Nice idea......until someone decides that the resultant company is "too big to fail" and is therefore entitled to tens of billions of dollars of taxpayer money to keep them afloat after their executives demonstrate extreme incompetence while simultaneously collecting multi-million dollar compensation packages complete with golden parachutes.
The funding agencies from which scientists seek money fund "research," in the broad sense, not "development." What you're hinting at is the fundamental difference between the two.
Agencies like NSF tend to assume that if one of the projects they fund has practical applications, then "partners" (i.e., the private sector) will handle the development. Indeed, this is how Goodenough's original battery design came to market. Sony licensed the patent from Oxford University in the 1980s and started mass-producing lithium-ion batteries, paying Oxford a royalty on every battery manufactured.
The problem with eugenics is that it's completely scientifically invalid. And what starts with the (false) notion that you can measure someone's intelligence by measuring the circumference of their head ends with abominations like the Buck vs. Bell decision upholding the legality of forced sterilization as a cure for "hereditary feeblemindedness." In this decision, Associate Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes actually stated "Three generations of imbeciles are enough." (http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/eugenics/topics_fs.pl?theme=3)
That quote should, in and of itself, answer the question of what's wrong with eugenics.
... when these hackers get caught, they should ALL get death sentences regardless if there has been any patient fatalities.
This was an ill-conceived attack on the hackers' part.
If any patient dies in connection with this attack, then it puts murder charges on the table. And the thing about murder is that there's no statute of limitations. Thus, these guys will be looking over their shoulders for the rest of their lives.
It's not just Fox. It's a problem with journalists in general.
Journalists are taught to present "both sides" of a story. This approach, however, leads to journalists giving charlatans "equal time." Thus, the public wrongly assumes that scientists must be split 50/50 on important issues like climate change. The reality, of course, is that the split is far closer to 99/1 than to 50/50.
The REAL underlying problem is that journalists don't know enough science to be able to spot a crackpot when they see/hear one.
They're afraid that the world will soon learn some inconvenient truths: (a) that Oswald in fact acted alone in assassinating Kennedy, (b) that the crashed object at Roswell was in fact a high-altitude weather balloon, (c) that the Rosenberg's were in fact Soviet spies, (d) that the moon landings in fact happened and were not staged in a Houston hangar, and (e) that every ounce of the gold in Ft. Knox is in fact sitting exactly where it should be.
And then the American public might start asking questions related to ACTUAL government conspiracies.
The problem is that Schekman's argument is off base.
From the article (yes, I read it):
"These luxury journals are supposed to be the epitome of quality, publishing only the best research. Because funding and appointment panels often use place of publication as a proxy for quality of science, appearing in these titles often leads to grants and professorships."
His argument appears to revolve around these three high-impact journals serving as the gate keepers of "good" science. But his ire is misdirected. If funding and appointment panels are giving undue weight to publications in these journals, then THE PROBLEM LIES WITH THE FUNDING AND APPOINTMENT PANELS, not the journals.
His argument is paramount to "Scientists shouldn't publish in these journals because they're too highly regarded."
Weak science and insufficient sample sizes are matters for the journal's referees to suss out and, if necessary, recommend that the journal not publish the paper. The fact that the paper passed peer review should have the journal re-examining their editorial/peer-review policies.
Ultimately, the decision to publish (and responsibility for publishing) a paper lies with the journal's editor in chief.
The boycott of Elsevier was primarily related to their "bundling" of journals---the act of forcing libraries to buy subscriptions to their low-impact, narrowly focused, but very expensive journals in order to have access to their high-impact, high-circulation journals. See http://www.nature.com/news/elsevier-boycott-gathers-pace-1.10010
Think about this process.
Elsevier prints journals for which they receive their content FOR FREE from academic researchers, most of whom are funded by taxpayer money. They then receive FREE peer review of those articles from the academic science community, many of whose salaries are paid from taxpayer funds. They then turn around and sell those articles back to the very universities whose professors provided the content and peer review (for FREE), which are also funded by taxpayers. And THEN they have the audacity to price gouge in the process.
Nice work if you can get it. But don't expect to not be called a profiteer.
And what exactly happens to all of those "doctors" with $400,000 student loans who now cannot work as doctors?
