly a disinterested 3rd party looking to minimize bias.
the first line in that link makes me question the whole thing.
The WSJ article is not excellent. I'm not talking about correct, I'm talking about the writing. It's pretty poor. Whole paragraphs look like they where just slopped in. I also wonder with the look at WSJ, even though the Same story was on the Huffington Post. Minus what seems to be the thrown in bit in WSJ.
It really reads like Catan saw the Huf-po article, copied it and then added some paragraphs filled with irrelevant data implications.
It's proof the where advertising something they were supposed to, not proof the Larry Page was personally making ad deals. The question is not that ads went out, the issue is did Larry Page personally know of this?
When some companies get big, some loud minorities start looking for mistakes. or, as in this case, hearsay of mistakes or 'evil'.
Almost everything McDonalds is accused of is a fabrication. Yet, people still believe stupid shit, anecdotes, or ignorant people presenting 'facts' without any actual evidence or thinking applied.
Same thing with Google. People, on Slashdot fear what they can't be bothered to understand.
Thewn he shoud be pushing for a Healthcare program. Canada's drugs are sheap because the buy a guaranted
Do you know who ahs cheaping drugs then Canada? the VA. Do you know wny> a garunteed min. volume.
However when the government tries to do thagt, people like you scream about it.
IF you think it wasn't regulated there would even be a volume min? no. Everyone would pay higher prices. Your father is leeching off Canada's 'socialized' medicine program.
There is no magic plot to make Americans pay more then Canadians from the same company for the same drug.
There are a bunch of people on office who think people should suffer, and think people dying and not getting a column discount on drugs is a good thing.
Slashdot Mirror
You base that on Amazon review? Are you stupid, or just mildly retarded?
Let me see.. the last consumer grade electronic that didn't live past it's warranty was. hmm. Nothing, actually.
wait, there was a monitor, but I broke it, so not their fault.
and I have been a consumer for WELL over 30 years.
I'm sure if I tried to save more and buy cheaper things my experience may not be true.
is exactly what I as talking about when people said we could save money grounding the fleet and use Russian launch capabilities.
We can do two wars at a time, but not two launch systems. That has always pissed me off.
Because in that world, if you aren't a multi-billionaire, you are second tier.
"Just be transparent"
and how are you going to look at everything? who has the time?
Do you know how many details are in a study? it's not just data.
"Reviewers' comments should be made public, with their names attached, after the review process is over."
no, absolutely not. Knowing their name will be published might change wording, or have people not want to be involved for human dynamic reasons.
Scientists are human, not some cold emotionless being. And while they learn to critically think and apply the methods of science to the area of expertise, doesn't mean they can apply it to anything outside their expertise.
Anon. comments? sure.
Really, peer reviewing should be a requirement for experts. I wouldn't mind if uni. counted peer reviewing as part of the 'publish' requirement.
If I hired scientist, I would make a certain amount of there hours could be scheduled to do peer review.
"Come on... Murphy's law. If it can happen it will happen.
you're basing everything on a joke saying?
hmm. OK you just need to hang in there!
See, I to can quote crapped posters.
It's a transparent as the submitter want's it to be.
Because once you loose trust, people go away. It's not worth weeding through a pile of crap just to publish something, and if no one rusts you all you will get is crap papers showing that if you simple rewrite physics, then acupuncture will work! with QUANTUM!
Respect is part of science, because no one can look at every aspect of everything. There must be trust. Madoff was respected simply because he had money. Science journals gain respect by having a history of quality reviewed papers.
If a scientist commits fraud, he loses respect and has shown himself not to be trustworthy.
If the scientist then discovers something great, he will need to work harder to show he isn't lying this time, and that is his own damn fault. That's why it's appalling when a scientist commits fraud, because we all lose.
How much time are you going to spend [peer reviewing papers of someone known to lie? How long will you keep reading a magazine that publishes papers based on fraud?
Maybe you are new, so I will clue you in: Respect and trust are critical for human society to thrive.
This is , of course, regarding quality peer reviewed magazines and papers. The scientist is free to publish his finding on a blog, or talk to his peers outside the journal. They could add a name to the paper of someone who isn't known for lying or sloppy methodology. He can present his paper at conferences, and he can work to show he isn't a lying.
ah yes, warm Kiev.
If you are going to have a global conference, it's really stupid not to put it someplace with nice weather.
You know why Detroit is having a hard time getting new large business? it's in Michigan.
What issue of new scientist was that?
linguist is the word you are looking for, no nerd.
Stop diluting it.
If you are too busy to take the 30 minutes it takes to get to the library, then you have no time to read the latest physics paper.
from what happened to Pythagoras when he tried to keep everything a secret.
in the last couple of years, the NEJM has dropped in quality. I suspect for the same reasons.
I understand your point, and they are ones with bring up; however I think a general bubble in society about common natural events helps keep people interested. another grain of sand on the 'We must keep a better eye in the sky' pile.
Because I can say, without hyperbole, that we can be rendered extinct by a large rock from space. So the sooner we find them, the better are chance at diverting it.
Yes, yes it does.
Is it the type of material that would cause an air burst? is the material the type the will break a part? How much matter will it kick up?
I would rather have a baseball traveling the speed of light* hit us rather then a 1000 ton pieces of stone impacting the earth at 55,000 km per hour.
