"Any pro photographer will tell you that 95% of what you shoot is crap."
That depends ENTIRELY on the kind of photography. For example, if it's portraiture like yearbook photos, or wedding photos, or many other such things, the customer decides what's good and what they want to keep, and they typically have the option of coming back and buying more prints later.
In cases like that, you can't prune. You have to keep it all.
A very good point. However, with some modification, the GP's point still holds.
If the OP is able to prune, he or she should. Film photographers were limited by the cost of film and processing; digital photographers are limited by the cost of storage and backup.
If the OP is unable to prune, for the reasons you note, then the costs of a reliable offsite backup service needs to be included in the cost of his or her services. So, it would cost $X to shoot 1000 photos and make sure that they are available for a year, $2X to ensure availability for 3 years, or $x per year to ensure availability.
Where "stomped the shit" means that 2000 people out of a Maine population of 1.3 million voted for Paul (about 1000 voted for Santorum). If we assume that the state is about half Republican, then we have a contest so critical and compelling that a whole 0.8% of the state's Republican voters bothered to turn out.
You failed to answer the question if a drone flies over your house and records you mowing your lawn how is that any different then a manned plane, if either is trampling your rights, then what does frequency have to do with it?
What's the difference between looking up the location of your cell phone once a year and every hour?
What's the difference between watching you go into the bathroom and watching you poop?
Dumber than a pile of rocks. Somehow, the removal of all government regulation and control will lead to a paradise?
You realize we had that here in the United States at one point? In the romanticized Old West, John Wayne's character - the irascible lawman - won out over the evil gunslinger. In actuality, whoever had the most money (firepower) did whatever he wanted. Somewhat later, the now-idolized robber barons (Carnegie, Rockefeller) ensured that anyone who didn't play along with their goals starved, while those that did play along were effective slaves.
The reason your great-aunt didn't die of starvation: government (pretty common 100 years ago). The reason your cousin isn't in debtor's prison: government (again, pretty common not that long ago). The reason that the average lifespan has increased from ~50 to ~76 in the past 100 years: government.
If you want to live in a libertarian paradise, move to Somalia.
If you're working in a research/academic setting, you're paying for it either way. It just comes out of different pots of money. And since the publishers are relentlessly hiking institutional subscription rates, your institutional budget for journal subscriptions is getting out of control. What's better: pay a fixed fee up front for something that you (and everyone else) will be able to read anytime, anywhere, or pay an ever-growing recurring fee for something that only people at research/academic institutions can read?
I go to 5 or so sites on a daily basis. Slashdot is in that list as a reflex. I'm not scrounging the entire net, yet/. is still reposting stuff from weeks past.
I like slashdot; I've been visiting for 13 years, but it's not often "news for nerds", and similarly rarely "stuff that matters." By definition, news is timely. And the editorial (community) selections lead to "stuff that matters" only the first time around - not on the 4th repost.
Note that Ars isn't reposting this on a bi-weekly basis... Not that they are the be-all and end-all of internet news, but they're beating the pants off slashdot in the last few years.
Point taken. Yet, if Slashdot is going to retain any relevance whatsoever, some mechanism to (mostly) eliminate weeks-late reposts needs to be developed.
It's hardly surprising that the study found such an amazing effect, since any study that did not would never have been released to the public.
"The study, conducted by researchers from the International Research Agency on behalf of Texas Instruments" was destined to find that Texas Instruments 3D tools are amazing. What's left unsaid is that the 30 other studies that TI funded didn't find any effect.
The current budget debates like to talk about "the American family's" budget.
So, we have a family whose budget is horribly over income. They have: - a huge house with an correspondingly large mortgage (military) - 3 fancy cars with correspondingly high monthly payments (social security and medicare/caid) - and they like to eat out once a week (other discretionary spending)
The Republican response is to cut the dinner down from a fine dining establishment to fast food.
Ok. So this is going to make a tiny difference, but is it really the place to focus one's efforts?
It's the PUBLISHER! Neither the schools nor the professors have all that much control over the frequency of new editions.
Furthermore, the publisher stops publishing past editions, so the bookstore cannot guarantee that they will be able to obtain enough copies of any older edition.