If we used your approach, no doctor would ever be able to secure a student loan again. The risk of default would be astronomically high. The only difference is that now the lenders would be the ones choosing who gets to become a doctor.
P-chem is difficult because it's students' first immersion into quantum mechanics.
You learned the sanitized version of quantum in gen chem---all those rules about electron configurations and the funky shapes of atomic orbitals. But you simply memorized it. In P-chem, you were confronted with the actual wavefunctions from which all of that stuff is derived. If you've never seen a wavefunction or eigenvalue before, it's a total mind trip. And virtually nobody has encountered such things prior to P-chem.
And then you learn that, once you move beyond a one-electron atom, must of the equations become impossible to solve. And now you must introduce a series of assumptions and limitations to arrive at any solution whatsoever. And that's when the goo starts oozing out of your ears.
Somewhere at the end of it all, you realize that chemistry and theoretical physics are not distinctly different subjects.
There's a certain perverse logic in using Organic I and II to weed students out.
They're sophomore-level courses. They're also the most difficult two-course sequence all pre-med/pre-vet/pre-pharmacy students will collectively take during their first two years. Pre-med students outnumber the openings in medical school by at least 10 to 1. They must be weeded at some point. The sooner you weed them out, the sooner those students can stop wasting their time and tuition money on a course of study they will never complete.
I'm not sure I agree with it, but that's the logic as it was explained to me.
The purpose of O-chem for medical students is to give them a fundamental understanding of bonding behavior of organic compounds so that they can later extrapolate that knowledge to biochemical processes.
The lack of proper training in statistics for the vast majority of physicians is a completely separate problem.
In many respects, its unfortunate that chem majors (I was one, too) take O-chem alongside pre-med students.
The most useful aspect of O-chem is learning to interpret the various spectroscopic results used to characterize organic compounds (particularly NMR spectra). This information is quite useless, however, to those who are not chem majors. We instead spend an inane amount of time learning hundreds of chemical reactions that neither the pre-meds nor the chem majors really need to know.
Even then, the course doesn't have to be as difficult as it's made to be, which I finally figured out the first time I taught organic chemistry. We simply make it that difficult to weed students out. Many students who probably would have made fine chemists saw their chemistry careers end in Organic II---all in the name of convincing a lot of pre-meds that they were never going to become doctors.
No, the main obstacle to self-driving cars is the law. And it's a critical issue.
Who, exactly, is at fault when a self-driving car causes an accident? The owner? The passenger? The car maker? The software programmer? No state currently has laws in place that address this issue.
And make no mistake, there WILL be accidents caused by software bugs/hardware failures.
For anyone interested, NPR's Planet Money team ran a very good story back in February on this topic. If focused on the entrepreneur behind carsdirect.com, who ran into the same obstacles in the 90s when he tried to set up a Web site to sell cars directly to consumers.
"According to national surveys of employees that accept counter-offers, 50-80 percent voluntarily leave their employer within six months of accepting the counter-offer because of unkept promises. The majority of the balance of employees that accept counter-offers involuntarily leave their current employers within twelve months of accepting the counter-offer (terminated, fired, laid off, etc.)."
So, basically, if you go to your boss with another offer in hand and accept a counteroffer, he or she is going to screw you over simply because they can. And that's how the big sharks swim in the deep end of the pool. If you want better working conditions and/or more money, change jobs. The only exception is if you work in academia, where you have the protections of tenure.
Slashdot Mirror
Nice idea... ...until someone decides that the resultant company is "too big to fail" and is therefore entitled to tens of billions of dollars of taxpayer money to keep them afloat after their executives demonstrate extreme incompetence while simultaneously collecting multi-million dollar compensation packages complete with golden parachutes.
No such thing as a free market.
There's a good reason for this.
The funding agencies from which scientists seek money fund "research," in the broad sense, not "development." What you're hinting at is the fundamental difference between the two.
Agencies like NSF tend to assume that if one of the projects they fund has practical applications, then "partners" (i.e., the private sector) will handle the development. Indeed, this is how Goodenough's original battery design came to market. Sony licensed the patent from Oxford University in the 1980s and started mass-producing lithium-ion batteries, paying Oxford a royalty on every battery manufactured.