The first one might destroy a city, the with one would cause mass extinctions, and ruin all civilization.
*I know it cant, just an example that mass and material type matter.
And that explains why I dislike tnt comparisons.
Yes total energy would be equvilient...but energy is lost entering the atmosphere, the break up so not you have several smaller "tnt piles".
Of course the event you link to was cause by a comet, so not really the same thing.
at 11 meters? no it certainly would not be 'interesting times'. It would be a cool fire show. If some is really unlcuck, it might how a city. While bad for the the city, certainly nothing for anyone else.
It would weight, what 50,000 tons?(approx) a 747 has a min. operational weight of around 40,000 tons. Up to 9It could weight about the same as a 747. It would be travelling at 40K. It would be nothing like the craters you link to. Awesome link, btw.
Add tio that it would probably break up into at least two large pieces.
also, the earth is covered in craters, most of them have grown over, or are underwater.
True, but we don't know. TO me the real interesting bit is the fact that huff-po had this article two days before. Except the WSJ added paragraphs, some of which make no sens in the article.
I think the guy copied the article and the just added stuff to make it seem relevant. Clearly he didn't do any research.
Yes, but that's not the issue. Did you not understand the headline?
Which in no way counters the person argument.
RnD costs a lot of money, as does advertising; however you make the mistake of assuming the money comes from the same pot, and for all practical reasons, it does not.
Here is the disconnect:
"pharmaceutical industry spent 24.4% of the sales dollar on promotion, versus 13.4% for research and development, as a percentage of US domestic sales of US$235.4 billion."
Money for RnD doesn't come from sales of the drug that's been released. Also, RnD is just one part of the overall drug creation.
Promotion also includes the cost for samples. It's almost like it's a complex business!
Now, lets look at this:
“In our paper, we make the case for the need for a new estimate of promotional expenditures by the U.S. pharmaceutical industry,” says Gagnon. “We then explain how we used proprietary databases to construct a revised estimate and finally, we compare our results with those from other data sources to argue in favor of changing the priorities of the industry.”
SO theya re saying there needs to be a new way to estimates promotional expenditures. Fine, but then they used proprietary data they wont release? FAIL.
"Thus, the study’s findings supports the position that the U.S. pharmaceutical industry is marketing-driven and challenges the perception of a research-driven, life-saving, pharmaceutical industry,"
No it doesn't. all it shows, using there special data know one can look at, is that pharmacy companies can spend more on advertising the RnD. They STILL do RnD, the still create life saving drugs.
Look, there are two sides to Pharmaceutics.
marketing, and research.
They hire the best marketing people, and also the Best research people. They ahven't different goals.
While I agree we need to go back to no medical advertising for a great many reasons, noting the a company spends a .lot on advertising doesn't prove that point.
That's not the question at hand. The Question is :Did Larry Page know about it?
DO you have an actual link of the prosecutor saying that, besides the article? because it doesn't appear in any documents about the Chief executives agreeing to let this happen.
Sorry, didn't mean to go to the source and mellow your harsh.
Presenting lines from the article on now way couters my 2 points:
1) The articel is poorly written, and ripped onff from the hufpo.
2) No evidence outside what that con man claims exists that Larry page knew about this. Since he is a con man, and looking for any reason to get out early, I need better evidence. and YOU should too.
The Newspaper Paradox:
When there is an article about something you know about, it's wrong.
When there is an article outside your knowledge, it newspaper is 100% correct.
I mean you as in whomever reading the paper, not just YOU.
I would also like to point out that the author makes money form just this sort of controversy, so not exactly a disinterested 3rd party looking to minimize bias.
the first line in that link makes me question the whole thing.
The WSJ article is not excellent. I'm not talking about correct, I'm talking about the writing. It's pretty poor. Whole paragraphs look like they where just slopped in.
I also wonder with the look at WSJ, even though the Same story was on the Huffington Post. Minus what seems to be the thrown in bit in WSJ.
It really reads like Catan saw the Huf-po article, copied it and then added some paragraphs filled with irrelevant data implications.
It's proof the where advertising something they were supposed to, not proof the Larry Page was personally making ad deals.
The question is not that ads went out, the issue is did Larry Page personally know of this?
Tipping point Hate.
When some companies get big, some loud minorities start looking for mistakes. or, as in this case, hearsay of mistakes or 'evil'.
Almost everything McDonalds is accused of is a fabrication. Yet, people still believe stupid shit, anecdotes, or ignorant people presenting 'facts' without any actual evidence or thinking applied.
Same thing with Google.
People, on Slashdot fear what they can't be bothered to understand.
False. Thanks for playing.
Thewn he shoud be pushing for a Healthcare program.
Canada's drugs are sheap because the buy a guaranted
Do you know who ahs cheaping drugs then Canada? the VA. Do you know wny> a garunteed min. volume.
However when the government tries to do thagt, people like you scream about it.
IF you think it wasn't regulated there would even be a volume min? no. Everyone would pay higher prices.
Your father is leeching off Canada's 'socialized' medicine program.
There is no magic plot to make Americans pay more then Canadians from the same company for the same drug.
There are a bunch of people on office who think people should suffer, and think people dying and not getting a column discount on drugs is a good thing.