But if a researcher -- or an interested enthusiast -- contacted you and asked questions and then wanted to see the data, you would give it to them, right?
I strongly applaud the spirit if not the implementation of the idea. Science is supposed to be publically verifiable evidence that any interested party could reproduce. And that is what it is, as long as you have the grant money and access to materials such as particle accelerators or MRI magnets. Now I realize that this type of equipment is expensive to manage and isn't easy to give everyone their fair shot at having time to use, but doing as much as possible to combat this is the way to help foster open science, no matter how esoteric.
Put another way, it gives people the choice to be hands on with science, and fail in order to learn something. Which is something that all scientists have to do, they just pay inordinate amounts of money to do it at present.
That is what the policy should amount to: If someone wants access to the MRI dicoms I used in my PLoS ONE paper, I should be legally required to oblige as part of the agreement to publish in their journal. Much as I am legally obliged to provide the source code of my GPL program to someone who asks, but it is ok if I wait until they ask if it is too big to host online.
I can realistically envision just two types of persons:
a) The persons who read the article title and immediately assumed "OMG my Debian GNU/Hurd and Debian GNU/kFreeBSD boxen will be getting a new init system!"
b) The persons who did not do that
One of these types of persons does not exist in corporeal form.
So long as the developer of a video game or other application tests its product on Wine, it's just another toolkit, just as GTK+ and Qt and SDL are toolkits.
Seriously, how many developers for Windows games target their products on Wine? For that matter how many developers target anything on wine? I thought the only people that tested anything on wine are the wine devs and wine users.
If a developer is targeting linux or cross-platform support, do you seriously think they will target their program to run on wine instead of "natively" (I know, I know, wine is "native")? Wine wouldn't discourage it, but how much sense would it make? It probably isn't much easier than targeting linux directly and probably would only serve to confuse the end user who has never heard of anyone targeting wine directly.
Yeah, yeah, wine is not an emulator and so on. But wine's *intended purpose* is clearly not as a toolkit but as a compatibility layer, which has nothing to do with its technical implementation nor the wittiness of its acronym.
If the price of buying steamOS along with valve hardware is not-a-whote-lot-more than I would pay to have a friend assemble the parts, I'd buy it and use it as a general purpose computer the next time I needed one (which I would guess might be about three years from now as I upgraded about four months ago). A debian box that runs high-end games, runs a browser, is stable, and lets me jump in and do some coding when I feel like it is exactly what I need from a typical home machine. SteamOS would not be an apporpriate choice for my work machine, which has very different requirements.
But if valve can hit that niche where the price of their hardware is not so far out of the realm of what I could build myself and the desktop "just works" well enough that I don't really need to think about it, I would definitely be their customer.
The only problem is, either there would have to be a league of legends client for unix or else better wine support for league of legends. It is probably time for another try with wine, I couldn't get it to work a year ago.
A: The Tesla model S cannot charge below 0 K.
B: The sun has gone out and we are all doomed.
Worth noting that in the quantum sense neither of these propositions have much meaning, but let us take them in the Newtonian sense. In this sense a reasonable person would probably assent that A seems like it is probably true and B seems like it is probably false.
I guess I am a desktop user of CentOS -- but I don't really have a choice, because all the machines on the shared filesystem where I work have to be CentOS or else IT won't support them.
Having stability in our environment is clearly a priority and we have to support a ton of legacy software among the various labs that use the filesystem. Even so, by now the system is too old and probably causes more headaches than if we were using debian stable. "What do you mean, this package requires a newer version of boost than GCC 4.4 supports? Nope, sorry, build it yourself without root."
I'd like to point out that the non-modernized specifications of Befunge (and unlike say INTERCAL, the old Befunge-93 is probably the one that people who bother trying to program anything in Befunge actually use) are not Turing complete. Thus, whether the problem of writing a web browser in Befunge-93 is decidable or not is not at all trivial.
There does exist a working technical definition for twice as cold -- namely, halfway been the reference temperature and absolute zero. Of course, if it were twice as cold as it is now, all life on earth would be dead.
Partially as devil's advocate, why is this a serious problem?
Say that an individual is suffering from a fictitious disorder such that they are compelled to murder one person each day. Such a person is clearly harming others, by virtue of their mental disability or otherwise, and law enforcement should be involved in such circumstances. Unless you decide that because the individual is suffering from a mental disability, that their behavior is excused and it is ok for them to keep murdering people. Naturally this example is extreme, but you could imagine a wide variety of other, less severe disorders in which the activity of the disordered individual actively harms others and, therefore, still requires the forcible involvement of the law.
