Even if they were grant requests, a grant request is not part of the text of a paper and therefore someone whose sole contribution is the grant request is not an author. By that logic a book agent, who negotiates advances similar to a grant request, should also be attributed as an author. It sounds like stat padding to me.
Agreed, and I would add that the entire process is very time-consuming, which discourages scientists from investing time unless it's an especially egregious example or they feel personally wronged.
To paraphrase "Scientists are too lazy to ensure integrity in their community unless the error is really bad or they have a personal issue".
Sorry, but I won't hesitate to openly criticize a bigwig if I believe I have the basis to do so. I won't sell my integrity for a tenured position. But I will not do it on A platform like PubPeer.
Would you keep silent to be able to work in the field that you love? Would you put your family's livelihood at stake for an opinion? You might have the moral fortitude and/or financial independence to do it but many people do not.
Knowing the human nature and with some of the dirty stuff I saw in my career, I can't imaging nobody would abuse this system to wrongfully block someone's progress at some point.
I would like to clarify what you meant by "can't imaging nobody". Was that a mistake in using a double negative and meant "can't imagine someone" or did you really mean "can imagine someone"? If it is the former then you need a better imagination. If it is the latter, good for you that you can throw your carrier/life's work away on a principle and expect others to follow suit.
Today, they revealed that the scientist involved is Fazlul Sarkar, a cancer researcher at Wayne State University in Detroit, Michigan. Sarkar, an author on more than 500 papers
He got his doctorate in 1978. That would be an average of less than 27 days between papers being published. One must admire someone who can do so much thorough, factual research in such a short time. An average of one paper a month is impressive.
You missed the point completely. You can either 3D print a chair for $200+ or go to the nearest hardware store and buy one for $5. The reason being that the chair bought from the hardware store was mass produced using injection moulding and shipped close to you for minimal costs.
That seems along the same lines as someone flying in an aircraft is "leaving this small rock". The only difference is altitude. Ohh you get outside Earth's atmosphere; big deal. I have no envy for them. To me sub-orbital passenger flights are a waste of money. Someone who contributes nothing other than cash and takes up space and cargo capacity is better described as "paying ballast".
From what little we can see in that single photo of the output it looks like the home 3D scanner produces blurry, inaccurate objects with lots of artifacts and errors. Wait a minute. That will fit right in with the current state of home 3D printers. Score!!
I wonder if existing manufacturers can pull dealership agreements and then come under the same rules a Tesla. There are also existing car companies that do not have dealership agreements that might want to sell directly.
The existing car companies are still going to be prevented from selling directly.
How do you know this? If Tesla can do it why can't other car companies? Those existing companies could easily sue and win if Tesla is allowed to bypass dealerships. Laws are not so overtly tailored to one company as to make Tesla special.
If you can't see a difference between a viralant deadly disease and an ongoing tribal war then you have a problem. The former is countries asking for international aid to fight a deadly disease using doctors and a small security force. The latter is a foreign military force entering a country after years of tribal war where they are not welcome by some and forcibly preventing people from killing their neighbors. The main difference is that one disaster is caused by a virus and the other by people's decisions.
The bottom line is the the Hutu could have decided not to kill the Titsi but didn't.
Many paraphrased derivatives of this have often become attributed to Franklin:
Which means that others have said variations of Franklin's words and have falsely attributed them to Franklin. What Franklin said is very different than what you said. Of all the quotes you cited Franklin actually said 2 of them. "Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power." and "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.". The former is about wealth and power while the latter is about liberty and safety.
You are not knowledgeable nor are you special, no matter what mommy told you.
Resorting to a personal attack just shows how weak your argument truly is.
As with all relative terms "less likely" is not good enough. Crime rates are still too high and there are still too many known criminals on the loose. We should use what ever technology we have to bring the number of at loose criminals as close to zero as possible.
They may have a problem with you using public property to station your camera. If you happen to own or rent property across the street from that location I doubt they would have an issue.
They are only doing this when you are in a public place and in range of a camera. While this is quite often it is far from "at all times". Can they run facial recognition on you while you are in your bathroom?
Working for profit provides incentive to cut corners and decrease safety to unacceptable levels. Why do you think most health and safety regulations exist?
Slashdot Mirror
Which means he rarely spent time on any of those papers and probably had little input. I call that stat padding.
Even if they were grant requests, a grant request is not part of the text of a paper and therefore someone whose sole contribution is the grant request is not an author. By that logic a book agent, who negotiates advances similar to a grant request, should also be attributed as an author. It sounds like stat padding to me.
Even grant requests take time.
Agreed, and I would add that the entire process is very time-consuming, which discourages scientists from investing time unless it's an especially egregious example or they feel personally wronged.
To paraphrase "Scientists are too lazy to ensure integrity in their community unless the error is really bad or they have a personal issue".