You wrote that "most major university libraries already have licenses to the closed data", when you SHOULD have written "most major WEALTHY university libraries already have licenses to the closed data."
Even before the current economic problems, many public universities have been cutting journal subscriptions wholesale, and the trend is only increasing. I work at one of the campuses of the City University of New York and our journal subscriptions are abysmal. If you publish regularly in any of the more expensive commercial journals (outside of the very tip-top 5 or so in your field), I can guarantee you that your work is not being read as much as it perhaps should be at my institution.
Of course, the administrative and budgetary problems you describe with the current open access model are very real - I certainly don't have the budget to publish exclusively in these journals. Nonetheless, the ever-increasing costs of the commercial system are leading to some serious problems and contributing to a growing divide between the haves and the have-nots of the academic science world.
If there were only one or two commercial journals that I would like to access that my library does not subscribe to, I would be willing to bite the bullet and buy personal subscriptions, but I cannot afford to buy personal subscriptions to a dozen or more commercial journals.
While "$10-20k/year for page charges" may only "result in less science," it doesn't matter how much science you do if no one reads it... Instead of paying these charges out of our direct grant funds, our institutions need to make institution-wide deals with open access publishers out of our grant overhead (re-routing, for example, the money that they are currently spending on overpriced commercial journal subscriptions).
You seem to believe that the sole role of the professor is to teach undergraduate classes. Most professors have at least 7 separate roles: (1) undergraduate classes, (2) undergraduate mentoring, (3) graduate classes, (4) graduate mentoring, (5) research and publishing, (6) grant-writing, and (7) administration.
How these are prioritized is not really up to the average professor, it is determined by the university administration, board of directors, etc. Take your irritation at the current state of affairs to them.
I'm not really arguing the point you're making here, but there is more nuance to it.
So, sticking to the sciences at research universities, these departments are serving dual roles: (1) vocational - preparing people for careers requiring a scientific background, and (2) creating the next generation of researchers.
My experience is that creating the next generation of researchers is the prioritized goal, and this happens in the lab, in independent study, laboratory rotations, and internships. It does not happen in the lecture hall. So, even if the faculty are not the best teachers, they are (hopefully) among the best in their area of research. And research faculty who are more respected, are more cutting edge, are more published, will open significantly more opportunities for the students on the research track. In order to attract these researchers, universities prioritize research over teaching.
Now, I would agree that wider scientific understanding is something that needs greater emphasis, the "transmission through the generations" of the heart of scientific practice and knowledge will never and can never happen in the lecture hall. However, while you can get basic scientific knowledge taught as - more or less - a byproduct of a research development focused program, you cannot get research development as a byproduct of a "good teacher" focused program. Even small research schools (e.g. CalTech) may appear to have "good teaching," but what they mostly have is a small enough, and motivated enough, student body that they can get a much higher percentage into the lab.
Among other expenses, facilities and administration.
You have to perform upkeep on all of the buildings and pay for utilities. You have to pay all the people who perform upkeep on the buildings. You have to buy all the equipment needed for upkeep on the buildings. You need to replace all this equipment as it wears out.
You have to pay the administration. The registrar's office, financial aid office, bursar's office, etc.
You have to fill a library. Beyond the costs of buying books, you have to pay for journal subscriptions (per title costs range from $100 to $5000 per year).
And this is just an off-the-top-of-my-head, certainly incomplete, list.
Slashdot Mirror
If 7 different actors can be James Bond, I'm sure we can find a whiny blond to be Luke.
Now that he's selling it, who cares what his original "vision" was for episodes 7 and beyond? Grand Admiral Thrawn is the obvious direction to take.
"Any pro photographer will tell you that 95% of what you shoot is crap."
That depends ENTIRELY on the kind of photography. For example, if it's portraiture like yearbook photos, or wedding photos, or many other such things, the customer decides what's good and what they want to keep, and they typically have the option of coming back and buying more prints later.
In cases like that, you can't prune. You have to keep it all.
A very good point. However, with some modification, the GP's point still holds.
If the OP is able to prune, he or she should. Film photographers were limited by the cost of film and processing; digital photographers are limited by the cost of storage and backup.
