I get it, arguments of sacrifice sound hippy and antiquated, and I picked a couple of touchy or cliched examples. But supply side manipulation can't solve complex problems like this. If you can balance your equation by also tweaking the demand side, you suddenly have many more potential solutions that don't rely on science fiction technology for supply. Just because folk live in a world that increasingly utilizes electricity doesn't mean we actually need all of those sources around us to still maintain a high quality of living. The author points to the demand side solution herself at the end of her article. But if these arguments sound like unacceptable sacrifices to you, how would you propose altering the demand side?
Good call. Do we need to keep store signs illuminated at night? Do we need to optimize all of our refrigerated sections of food retail to display everything in them at the cost of good insulation? Do we need to be able to open our refrigerators at any moment of the day and keep them open as long as we want? How about Appliances for things that could instead be done by hand - dishwashers, clothes washers. Not everyone has to be a Luddite, but the demands we place on the grid are absurd in some ways.
The problem, as alluded in AC's reply above, is when a pharmaceutical employed scientist makes the discovery and can't publish it in peer or public access journals. As this is through a national research institute, further funding and publications are likely forthcoming.
It doesn't matter if it isn't approved. If there is a mechanism published in the science literature to treat the disease, someone will be able to experiment with it in another country. Think about some of the African/Asian countries who have said to hell with Western patents on drug formulas and make their own. If a country can produce these compounds then they most likely have the means to run clinical trials.
Has anyone else tried to pull the original source material? I can't find the MIT release, and this paper linked to from the bottom of the networkworld article* doesn't seem to have the information I'm looking for. The skeptic in me wanted to find out 1.) what they chose for 'risk' model behavior - the 4 arm bandit choice between 4 slot machines with different pay out ratios; 2.) how they operationalized risk - 'explorative' behavior was when they chose a different slot machine from the previous trial, and 'exploitative' when they chose the same slot machine as the previous trial; and perhaps most important to me 3.) how they classified a manager vs an entrepreneur. Could not find anything about that in the methods section. A keyword search for 'entrepreneur' returns the first hit in the analysis section when they describe performing a (presumably post-hoc) test on the locus coeruleus in entrepreneurs. No real justification, or qualifications......
Also of concern is that their subject pool was drawn from managerial experience in the diverse fields of "marketing, human resources, production, R&D, or finance." As a scientist, I'm not well versed in the business world, but how similar do y'all think decision making in these fields might be?
it may not be a cure, but Otosound (http://www.otosound.com/) has a therapy device they are working on, and I've overheard some talk of clinical trials in Europe.
If that's the case, why not just publish at an open-access site?
Because that site isn't peer reviewed. As we can see, peer review isn't the unblemished pillar we hold it up to be. But as a grad student whose adviser doesn't often check my work, peer review can be the only thing standing between me publishing a mistake and actually catching it. That being said, there are several open access sites that are peer reviewed. And in support of open access, the University of California, San Diego recently started a fund for researchers where it will pay for the fees for one open access submission per year.
I think that there are certain behaviors that this version of psychohistory can more easily model. When looking at 2 dimensional maps, given features of the environment are represented on the map, then there are some unequivocal positions of power from which to stage incursions or defensive stands. If your model accounts for shifting boundaries of who controls what territory, it can predict in which direction the next skirmish may move, jumping between these strategic nodes.
Now get it to try to predict something completely different, such as attendance at a sporting event. Maybe you could model the traffic congestion as a function of temporary population density....
Slashdot Mirror
I get it, arguments of sacrifice sound hippy and antiquated, and I picked a couple of touchy or cliched examples. But supply side manipulation can't solve complex problems like this. If you can balance your equation by also tweaking the demand side, you suddenly have many more potential solutions that don't rely on science fiction technology for supply. Just because folk live in a world that increasingly utilizes electricity doesn't mean we actually need all of those sources around us to still maintain a high quality of living. The author points to the demand side solution herself at the end of her article. But if these arguments sound like unacceptable sacrifices to you, how would you propose altering the demand side?
Good call. Do we need to keep store signs illuminated at night? Do we need to optimize all of our refrigerated sections of food retail to display everything in them at the cost of good insulation? Do we need to be able to open our refrigerators at any moment of the day and keep them open as long as we want? How about Appliances for things that could instead be done by hand - dishwashers, clothes washers. Not everyone has to be a Luddite, but the demands we place on the grid are absurd in some ways.
The problem, as alluded in AC's reply above, is when a pharmaceutical employed scientist makes the discovery and can't publish it in peer or public access journals. As this is through a national research institute, further funding and publications are likely forthcoming.
It doesn't matter if it isn't approved. If there is a mechanism published in the science literature to treat the disease, someone will be able to experiment with it in another country. Think about some of the African/Asian countries who have said to hell with Western patents on drug formulas and make their own. If a country can produce these compounds then they most likely have the means to run clinical trials.
I should qualify I was also unable to find other papers published by Zollo through google.com/scholar that the networkworld post could have sourced.
Has anyone else tried to pull the original source material? I can't find the MIT release, and this paper linked to from the bottom of the networkworld article* doesn't seem to have the information I'm looking for. The skeptic in me wanted to find out 1.) what they chose for 'risk' model behavior - the 4 arm bandit choice between 4 slot machines with different pay out ratios; 2.) how they operationalized risk - 'explorative' behavior was when they chose a different slot machine from the previous trial, and 'exploitative' when they chose the same slot machine as the previous trial; and perhaps most important to me 3.) how they classified a manager vs an entrepreneur. Could not find anything about that in the methods section. A keyword search for 'entrepreneur' returns the first hit in the analysis section when they describe performing a (presumably post-hoc) test on the locus coeruleus in entrepreneurs. No real justification, or qualifications......
Also of concern is that their subject pool was drawn from managerial experience in the diverse fields of "marketing, human resources, production, R&D, or finance." As a scientist, I'm not well versed in the business world, but how similar do y'all think decision making in these fields might be?
*http://www.croma.unibocconi.it/wps/wcm/connect/3e3146804cadaef7a443fc0f7bdc7be0/laureiro_12-02.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&useDefaultText=0&useDefaultDesc=0
it may not be a cure, but Otosound (http://www.otosound.com/) has a therapy device they are working on, and I've overheard some talk of clinical trials in Europe.
If that's the case, why not just publish at an open-access site?
Because that site isn't peer reviewed. As we can see, peer review isn't the unblemished pillar we hold it up to be. But as a grad student whose adviser doesn't often check my work, peer review can be the only thing standing between me publishing a mistake and actually catching it. That being said, there are several open access sites that are peer reviewed. And in support of open access, the University of California, San Diego recently started a fund for researchers where it will pay for the fees for one open access submission per year.
forget the stains, acidic drinks pull calcium off of your teeth
I think that there are certain behaviors that this version of psychohistory can more easily model. When looking at 2 dimensional maps, given features of the environment are represented on the map, then there are some unequivocal positions of power from which to stage incursions or defensive stands. If your model accounts for shifting boundaries of who controls what territory, it can predict in which direction the next skirmish may move, jumping between these strategic nodes. Now get it to try to predict something completely different, such as attendance at a sporting event. Maybe you could model the traffic congestion as a function of temporary population density....