The problem with eugenics is that it's completely scientifically invalid. And what starts with the (false) notion that you can measure someone's intelligence by measuring the circumference of their head ends with abominations like the Buck vs. Bell decision upholding the legality of forced sterilization as a cure for "hereditary feeblemindedness." In this decision, Associate Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes actually stated "Three generations of imbeciles are enough." (http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/eugenics/topics_fs.pl?theme=3)
That quote should, in and of itself, answer the question of what's wrong with eugenics.
... when these hackers get caught, they should ALL get death sentences regardless if there has been any patient fatalities.
This was an ill-conceived attack on the hackers' part.
If any patient dies in connection with this attack, then it puts murder charges on the table. And the thing about murder is that there's no statute of limitations. Thus, these guys will be looking over their shoulders for the rest of their lives.
All for MAYBE $3.6 million in Bitcoin.
Ahem...
"China Executes 2 People Over Tainted Milk Scandal"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
And whose son do you think recorded the message from the children of Earth included on the record?
http://www.worldmusic.net/news...
It's not just Fox. It's a problem with journalists in general.
Journalists are taught to present "both sides" of a story. This approach, however, leads to journalists giving charlatans "equal time." Thus, the public wrongly assumes that scientists must be split 50/50 on important issues like climate change. The reality, of course, is that the split is far closer to 99/1 than to 50/50.
The REAL underlying problem is that journalists don't know enough science to be able to spot a crackpot when they see/hear one.
"Person of Interest is one of the few recent shows I can think of that killed off a truly major character, and didn't do it at the end of a season."
I can only assume you've never watched "Sons of Anarchy," or, for that matter, "The Shield."
Then it dawned on me that this woman actually thought I sat around all day watching what people were doing on their computers.
Well... do you?
"disproves"
You keep using that word.
I do not think it means what you think it means.
In the immortal words of George Carlin:
"I've never fucked a 10, but one night I fucked five 2's, and I think that oughta count."
It's worse than that.
They're afraid that the world will soon learn some inconvenient truths: (a) that Oswald in fact acted alone in assassinating Kennedy, (b) that the crashed object at Roswell was in fact a high-altitude weather balloon, (c) that the Rosenberg's were in fact Soviet spies, (d) that the moon landings in fact happened and were not staged in a Houston hangar, and (e) that every ounce of the gold in Ft. Knox is in fact sitting exactly where it should be.
And then the American public might start asking questions related to ACTUAL government conspiracies.
The horror...
The problem is that Schekman's argument is off base.
From the article (yes, I read it):
"These luxury journals are supposed to be the epitome of quality, publishing only the best research. Because funding and appointment panels often use place of publication as a proxy for quality of science, appearing in these titles often leads to grants and professorships."
His argument appears to revolve around these three high-impact journals serving as the gate keepers of "good" science. But his ire is misdirected. If funding and appointment panels are giving undue weight to publications in these journals, then THE PROBLEM LIES WITH THE FUNDING AND APPOINTMENT PANELS, not the journals.
His argument is paramount to "Scientists shouldn't publish in these journals because they're too highly regarded."
You are correct.
Weak science and insufficient sample sizes are matters for the journal's referees to suss out and, if necessary, recommend that the journal not publish the paper. The fact that the paper passed peer review should have the journal re-examining their editorial/peer-review policies.
Ultimately, the decision to publish (and responsibility for publishing) a paper lies with the journal's editor in chief.
That's nothing.
In Alabama, you're guilty of DUI if you are simply in possession of car keys while intoxicated:
http://www.avvo.com/legal-guides/ugc/alabamas-dui-offense-what-exactly-is-actual-physical-control
The boycott of Elsevier was primarily related to their "bundling" of journals---the act of forcing libraries to buy subscriptions to their low-impact, narrowly focused, but very expensive journals in order to have access to their high-impact, high-circulation journals. See http://www.nature.com/news/elsevier-boycott-gathers-pace-1.10010
Think about this process.
Elsevier prints journals for which they receive their content FOR FREE from academic researchers, most of whom are funded by taxpayer money. They then receive FREE peer review of those articles from the academic science community, many of whose salaries are paid from taxpayer funds. They then turn around and sell those articles back to the very universities whose professors provided the content and peer review (for FREE), which are also funded by taxpayers. And THEN they have the audacity to price gouge in the process.
