You are indeed correct. In fact I've been able to replicate the chemical compound in my basement wet lab, but lack the funds for commercialization. Please send a check to my Nigerian account so I can continue with my research.
This is a standard example of a disruptive technology. It introduces so many changes in the distribution model that publishers can't see a way to make a profit out of it.
There are many ways to go around the problems described in the message from the publisher, but all of them require a re-thinking of the publishing business and their economic model.
Here's self-promotion back at you
on
The Long Tail
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
I'm old enough to remember when Wired was relevant. Then it decided to dedicate all of its covers to managers rather than technologies, and focus on their human side (short story: they are all dweebs), rather than on the technical aspect of their contributions, which is why they became famous/wealthy in the first place.
Thus Wired became the "Cosmopolitan" of the internet revolution, with the sole difference that the faces on the cover are ugly.
I quickly droped my subscription and none of my tech friends read it either. In fact I can't recall when was the last time I saw an issue of the magazine.
I was using hyperbole for effect. The correct statement was "brought down the incidence of malaria and other mosquito borne diseases by orders of magnitude". I should have also mentioned that judicious application of DDT in third world growing fields were one of the enabling factors of the green revolution. Luckily we have been able to produce effective replacements for agricultural use. Not so much for malaria spraying in poor regions, where DDT has the right price/performance factor.
Historically, they are the company that brought us DDT
Actually, on the whole DDT on its own was more of a plus than a minus. It eradicated Malaria, and applied in low ocncentrations for that purpose _only_ it produces relatively little damage to the environment.
Problem was when farmers went crazy spraying their field with generous quantities of the stuff. Chemical companies did encourage this use, so they are not blameless either.
That makes it the 24th largest metro area in the United States,
Actually it is 31th according to the US census, which I take any day over "demographia.com".
More importantly affected area is not the same as "in peril". The entire world was affected by St. Helens (slight increase in atmospheric dust for a few days IIRC, this does not mean that the entire world population is/was at risk).
That is exaclty what I'm arguing. Seattle is #98 in terms of density of population out of the top 100 metropolitan areas in the US. Here are some of the major "metropolis" which are more densely populated than Seattle:
Middletown, CT Kenosha, WI Youngstown-Warren, OH Grand Rapids, MI Sarasota, FL Danbury, CT Nashua, NH Wilmington, NC Gary-Hammond, IN Salt Lake City-Ogden, UT Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN Hartford, CT Akron, OH Norfolk-Virginia Beach, VA Buffalo, NY Milwaukee, WI
Population of Portland: 437,000. In fact the entire population of Oregon fits in the city of Cleveland.
More importantly, at the visitor center, the expected path of the run off in case of an eruption is described as North towards Tacoma. Moreover it is not expected to reach that far, even assuming a volcano explosion of unusually high intensity.
Mt. St. Helen is nowhere close to a densely populated area in the United States.
First, it is a few hours drive from a major city (Seattle), and even then population density in the Seattle area is well below that of any place south of San Francisco on the California coast or north of Arlington, on the Eastern seaboard, all the way to Boston or so.
They mix valid, worthwhile science, which happens to be funny, with not so worthwhile science and plain bogosity (like Enron's igNobel on economics).
I'm willing to bet that the winners who decline the award (this is done before the announcement, and the ig Committee simply moves on to the next candidate) do it for precisely this reason.
You say that as if it was a good thing. The W3C is much inferior to IETF (the internet's analogue), and both much worse than when were academic only driven. The W3C was, from the start, corporate members only.
Was someone elected on a "let's build atomic bombs platform"?
John F. Kennedy, no less. He claimed during the 1960 presidential campaign that the USSR had gotten ahead in nuclear capability and that it was Ike's fault (and by extension, the fault of his young vicepresident, one Richard M. Nixon).
JFK went on to win, while Nixon licked his wounds. Nixon came back to win eight years later, with a hawkish platform in 1968.
If the American had been displeased we would have elected a pacifist when Truman ran for reelection. Heck, we would have elected a candidate promising to put Truman on trial. Instead we reelected Truman and followed that up with Ike, another WWII general.
I kind of doubt there was a referendum to the American people to even start the Manhattan Project, let alone drop atomic weapons on those two cities.
There was no public outcry following the dropping of the bomb over Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In fact Truman was convinced that his political carrier would have been over if it ever came to light that he had been in possession of the A-bomb and not used it while tens of thousands of GIs were getting killed during the invasion of Japan which would have been necessary. He said so himself.
It's called the American people. We decided as a whole that given the circumstances we had to build atomic bombs. Was that the right choice? I dunno, but don't kid yourself, we all acquiesced to this course of action with our votes.
The nursing profession already is low paying and has been for a while.
