Or maybe that's because India is the largest democracy in the world and has been mostly at peace since its independence in 1947 (minus border conflicts with China and Pakistan and some peacekeeping operations abroad). It's last conflict was in 1999 against Pakistan and the total death toll after 3 months of operations was less than 5000 victims. It's not a bad track record for such a large and populated country given the size of the societal issues it's dealing with.
The iranian democracy on the other side is today nothing more than an empty shell and while its population is highly educated, young and probably wouldn't mind a change in government, its government and associates have proven time and time again since the 70s to have a rather proactive agressive stance.
There is already no shortage of foreign CEOs in Swiss companies. The proportion of foreigners working in the country in high-paid jobs is really high.
As for perceived disasters, I don't know where they got that idea as the Swiss economy is thriving compared to the rest of the western world right now. The last catastrophe was the bankruptcy of Swissair and that was back in 2002. Plus the company was immediately reborn as a new airline (Swiss) with very little disruption of operations. Banks have had a hard time but I don't think that this is registered in the mind of people as being a problem coming from board members. If anything ticked the balance towards a yes to this initiative, that was Daniel Vasela, ex-CEO of Novartis, receiving a 72M CHF (about 76M USD) severance package as he left the company a mere two weeks before the vote (he later declined it).
It is surprising that they admit it after he killed himself. They could just have denied it. Nobody who cares would have been fooled but it was "plausibly" deniable.
Even without laws, would others act differently around me because they were being recorded with my life record?
If reality TV has demonstrated anything, it is that being recorded 24/7 and peered at by millions of people makes you less adventurous, more respectful and more caring of others.
I think that the critics believe: [1] that such a large amount of money given to "neuroscience" (in quotes as it is more of a computer science than a fundamental neuroscience project) will hurt their chances to get funding in other EU and national calls (like: "hey neuroscience has its billion already, let's fund cardiology and oncology instead") and [2] that the project over-promises and won't deliver, ultimately hurting the credibility of the field as a whole.
I think that both concerns are grounded. The resource money is limited and as the project only get matching funds, they are currently trying to get money from national bodies. Every € that goes to the HBP will be taken from neuroscience budgets and the project if I am not mistaken plans to act as a kind of a special funding body offering fellowships and grants but it will of course push its agenda. As for over-promising, it is unfortunate that the head of the project as made quite inflated claims. He pretends that he has been misreported by journalists. You can find claims about understanding consciousness, neural coding and solving brain pathologies which obviously is going to be impossible in a decade given how much we don't know about the brain in general and about cell types other than neurons specifically.
I believe that what they receive is actually up to 0.5 B€ in matching funds, meaning that for every 1 € they get from other sources (private persons, foundations, national funding bodies, etc...), they will get another 1 € from the EU, up to 0.5 B€ for a total of about 1 B€. Also this is granted under the EU Framework Program 7 which ends soon. So really what they got so far is 54 M€ for 30 months and the rest will come after that under the new EU program/package (Horizon 2020) which is currently being negotiated. Given the financial health of EU countries right now, there is a chance that the overall envelope is cut down and it is not clear how much funds they will get from national bodies in the first place.
The EU is also funding under the same initiative another B€ project about graphene.
The Human Brain Project promises a lot (AI, curing neurodegenerative diseases, understanding the brain and consciousness, limiting animal experimentation, etc...) and it is the opinion of most neuroscientists in the US and in Europe that it won't deliver. If you google it, you will find many interviews from neuroscientists who are very critical of it. It is difficult to evaluate what really will come out of it.
I find the arguments put forward by the authors of the study rather unconvincing. Once you have an opposable thumb, pretty much anything you can grab on the ground is a better weapon that your fist. Rock anyone?
PET requires a radiotracer that is impossible to load into dead fixed tissue (by fixed I mean that it has been bathed into a fixative solution for long-term preservation). MRI is possible in dead tissue but does not offer the resolution that can be achieved by more classical optical methods, you won't see individual cells or anything smaller than that. The best you can do is probably to distinguish between macroscopic structures although I am not a specialist of this technique. Slices are the best solution if you want to see individual cells and their processes. Slices are also quite popular as they allow to use immunohistochemistry to label cells, structures or proteins of interest with fluorescent tagged molecules allowing all kinds of fluorescent imaging investigations of the tissue. I doubt this has been done with his brain though.