What exactly happens to that person next, arguably, is something that should be addressed in mental health discussions. For insance, suppose our imaginary person with a murder problem has a treatable disorder. If the disorder can be treated with 100% certainty such that after treatment, the problem will abate and the individual becomes no longer a threat to others, then it would be perfectly reasonable to give that person a very different sentence than someone who with 100% probability could never be treated. Naturally, rarely if ever could these probabilities be thought of as nice round numbers.
Emergent is *precisely* the right tool to give a good baseline of how far the limit can be pushed on a single workstation in the "DIY computational neurosicence" vein of the question. It's also a very powerful tool, but not so powerful you couldn't replicate the same behavior that it uses in python (except for small instances of very complex math).
I took a course with Michael Frank as an undergraduate, we used this book. It is one of the best textbooks I've ever encountered.
Also, as someone else mentions below, emergent (http://grey.colorado.edu/emergent/index.php/Main_Page) is a cross-platform open-source simulator that goes with the book (most of the examples are in PDP++ which is a prior version of emergent).
Getting a PsyD is more like paying for getting an accreditation to work clinically than getting a masters, and both are extremely different from getting a doctorate. I won't be surprised if there are some scholarships to get PsyD, but the cost and commitment is not like getting a masters let alone PhD.
Most of the discussion of "grad school" education that exists in this thread is referring to PhDs, and the use of the term grad school is a misnomer. There are places that will take money to accredit a masters degree, and this isn't even always a poor investment.
In the context of scientific discourse, evidence must be measurable. Your evidence relies upon the idea that because the universe exists, the intention to create the universe must have preceded it. This is not clearly true; that is, there is no clear and measurable evidence for the linking assertion "The universe exists therefore the intention to create the universe must have preceded it." If you could make physical measurements that demonstrate this to be true, then it would be science. Until then, the evidence provided falls under the category of hearsay, which may be quite adequate in a discussion of theology but cannot be admissible in a discussion of science. As I am not interested in Abrahamic theology, I have no further comments on the legitimacy of the specific evidence.
Notably, and obviously, even if we supposed this evidence to be true it is entirely extraneous to questions of evolution and creationism.
It makes little difference to me whether its in the repos or not. It's not like it was hard to get MATE working with debian. 2 years ago I added one line to/etc/apt/sources, ran #apt-get mate-desktop, restarted the machine, and it worked.
Sure, that's cool and all that it'll be in the official repos and require 20 seconds less effort to switch to pretty soon. But you pointing out that debian is an unacceptable desktop solution is nonsense. More precisely, it isn't for everyone, specifically people (perhaps such as yourself?) that wish for their system to be exactly as they want it and have no time for messing with backports. But this does not change that installing software such as MATE or iceweasel-current on debian stable is not tremendously challenging.
I would argue that LXDE has become mainstream over the course of the past year or so. "Traditionally mainstream" is GNOME and KDE, with xfce as the ross perot of linux (except nobody cares about getting a flat plurality). But moving beyond the traditional, "mainstream" may reasonably refer to more options, especially with growing dissatisfaction with GNOME and KDE over the course of the past 3-5 years, such that -- for *that time window*, it may be reasonable to point out the increasing and significant market share of xfce, LXDE, MATE, and cinnamon.
For what its worth, white is a collection of multiple primary colors and green is a secondary color. So mint does not use a primary color, unless the mint 16 rc has changed their color scheme to bright red without my knowing.
I think it would be an excellent marketing move. Instead of having a giant billboard with a picture of a car and big letters saying "5.4 STARS" and a visual depiction of 5.4 stars, have the giant billboard simply scroll text of the entire contents of the 50 page safety report on the vehicle.
I think I'm convinced to buy a model S already.
This is comparison is not particularly germane because there are multiple types of cutting edge distros. Put simply, there is the gentoo type of cutting edge distro, where your system is hyperconfigured to run only what you want and nothing else and if systemd breaks you are expected to have some idea how to fix it, and there is the fedora type of cutting edge distro, where the objective is to hold the hands of novitiates users. Both distros were early adopters of systemd.