Here are some figures on that. You decide if this is low pay or not:
Entry-level Registered Nurses usually earn $1,900 to $3,290 per month. Those with experience usually earn $2,947 to $5,494 per month. Large, progressive hospitals which give Nurses more responsible duties usually pay more than smaller facilities, particularly nursing homes.
Another data point:
Hourly wages range from $23.59 to $32.29 Average hourly wage $27.82 Average annual wage $57,855
By making people bid, they are literally making them demean themselves - and those that offer their services low are probably not going to be the better ones.
I do independent consulting (among other things) and as any other consultant, we bid for jobs at what we consider a reasonable price. Explain how this makes us demean ourselves.
What people seem to assume here is that bid == low price. This is not the case at all. I'll go out on a limb and argue that the net monetary effect of the bidding system will be nearly zero for both parties, and that its true benefit would be happier employees, because now only people who volunteer for the shift get assigned to it, and at the right price too.
"when we run out of oil we will convert coal to synthetic fuel."
We won't ran out of oil, just like we didn't run out of coal. Before we could dig all coal out of the earth, a better energy source came along (oil) and today medium yield coal mines sit unexploited.
Same with oil, 100 years into the future the combination of wind, solar and nuclear energy plus ultra-efficient combustion engines and advanced fuel cells will make low yield oil uneconomical and they will sit unexploited too.
Impossible. There are physical limits to what can be seen through miles and miles of moving air.
Ever heard of laser beam distortion correction? It tells you what is the net effect of those miles and miles of moving air, and corrects for them. It was developed by the army in the 70's, and was independently rediscovered by academics in the late 90's.
I can think of at least two other possible technologies that would get around your "impossibility".
I don't know about GPS, but there are military satellites dedicated to recording the position and magnitude of all infrared events bigger than a car blowing up.
No seriously. I'm a scientist, and it's so ruthlessly political it's not funny.
No seriously, I am too, and as heavy as politics might look to you they are an entire order of magnitude less than in the social sciences and the arts.
Your long list of examples shows there are some politics in science what you are missing is the reference measurement.
Science is just as political a field as any other.
Pfftt. While science does have politics, it is the least political field known to mankind. For every 'cuz I don't like your face' you encounter in the hard (real) sciences you find 20 such stans in the humanities and 400 in artistic endeavours. That is why so much more progress has been made in the hard sciences as compared to the soft social sciences.
Slashdot Mirror
You are indeed correct. In fact I've been able to replicate the chemical compound in my basement wet lab, but lack the funds for commercialization. Please send a check to my Nigerian account so I can continue with my research.
The parent post is incredibly clueless. HIV does not mutate all over the place. Someone mod it down.
In fact there is current research trying to identify common sequences to all mutations of HIV which do not appear elsewhere in the human body.
This is a standard example of a disruptive technology. It introduces so many changes in the distribution model that publishers can't see a way to make a profit out of it.
There are many ways to go around the problems described in the message from the publisher, but all of them require a re-thinking of the publishing business and their economic model.
I'm old enough to remember when Wired was relevant. Then it decided to dedicate all of its covers to managers rather than technologies, and focus on their human side (short story: they are all dweebs), rather than on the technical aspect of their contributions, which is why they became famous/wealthy in the first place.
Thus Wired became the "Cosmopolitan" of the internet revolution, with the sole difference that the faces on the cover are ugly.
I quickly droped my subscription and none of my tech friends read it either. In fact I can't recall when was the last time I saw an issue of the magazine.
I was using hyperbole for effect. The correct statement was "brought down the incidence of malaria and other mosquito borne diseases by orders of magnitude". I should have also mentioned that judicious application of DDT in third world growing fields were one of the enabling factors of the green revolution. Luckily we have been able to produce effective replacements for agricultural use. Not so much for malaria spraying in poor regions, where DDT has the right price/performance factor.
Historically, they are the company that brought us DDT
Actually, on the whole DDT on its own was more of a plus than a minus. It eradicated Malaria, and applied in low ocncentrations for that purpose _only_ it produces relatively little damage to the environment.
Problem was when farmers went crazy spraying their field with generous quantities of the stuff. Chemical companies did encourage this use, so they are not blameless either.
That makes it the 24th largest metro area in the United States,
Actually it is 31th according to the US census, which I take any day over "demographia.com".
More importantly affected area is not the same as "in peril". The entire world was affected by St. Helens (slight increase in atmospheric dust for a few days IIRC, this does not mean that the entire world population is/was at risk).
That is exaclty what I'm arguing. Seattle is #98 in terms of density of population out of the top 100 metropolitan areas in the US. Here are some of the major "metropolis" which are more densely populated than Seattle:
Middletown, CT
Kenosha, WI
Youngstown-Warren, OH
Grand Rapids, MI
Sarasota, FL
Danbury, CT
Nashua, NH
Wilmington, NC
Gary-Hammond, IN
Salt Lake City-Ogden, UT
Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN
Hartford, CT
Akron, OH
Norfolk-Virginia Beach, VA
Buffalo, NY
Milwaukee, WI
Population of Portland: 437,000. In fact the entire population of Oregon fits in the city of Cleveland.