Gotta love your use of irony, AC.
Sorry, but I won't hesitate to openly criticize a bigwig if I believe I have the basis to do so. I won't sell my integrity for a tenured position. But I will not do it on A platform like PubPeer.
Would you keep silent to be able to work in the field that you love? Would you put your family's livelihood at stake for an opinion? You might have the moral fortitude and/or financial independence to do it but many people do not.
Knowing the human nature and with some of the dirty stuff I saw in my career, I can't imaging nobody would abuse this system to wrongfully block someone's progress at some point.
I would like to clarify what you meant by "can't imaging nobody". Was that a mistake in using a double negative and meant "can't imagine someone" or did you really mean "can imagine someone"? If it is the former then you need a better imagination. If it is the latter, good for you that you can throw your carrier/life's work away on a principle and expect others to follow suit.
According to this he has put out a lot of papers.
Today, they revealed that the scientist involved is Fazlul Sarkar, a cancer researcher at Wayne State University in Detroit, Michigan. Sarkar, an author on more than 500 papers
He got his doctorate in 1978. That would be an average of less than 27 days between papers being published. One must admire someone who can do so much thorough, factual research in such a short time. An average of one paper a month is impressive.
You missed the point completely. You can either 3D print a chair for $200+ or go to the nearest hardware store and buy one for $5. The reason being that the chair bought from the hardware store was mass produced using injection moulding and shipped close to you for minimal costs.
That seems along the same lines as someone flying in an aircraft is "leaving this small rock". The only difference is altitude. Ohh you get outside Earth's atmosphere; big deal. I have no envy for them. To me sub-orbital passenger flights are a waste of money. Someone who contributes nothing other than cash and takes up space and cargo capacity is better described as "paying ballast".
From what little we can see in that single photo of the output it looks like the home 3D scanner produces blurry, inaccurate objects with lots of artifacts and errors. Wait a minute. That will fit right in with the current state of home 3D printers. Score!!
We have talked about this before for the US.
I wonder if existing manufacturers can pull dealership agreements and then come under the same rules a Tesla. There are also existing car companies that do not have dealership agreements that might want to sell directly.
The existing car companies are still going to be prevented from selling directly.
How do you know this? If Tesla can do it why can't other car companies? Those existing companies could easily sue and win if Tesla is allowed to bypass dealerships. Laws are not so overtly tailored to one company as to make Tesla special.
If that is ever proposed I will be against that.
If you can't see a difference between a viralant deadly disease and an ongoing tribal war then you have a problem. The former is countries asking for international aid to fight a deadly disease using doctors and a small security force. The latter is a foreign military force entering a country after years of tribal war where they are not welcome by some and forcibly preventing people from killing their neighbors. The main difference is that one disaster is caused by a virus and the other by people's decisions.
The bottom line is the the Hutu could have decided not to kill the Titsi but didn't.
Rwanda was very different. It was a tribal war and not a medical emergency. Rwanda was much more complex.
Many paraphrased derivatives of this have often become attributed to Franklin:
Which means that others have said variations of Franklin's words and have falsely attributed them to Franklin. What Franklin said is very different than what you said.
Of all the quotes you cited Franklin actually said 2 of them. "Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power." and "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.". The former is about wealth and power while the latter is about liberty and safety.
You are not knowledgeable nor are you special, no matter what mommy told you.
Resorting to a personal attack just shows how weak your argument truly is.
Those who give up Liberty for temporary security will get neither
You can't even get the quote right. The real quote is as follows;
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
Notice the word "essential". Being anonymous to the police is not an essential liberty or we would never catch and criminals.
As with all relative terms "less likely" is not good enough. Crime rates are still too high and there are still too many known criminals on the loose. We should use what ever technology we have to bring the number of at loose criminals as close to zero as possible.
They may have a problem with you using public property to station your camera. If you happen to own or rent property across the street from that location I doubt they would have an issue.
Law enforcement all over the country has tried to claim just the opposite for themselves.
Law enforcement is not a single entity and do not all think alike. Also, the filming of police officers has been found to be legal in most places.
that it has forced companies who have satellite images to censor public places.
I have seen censoring of secure areas but not public areas. Do you have any references of public areas being censored?
Some of us care more about criminals hiding in plain sight than we do about our privacy.
records of where everybody is going at all times,
They are only doing this when you are in a public place and in range of a camera. While this is quite often it is far from "at all times". Can they run facial recognition on you while you are in your bathroom?
Your image has no privacy when in a public place.
Working for profit provides incentive to cut corners and decrease safety to unacceptable levels. Why do you think most health and safety regulations exist?
That's what anthropomorphic climate change (ACC) is.
At least get the terms right. Anthropomorphic means "like a human". What you meant to say was anthropogenic which means human caused.