Now, I agree that choice is good. It is great that there are options like fedora, for novices who want broken systems, and options like mint, for novices who want functional systems, and so on. It's actually good that the one for novices who want broken systems exists, so that these types of bugs can be identified and fixed in a more mainstream setting. But it is worth noting that the criticisms of systemd are considerably more of a pressing issue for the fedora type (and the debian type) than the gentoo type.
I don't think you understand much about how science works. Science not funded by taxpayer money, entails very little science indeed that is not directly related to the production of new computing technology, pharmaceuticals, or nuclear warheads.
The 9 members of the club have no deficit of power. The boss has no deficit of power, if he doesn't like the terms he can fire the 9 workers (assuming that this is a toy example and he is not liable to be sued for discrimination and so forth).
The deficit of power in the story obviously belongs to the 1 guy who doesn't want to associate himself with the club because he wants to make money while the other guys prevent him from doing so while they negotiate with the boss. That guy, gets screwed.
In the right to work environment (which exists in a considerable number of non-right-to-work states for certain industries), that guy gets what he wants, while the union gets what they want (namely, the employer negotiating for terms, or else firing them and getting new workers, or whatever -- obviously the latter is a risk of collective bargaining).
In the *non* right to work environment, such as that seen for some public industries in many blue states (for instance, many teachers unions), everyone is required to be unionized and it tends to be true that the union is out of control.
In spite of being leftish in the grand scheme of things, my public school education with so many unionized teachers that were utterly incompetent, but protected from being fired for seniority or disability reasons, leaves me utterly unsympathetic towards the plight of organized labor. I hear occasionally from older people that I "don't understand how hard it is," that career stability is important and it would be heartless to simply fire the underperforming school teachers. Guess what, the younger generation is broke too. Of course, the root of the selfishness is the assumption that education is teacher-centric, and that therefore it is ok for public services to suffer just so that teachers who taught me nothing and wasted my time can retain their employment. This is a pervasive assumption among unions and people who defend unions.
It is worth saying here that not all unions are evil and corrupt bastards. But enough of them are that I'd rather just smash them all and start over.
Slashdot Mirror
But if a researcher -- or an interested enthusiast -- contacted you and asked questions and then wanted to see the data, you would give it to them, right? I strongly applaud the spirit if not the implementation of the idea. Science is supposed to be publically verifiable evidence that any interested party could reproduce. And that is what it is, as long as you have the grant money and access to materials such as particle accelerators or MRI magnets. Now I realize that this type of equipment is expensive to manage and isn't easy to give everyone their fair shot at having time to use, but doing as much as possible to combat this is the way to help foster open science, no matter how esoteric. Put another way, it gives people the choice to be hands on with science, and fail in order to learn something. Which is something that all scientists have to do, they just pay inordinate amounts of money to do it at present. That is what the policy should amount to: If someone wants access to the MRI dicoms I used in my PLoS ONE paper, I should be legally required to oblige as part of the agreement to publish in their journal. Much as I am legally obliged to provide the source code of my GPL program to someone who asks, but it is ok if I wait until they ask if it is too big to host online.
In many areas of Boston including where I live, the two regional cable companies (comcast and RCN) use different lines.
I can realistically envision just two types of persons:
a) The persons who read the article title and immediately assumed "OMG my Debian GNU/Hurd and Debian GNU/kFreeBSD boxen will be getting a new init system!"
b) The persons who did not do that
One of these types of persons does not exist in corporeal form.
Why would developers target wine instead of linux?
So long as the developer of a video game or other application tests its product on Wine, it's just another toolkit, just as GTK+ and Qt and SDL are toolkits.
Seriously, how many developers for Windows games target their products on Wine? For that matter how many developers target anything on wine? I thought the only people that tested anything on wine are the wine devs and wine users.
If a developer is targeting linux or cross-platform support, do you seriously think they will target their program to run on wine instead of "natively" (I know, I know, wine is "native")? Wine wouldn't discourage it, but how much sense would it make? It probably isn't much easier than targeting linux directly and probably would only serve to confuse the end user who has never heard of anyone targeting wine directly.
Yeah, yeah, wine is not an emulator and so on. But wine's *intended purpose* is clearly not as a toolkit but as a compatibility layer, which has nothing to do with its technical implementation nor the wittiness of its acronym.