Dresden was bombed in February 1945. Two months later the Russians would take Berlin ending the war on that front. The war was lost for Germany after the battle of Kursk in summer 1943. Everybody knew it. After Kursk they kept falling back and losing battles. So yes it would have been bad if Germany won the war but incinerating thousands of civilians mere weeks before the end of the conflict is simply unjustifiable. Yes, wars are cruel, usually led by the same morons on each side.
Total wars are first and foremost full of poor Joe Sixpacks sent to the front from each side for the love of God and country. Didn't ask to go but were not given any choice. Not worse or better on any side of the frontline. Your neighbor, your cousin, your colleagues, your barista... Anyway, it is comforting to realize via the slashdot crowd that modern and moderate views will prevent war crimes and atrocities from being committed again in the future.
Well, you can create your own profile and curate your own publications. And it does a decent work at doing it automatically in the first place. They also index way more publications than WOK or Scopus, yielding a more accurate citation count in certain fields where, for instance, people publish in books, proceedings and journals.
There is already a profusion of similar ID systems operated by the big players in the field. For instance, Web of Knowledge http://apps.webofknowledge.com/ and Scopus http://www.scopus.com/ already have some kind of an automated author sorting system behind their paywall. I think that Thomson is also behind ResearcherID. Plus there is ResearchGate which creates a profile for you without asking you anything and computes a totally non-transparent metric of your impact as a scientist. In the end, I think that free and transparent will prevail, that is Google Scholar. It is simple, accessible by anyone and already provides your h-index (yes I know how poor of a metric it is). Only you can create a profile for yourself and there is a minimal but meaningful level of control to check that the person creating the profile is indeed who he claims he is. Admittedly, it does not solve the Wang problem but there can be only so many Y. Wang in your tiny field of interest so searching for " Y. Wang + insert favorite keyword here " should do the trick.
Speaking English only might be ok in an academic environment although my experience (in Japan) says that you might have most of the staff reading and writing English but unable to speak it. You might also want to apply directly to American or Western companies in the area. I assume there is no shortage of them.
I doubt they are stupid. They know it is broken. Seriously, how much do you think Zuckerberg's parole is worth? Sure, give us all these rights, we promise we won't abuse them.
Just go for a PhD and think about an academic career again once you are in your last year. In my experience, you will be disillusioned about science within 4-6 months. Most projects don't work and most PIs have unrealistic expectations and no time for supervision. Salaries suck and long-term career prospects suck, in all fields. There is a lot of jobs in competitive fields but cut-throat competition and no jobs in the other fields. Also I think that fraud is more widespread that a lot of academics would like to admit but it remains anecdotal and it will certainly not have any impact on your career prospects if you are honest. This being said, this is I think the best and most stimulating job in the world (or at least one of them). And I personally work from 9.30 till 9.00 every weekday and some hours over weekends.
My best advice is to consider it as seriously as you would any other job. It helps to have a clear career plan and know where you are going. Too many students start thinking it will just happen. Once you know in which field you want to work, seek advice about the best labs and apply there. Visit as many labs as you can. Don't be afraid about moving to other countries/states and if an excellent opportunity presents itself outside of what you initially considered, take some time to think about it. The most important things are (1) that you choose a project that you like, (2) that the lab where you work is full of nice people and (3) that your boss is really famous in his field, not necessarily in that order. Don't go for second grade universities, it is not worth it. If you want your academic career to be full of opportunities, you need to do your PhD in one of the top 50-100 best universities of the world and in a really good lab for your field. That will keep most doors opened and put you in the most stimulating environment. This is not to say that good research is not done outside of these but simply that you are guaranteed to get maximal exposure to foreign ideas and people.
Slashdot Mirror
I know but that was 25 years ago (finished in 1988).
Or maybe that's because India is the largest democracy in the world and has been mostly at peace since its independence in 1947 (minus border conflicts with China and Pakistan and some peacekeeping operations abroad). It's last conflict was in 1999 against Pakistan and the total death toll after 3 months of operations was less than 5000 victims. It's not a bad track record for such a large and populated country given the size of the societal issues it's dealing with.
The iranian democracy on the other side is today nothing more than an empty shell and while its population is highly educated, young and probably wouldn't mind a change in government, its government and associates have proven time and time again since the 70s to have a rather proactive agressive stance.
Can anyone recommend a replacement? Maybe a lightweight app?
What next? Will they try to ban cats as well? I say we have to draw a line in the sand now!
There is already no shortage of foreign CEOs in Swiss companies. The proportion of foreigners working in the country in high-paid jobs is really high.