If the OP is unable to prune, for the reasons you note, then the costs of a reliable offsite backup service needs to be included in the cost of his or her services. So, it would cost $X to shoot 1000 photos and make sure that they are available for a year, $2X to ensure availability for 3 years, or $x per year to ensure availability.
You're forgetting the military. He's collected far more money from active-duty military families than any other candidate.
He may not have the popularity of the other candidates in the Mainstream Media (who all but ignore him anyway, and always have) but his "main base" is much more than just "college students in Iowa". He just stomped the shit out of Santorum in Maine, and wasn't very far behind Romney.
Where "stomped the shit" means that 2000 people out of a Maine population of 1.3 million voted for Paul (about 1000 voted for Santorum). If we assume that the state is about half Republican, then we have a contest so critical and compelling that a whole 0.8% of the state's Republican voters bothered to turn out.
You failed to answer the question if a drone flies over your house and records you mowing your lawn how is that any different then a manned plane, if either is trampling your rights, then what does frequency have to do with it?
What's the difference between looking up the location of your cell phone once a year and every hour?
What's the difference between watching you go into the bathroom and watching you poop?
Sounds like you're a socialist. Any good capitalist worker would realize that their sacrifices are necessary for capital growth.
Dumber than a pile of rocks. Somehow, the removal of all government regulation and control will lead to a paradise?
You realize we had that here in the United States at one point? In the romanticized Old West, John Wayne's character - the irascible lawman - won out over the evil gunslinger. In actuality, whoever had the most money (firepower) did whatever he wanted. Somewhat later, the now-idolized robber barons (Carnegie, Rockefeller) ensured that anyone who didn't play along with their goals starved, while those that did play along were effective slaves.
The reason your great-aunt didn't die of starvation: government (pretty common 100 years ago). The reason your cousin isn't in debtor's prison: government (again, pretty common not that long ago). The reason that the average lifespan has increased from ~50 to ~76 in the past 100 years: government.
If you want to live in a libertarian paradise, move to Somalia.
If you're working in a research/academic setting, you're paying for it either way. It just comes out of different pots of money. And since the publishers are relentlessly hiking institutional subscription rates, your institutional budget for journal subscriptions is getting out of control. What's better: pay a fixed fee up front for something that you (and everyone else) will be able to read anytime, anywhere, or pay an ever-growing recurring fee for something that only people at research/academic institutions can read?
See above.
I go to 5 or so sites on a daily basis. Slashdot is in that list as a reflex. I'm not scrounging the entire net, yet /. is still reposting stuff from weeks past.
I like slashdot; I've been visiting for 13 years, but it's not often "news for nerds", and similarly rarely "stuff that matters." By definition, news is timely. And the editorial (community) selections lead to "stuff that matters" only the first time around - not on the 4th repost.
Note that Ars isn't reposting this on a bi-weekly basis... Not that they are the be-all and end-all of internet news, but they're beating the pants off slashdot in the last few years.
Point taken. Yet, if Slashdot is going to retain any relevance whatsoever, some mechanism to (mostly) eliminate weeks-late reposts needs to be developed.
The foundation of the story was posted on the linked blog on September 23rd, and most blogs and news outlets covered it then (e.g. ars technica).
Good job being timely, slashdot. At one point I could come here for breaking information. Those days are long gone.
It's hardly surprising that the study found such an amazing effect, since any study that did not would never have been released to the public.
"The study, conducted by researchers from the International Research Agency on behalf of Texas Instruments" was destined to find that Texas Instruments 3D tools are amazing. What's left unsaid is that the 30 other studies that TI funded didn't find any effect.
The current budget debates like to talk about "the American family's" budget.
So, we have a family whose budget is horribly over income. They have:
- a huge house with an correspondingly large mortgage (military)
- 3 fancy cars with correspondingly high monthly payments (social security and medicare/caid)
- and they like to eat out once a week (other discretionary spending)
The Republican response is to cut the dinner down from a fine dining establishment to fast food.
Ok. So this is going to make a tiny difference, but is it really the place to focus one's efforts?
It's the PUBLISHER! Neither the schools nor the professors have all that much control over the frequency of new editions.