If the price of buying steamOS along with valve hardware is not-a-whote-lot-more than I would pay to have a friend assemble the parts, I'd buy it and use it as a general purpose computer the next time I needed one (which I would guess might be about three years from now as I upgraded about four months ago). A debian box that runs high-end games, runs a browser, is stable, and lets me jump in and do some coding when I feel like it is exactly what I need from a typical home machine. SteamOS would not be an apporpriate choice for my work machine, which has very different requirements. But if valve can hit that niche where the price of their hardware is not so far out of the realm of what I could build myself and the desktop "just works" well enough that I don't really need to think about it, I would definitely be their customer.
The only problem is, either there would have to be a league of legends client for unix or else better wine support for league of legends. It is probably time for another try with wine, I couldn't get it to work a year ago.
A: The Tesla model S cannot charge below 0 K.
B: The sun has gone out and we are all doomed.
Worth noting that in the quantum sense neither of these propositions have much meaning, but let us take them in the Newtonian sense. In this sense a reasonable person would probably assent that A seems like it is probably true and B seems like it is probably false.
I do not see how the proposition (A->B) follows?
I guess I am a desktop user of CentOS -- but I don't really have a choice, because all the machines on the shared filesystem where I work have to be CentOS or else IT won't support them.
Having stability in our environment is clearly a priority and we have to support a ton of legacy software among the various labs that use the filesystem. Even so, by now the system is too old and probably causes more headaches than if we were using debian stable. "What do you mean, this package requires a newer version of boost than GCC 4.4 supports? Nope, sorry, build it yourself without root."
I'd like to point out that the non-modernized specifications of Befunge (and unlike say INTERCAL, the old Befunge-93 is probably the one that people who bother trying to program anything in Befunge actually use) are not Turing complete. Thus, whether the problem of writing a web browser in Befunge-93 is decidable or not is not at all trivial.
It snowed in Cairo last month. So by that logic, you pretty much had it coming, I'd say.
There does exist a working technical definition for twice as cold -- namely, halfway been the reference temperature and absolute zero. Of course, if it were twice as cold as it is now, all life on earth would be dead.
Partially as devil's advocate, why is this a serious problem?
Say that an individual is suffering from a fictitious disorder such that they are compelled to murder one person each day. Such a person is clearly harming others, by virtue of their mental disability or otherwise, and law enforcement should be involved in such circumstances. Unless you decide that because the individual is suffering from a mental disability, that their behavior is excused and it is ok for them to keep murdering people. Naturally this example is extreme, but you could imagine a wide variety of other, less severe disorders in which the activity of the disordered individual actively harms others and, therefore, still requires the forcible involvement of the law.
What exactly happens to that person next, arguably, is something that should be addressed in mental health discussions. For insance, suppose our imaginary person with a murder problem has a treatable disorder. If the disorder can be treated with 100% certainty such that after treatment, the problem will abate and the individual becomes no longer a threat to others, then it would be perfectly reasonable to give that person a very different sentence than someone who with 100% probability could never be treated. Naturally, rarely if ever could these probabilities be thought of as nice round numbers.
Emergent is *precisely* the right tool to give a good baseline of how far the limit can be pushed on a single workstation in the "DIY computational neurosicence" vein of the question. It's also a very powerful tool, but not so powerful you couldn't replicate the same behavior that it uses in python (except for small instances of very complex math).
I took a course with Michael Frank as an undergraduate, we used this book. It is one of the best textbooks I've ever encountered.
Also, as someone else mentions below, emergent (http://grey.colorado.edu/emergent/index.php/Main_Page) is a cross-platform open-source simulator that goes with the book (most of the examples are in PDP++ which is a prior version of emergent).
PhD and masters students, in STEM fields or otherwise, should not be grouped together as you have done here repeatedly.
Getting a PsyD is more like paying for getting an accreditation to work clinically than getting a masters, and both are extremely different from getting a doctorate. I won't be surprised if there are some scholarships to get PsyD, but the cost and commitment is not like getting a masters let alone PhD. Most of the discussion of "grad school" education that exists in this thread is referring to PhDs, and the use of the term grad school is a misnomer. There are places that will take money to accredit a masters degree, and this isn't even always a poor investment.
In the context of scientific discourse, evidence must be measurable. Your evidence relies upon the idea that because the universe exists, the intention to create the universe must have preceded it. This is not clearly true; that is, there is no clear and measurable evidence for the linking assertion "The universe exists therefore the intention to create the universe must have preceded it." If you could make physical measurements that demonstrate this to be true, then it would be science. Until then, the evidence provided falls under the category of hearsay, which may be quite adequate in a discussion of theology but cannot be admissible in a discussion of science. As I am not interested in Abrahamic theology, I have no further comments on the legitimacy of the specific evidence.