More importantly, at the visitor center, the expected path of the run off in case of an eruption is described as North towards Tacoma. Moreover it is not expected to reach that far, even assuming a volcano explosion of unusually high intensity.
Mt. St. Helen is nowhere close to a densely populated area in the United States.
First, it is a few hours drive from a major city (Seattle), and even then population density in the Seattle area is well below that of any place south of San Francisco on the California coast or north of Arlington, on the Eastern seaboard, all the way to Boston or so.
That has always been my beef with the igNobels.
They mix valid, worthwhile science, which happens to be funny, with not so worthwhile science and plain bogosity (like Enron's igNobel on economics).
I'm willing to bet that the winners who decline the award (this is done before the announcement, and the ig Committee simply moves on to the next candidate) do it for precisely this reason.
Amazing, mount St. Helens actually spewed perfectly formed vials of ash labelled "Mt. St. Helens, 1980" and deposited them by the side of the road.
Nature never ceases to amaze me.
Did anyone else notice that this is two months' old news?
/. at once. After all this can only be of interest if it happened yesterday.
Then it should be removed from
[Berners-Lee] started the W3C
You say that as if it was a good thing. The W3C is much inferior to IETF (the internet's analogue), and both much worse than when were academic only driven. The W3C was, from the start, corporate members only.
Was someone elected on a "let's build atomic bombs platform"?
John F. Kennedy, no less. He claimed during the 1960 presidential campaign that the USSR had gotten ahead in nuclear capability and that it was Ike's fault (and by extension, the fault of his young vicepresident, one Richard M. Nixon).
JFK went on to win, while Nixon licked his wounds. Nixon came back to win eight years later, with a hawkish platform in 1968.
It's called Harry Truman.
If the American had been displeased we would have elected a pacifist when Truman ran for reelection. Heck, we would have elected a candidate promising to put Truman on trial. Instead we reelected Truman and followed that up with Ike, another WWII general.
I kind of doubt there was a referendum to the American people to even start the Manhattan Project, let alone drop atomic weapons on those two cities.
There was no public outcry following the dropping of the bomb over Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In fact Truman was convinced that his political carrier would have been over if it ever came to light that he had been in possession of the A-bomb and not used it while tens of thousands of GIs were getting killed during the invasion of Japan which would have been necessary. He said so himself.
Those that decided to build this bomb
It's called the American people. We decided as a whole that given the circumstances we had to build atomic bombs. Was that the right choice? I dunno, but don't kid yourself, we all acquiesced to this course of action with our votes.
Here are some figures on that. You decide if this is low pay or not:
Another data point:
By making people bid, they are literally making them demean themselves - and those that offer their services low are probably not going to be the better ones.
I do independent consulting (among other things) and as any other consultant, we bid for jobs at what we consider a reasonable price. Explain how this makes us demean ourselves.
What people seem to assume here is that bid == low price. This is not the case at all. I'll go out on a limb and argue that the net monetary effect of the bidding system will be nearly zero for both parties, and that its true benefit would be happier employees, because now only people who volunteer for the shift get assigned to it, and at the right price too.
So he is giving a tiny percentage of the money he made using the most slimy and despicable methods known to mankind.
Actually he's giving more than half of his fortune away. But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of your prejudices.
"when we run out of oil we will convert coal to synthetic fuel."
We won't ran out of oil, just like we didn't run out of coal. Before we could dig all coal out of the earth, a better energy source came along (oil) and today medium yield coal mines sit unexploited.
Same with oil, 100 years into the future the combination of wind, solar and nuclear energy plus ultra-efficient combustion engines and advanced fuel cells will make low yield oil uneconomical and they will sit unexploited too.
Impossible. There are physical limits to what can be seen through miles and miles of moving air.
Ever heard of laser beam distortion correction? It tells you what is the net effect of those miles and miles of moving air, and corrects for them. It was developed by the army in the 70's, and was independently rediscovered by academics in the late 90's.
I can think of at least two other possible technologies that would get around your "impossibility".
I don't know about GPS, but there are military satellites dedicated to recording the position and magnitude of all infrared events bigger than a car blowing up.
No seriously. I'm a scientist, and it's so ruthlessly political it's not funny.
No seriously, I am too, and as heavy as politics might look to you they are an entire order of magnitude less than in the social sciences and the arts.
Your long list of examples shows there are some politics in science what you are missing is the reference measurement.
Science is just as political a field as any other.
Pfftt. While science does have politics, it is the least political field known to mankind. For every 'cuz I don't like your face' you encounter in the hard (real) sciences you find 20 such stans in the humanities and 400 in artistic endeavours. That is why so much more progress has been made in the hard sciences as compared to the soft social sciences.