Nice work if you can get it. But don't expect to not be called a profiteer.
And what exactly happens to all of those "doctors" with $400,000 student loans who now cannot work as doctors?
If we used your approach, no doctor would ever be able to secure a student loan again. The risk of default would be astronomically high. The only difference is that now the lenders would be the ones choosing who gets to become a doctor.
P-chem is difficult because it's students' first immersion into quantum mechanics.
You learned the sanitized version of quantum in gen chem---all those rules about electron configurations and the funky shapes of atomic orbitals. But you simply memorized it. In P-chem, you were confronted with the actual wavefunctions from which all of that stuff is derived. If you've never seen a wavefunction or eigenvalue before, it's a total mind trip. And virtually nobody has encountered such things prior to P-chem.
And then you learn that, once you move beyond a one-electron atom, must of the equations become impossible to solve. And now you must introduce a series of assumptions and limitations to arrive at any solution whatsoever. And that's when the goo starts oozing out of your ears.
Somewhere at the end of it all, you realize that chemistry and theoretical physics are not distinctly different subjects.
There's a certain perverse logic in using Organic I and II to weed students out.
They're sophomore-level courses. They're also the most difficult two-course sequence all pre-med/pre-vet/pre-pharmacy students will collectively take during their first two years. Pre-med students outnumber the openings in medical school by at least 10 to 1. They must be weeded at some point. The sooner you weed them out, the sooner those students can stop wasting their time and tuition money on a course of study they will never complete.
I'm not sure I agree with it, but that's the logic as it was explained to me.
The purpose of O-chem for medical students is to give them a fundamental understanding of bonding behavior of organic compounds so that they can later extrapolate that knowledge to biochemical processes.
The lack of proper training in statistics for the vast majority of physicians is a completely separate problem.
In many respects, its unfortunate that chem majors (I was one, too) take O-chem alongside pre-med students.
The most useful aspect of O-chem is learning to interpret the various spectroscopic results used to characterize organic compounds (particularly NMR spectra). This information is quite useless, however, to those who are not chem majors. We instead spend an inane amount of time learning hundreds of chemical reactions that neither the pre-meds nor the chem majors really need to know.
Even then, the course doesn't have to be as difficult as it's made to be, which I finally figured out the first time I taught organic chemistry. We simply make it that difficult to weed students out. Many students who probably would have made fine chemists saw their chemistry careers end in Organic II---all in the name of convincing a lot of pre-meds that they were never going to become doctors.
No, the main obstacle to self-driving cars is the law. And it's a critical issue.
Who, exactly, is at fault when a self-driving car causes an accident? The owner? The passenger? The car maker? The software programmer? No state currently has laws in place that address this issue.
And make no mistake, there WILL be accidents caused by software bugs/hardware failures.
For anyone interested, NPR's Planet Money team ran a very good story back in February on this topic. If focused on the entrepreneur behind carsdirect.com, who ran into the same obstacles in the 90s when he tried to set up a Web site to sell cars directly to consumers.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/02/19/172402376/why-buying-a-car-never-changes
Are you suggesting that teachers and college professors receive kickbacks on book sales?
Are you high?
That would cut into the publishers' profit margins.
No, you need to change jobs, period.
According to this site: http://www.westportone.com/candidate/counteroffer.htm :
"According to national surveys of employees that accept counter-offers, 50-80 percent voluntarily leave their employer within six months of accepting the counter-offer because of unkept promises. The majority of the balance of employees that accept counter-offers involuntarily leave their current employers within twelve months of accepting the counter-offer (terminated, fired, laid off, etc.)."
So, basically, if you go to your boss with another offer in hand and accept a counteroffer, he or she is going to screw you over simply because they can. And that's how the big sharks swim in the deep end of the pool. If you want better working conditions and/or more money, change jobs. The only exception is if you work in academia, where you have the protections of tenure.
See also:
http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/outside-voices-careers/2012/03/26/why-you-shouldnt-take-a-counteroffer
http://ask.slashdot.org/story/02/06/13/0615238/is-it-wrong-to-accept-an-employment-counter-offer