Notably, and obviously, even if we supposed this evidence to be true it is entirely extraneous to questions of evolution and creationism.
It makes little difference to me whether its in the repos or not. It's not like it was hard to get MATE working with debian. 2 years ago I added one line to /etc/apt/sources, ran #apt-get mate-desktop, restarted the machine, and it worked.
Sure, that's cool and all that it'll be in the official repos and require 20 seconds less effort to switch to pretty soon. But you pointing out that debian is an unacceptable desktop solution is nonsense. More precisely, it isn't for everyone, specifically people (perhaps such as yourself?) that wish for their system to be exactly as they want it and have no time for messing with backports. But this does not change that installing software such as MATE or iceweasel-current on debian stable is not tremendously challenging.
I would argue that LXDE has become mainstream over the course of the past year or so. "Traditionally mainstream" is GNOME and KDE, with xfce as the ross perot of linux (except nobody cares about getting a flat plurality). But moving beyond the traditional, "mainstream" may reasonably refer to more options, especially with growing dissatisfaction with GNOME and KDE over the course of the past 3-5 years, such that -- for *that time window*, it may be reasonable to point out the increasing and significant market share of xfce, LXDE, MATE, and cinnamon.
For what its worth, white is a collection of multiple primary colors and green is a secondary color. So mint does not use a primary color, unless the mint 16 rc has changed their color scheme to bright red without my knowing.
I think it would be an excellent marketing move. Instead of having a giant billboard with a picture of a car and big letters saying "5.4 STARS" and a visual depiction of 5.4 stars, have the giant billboard simply scroll text of the entire contents of the 50 page safety report on the vehicle. I think I'm convinced to buy a model S already.
Don't you mean intersect(SIMPLE,LAWYERS)={ } ?
This is comparison is not particularly germane because there are multiple types of cutting edge distros. Put simply, there is the gentoo type of cutting edge distro, where your system is hyperconfigured to run only what you want and nothing else and if systemd breaks you are expected to have some idea how to fix it, and there is the fedora type of cutting edge distro, where the objective is to hold the hands of novitiates users. Both distros were early adopters of systemd.
Now, I agree that choice is good. It is great that there are options like fedora, for novices who want broken systems, and options like mint, for novices who want functional systems, and so on. It's actually good that the one for novices who want broken systems exists, so that these types of bugs can be identified and fixed in a more mainstream setting. But it is worth noting that the criticisms of systemd are considerably more of a pressing issue for the fedora type (and the debian type) than the gentoo type.
I don't think you understand much about how science works. Science not funded by taxpayer money, entails very little science indeed that is not directly related to the production of new computing technology, pharmaceuticals, or nuclear warheads.
The 9 members of the club have no deficit of power. The boss has no deficit of power, if he doesn't like the terms he can fire the 9 workers (assuming that this is a toy example and he is not liable to be sued for discrimination and so forth).
The deficit of power in the story obviously belongs to the 1 guy who doesn't want to associate himself with the club because he wants to make money while the other guys prevent him from doing so while they negotiate with the boss. That guy, gets screwed.
In the right to work environment (which exists in a considerable number of non-right-to-work states for certain industries), that guy gets what he wants, while the union gets what they want (namely, the employer negotiating for terms, or else firing them and getting new workers, or whatever -- obviously the latter is a risk of collective bargaining).
In the *non* right to work environment, such as that seen for some public industries in many blue states (for instance, many teachers unions), everyone is required to be unionized and it tends to be true that the union is out of control.
In spite of being leftish in the grand scheme of things, my public school education with so many unionized teachers that were utterly incompetent, but protected from being fired for seniority or disability reasons, leaves me utterly unsympathetic towards the plight of organized labor. I hear occasionally from older people that I "don't understand how hard it is," that career stability is important and it would be heartless to simply fire the underperforming school teachers. Guess what, the younger generation is broke too. Of course, the root of the selfishness is the assumption that education is teacher-centric, and that therefore it is ok for public services to suffer just so that teachers who taught me nothing and wasted my time can retain their employment. This is a pervasive assumption among unions and people who defend unions.
It is worth saying here that not all unions are evil and corrupt bastards. But enough of them are that I'd rather just smash them all and start over.