Furthermore, the publisher stops publishing past editions, so the bookstore cannot guarantee that they will be able to obtain enough copies of any older edition.
How about Rod Page's timemap mashup?
http://darwin.zoology.gla.ac.uk/~rpage/flu/
As described on his blog http://iphylo.blogspot.com/2009/04/h1n1-swine-flu-timemap.html
You wrote that "most major university libraries already have licenses to the closed data", when you SHOULD have written "most major WEALTHY university libraries already have licenses to the closed data."
Even before the current economic problems, many public universities have been cutting journal subscriptions wholesale, and the trend is only increasing. I work at one of the campuses of the City University of New York and our journal subscriptions are abysmal. If you publish regularly in any of the more expensive commercial journals (outside of the very tip-top 5 or so in your field), I can guarantee you that your work is not being read as much as it perhaps should be at my institution.
Of course, the administrative and budgetary problems you describe with the current open access model are very real - I certainly don't have the budget to publish exclusively in these journals. Nonetheless, the ever-increasing costs of the commercial system are leading to some serious problems and contributing to a growing divide between the haves and the have-nots of the academic science world.
If there were only one or two commercial journals that I would like to access that my library does not subscribe to, I would be willing to bite the bullet and buy personal subscriptions, but I cannot afford to buy personal subscriptions to a dozen or more commercial journals.
While "$10-20k/year for page charges" may only "result in less science," it doesn't matter how much science you do if no one reads it... Instead of paying these charges out of our direct grant funds, our institutions need to make institution-wide deals with open access publishers out of our grant overhead (re-routing, for example, the money that they are currently spending on overpriced commercial journal subscriptions).
This farce is intellectual masturbation for the rich in its purest form.
True. However, the last sentence of the original post is "If it's relevant, I have a US citizenship." So, it would seem the poster qualifies.
I believe that many National Science Foundation funded Research Experience for Undergraduates programs will take exceptional high school students.
See http://www.nsf.gov/crssprgm/reu/
You seem to believe that the sole role of the professor is to teach undergraduate classes. Most professors have at least 7 separate roles: (1) undergraduate classes, (2) undergraduate mentoring, (3) graduate classes, (4) graduate mentoring, (5) research and publishing, (6) grant-writing, and (7) administration.
How these are prioritized is not really up to the average professor, it is determined by the university administration, board of directors, etc. Take your irritation at the current state of affairs to them.
I'm not really arguing the point you're making here, but there is more nuance to it.
So, sticking to the sciences at research universities, these departments are serving dual roles: (1) vocational - preparing people for careers requiring a scientific background, and (2) creating the next generation of researchers.
My experience is that creating the next generation of researchers is the prioritized goal, and this happens in the lab, in independent study, laboratory rotations, and internships. It does not happen in the lecture hall. So, even if the faculty are not the best teachers, they are (hopefully) among the best in their area of research. And research faculty who are more respected, are more cutting edge, are more published, will open significantly more opportunities for the students on the research track. In order to attract these researchers, universities prioritize research over teaching.
Now, I would agree that wider scientific understanding is something that needs greater emphasis, the "transmission through the generations" of the heart of scientific practice and knowledge will never and can never happen in the lecture hall. However, while you can get basic scientific knowledge taught as - more or less - a byproduct of a research development focused program, you cannot get research development as a byproduct of a "good teacher" focused program. Even small research schools (e.g. CalTech) may appear to have "good teaching," but what they mostly have is a small enough, and motivated enough, student body that they can get a much higher percentage into the lab.
Ok. I'm sure you're right then. Start a college, make a killing.
Among other expenses, facilities and administration.
You have to perform upkeep on all of the buildings and pay for utilities. You have to pay all the people who perform upkeep on the buildings. You have to buy all the equipment needed for upkeep on the buildings. You need to replace all this equipment as it wears out.
You have to pay the administration. The registrar's office, financial aid office, bursar's office, etc.
You have to fill a library. Beyond the costs of buying books, you have to pay for journal subscriptions (per title costs range from $100 to $5000 per year).
And this is just an off-the-top-of-my-head, certainly incomplete, list.