As for perceived disasters, I don't know where they got that idea as the Swiss economy is thriving compared to the rest of the western world right now. The last catastrophe was the bankruptcy of Swissair and that was back in 2002. Plus the company was immediately reborn as a new airline (Swiss) with very little disruption of operations. Banks have had a hard time but I don't think that this is registered in the mind of people as being a problem coming from board members. If anything ticked the balance towards a yes to this initiative, that was Daniel Vasela, ex-CEO of Novartis, receiving a 72M CHF (about 76M USD) severance package as he left the company a mere two weeks before the vote (he later declined it).
It is surprising that they admit it after he killed himself. They could just have denied it. Nobody who cares would have been fooled but it was "plausibly" deniable.
Even without laws, would others act differently around me because they were being recorded with my life record?
If reality TV has demonstrated anything, it is that being recorded 24/7 and peered at by millions of people makes you less adventurous, more respectful and more caring of others.
I think that the critics believe: [1] that such a large amount of money given to "neuroscience" (in quotes as it is more of a computer science than a fundamental neuroscience project) will hurt their chances to get funding in other EU and national calls (like: "hey neuroscience has its billion already, let's fund cardiology and oncology instead") and [2] that the project over-promises and won't deliver, ultimately hurting the credibility of the field as a whole.
I think that both concerns are grounded. The resource money is limited and as the project only get matching funds, they are currently trying to get money from national bodies. Every € that goes to the HBP will be taken from neuroscience budgets and the project if I am not mistaken plans to act as a kind of a special funding body offering fellowships and grants but it will of course push its agenda. As for over-promising, it is unfortunate that the head of the project as made quite inflated claims. He pretends that he has been misreported by journalists. You can find claims about understanding consciousness, neural coding and solving brain pathologies which obviously is going to be impossible in a decade given how much we don't know about the brain in general and about cell types other than neurons specifically.
I believe that what they receive is actually up to 0.5 B€ in matching funds, meaning that for every 1 € they get from other sources (private persons, foundations, national funding bodies, etc...), they will get another 1 € from the EU, up to 0.5 B€ for a total of about 1 B€. Also this is granted under the EU Framework Program 7 which ends soon. So really what they got so far is 54 M€ for 30 months and the rest will come after that under the new EU program/package (Horizon 2020) which is currently being negotiated. Given the financial health of EU countries right now, there is a chance that the overall envelope is cut down and it is not clear how much funds they will get from national bodies in the first place.
The EU is also funding under the same initiative another B€ project about graphene.
The Human Brain Project promises a lot (AI, curing neurodegenerative diseases, understanding the brain and consciousness, limiting animal experimentation, etc...) and it is the opinion of most neuroscientists in the US and in Europe that it won't deliver. If you google it, you will find many interviews from neuroscientists who are very critical of it. It is difficult to evaluate what really will come out of it.
I find the arguments put forward by the authors of the study rather unconvincing. Once you have an opposable thumb, pretty much anything you can grab on the ground is a better weapon that your fist. Rock anyone?
Facebook says the proposal would require social media sites to perform extra tracking to remove data which has been copied to other sites
Maybe they can start by not copying user data to other sites.
I use one everyday in the lab and I never had any of the problems you have. It might be a bit thicker than 0.4 mm though http://www.amazon.com/Caran-Dache-Ballpoint-Metal-Black/dp/B000WFXTI8.
PET requires a radiotracer that is impossible to load into dead fixed tissue (by fixed I mean that it has been bathed into a fixative solution for long-term preservation). MRI is possible in dead tissue but does not offer the resolution that can be achieved by more classical optical methods, you won't see individual cells or anything smaller than that. The best you can do is probably to distinguish between macroscopic structures although I am not a specialist of this technique. Slices are the best solution if you want to see individual cells and their processes. Slices are also quite popular as they allow to use immunohistochemistry to label cells, structures or proteins of interest with fluorescent tagged molecules allowing all kinds of fluorescent imaging investigations of the tissue. I doubt this has been done with his brain though.
Wired had an article running about it already last year http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/08/ff_indiaid/all/1.
Dresden was bombed in February 1945. Two months later the Russians would take Berlin ending the war on that front. The war was lost for Germany after the battle of Kursk in summer 1943. Everybody knew it. After Kursk they kept falling back and losing battles. So yes it would have been bad if Germany won the war but incinerating thousands of civilians mere weeks before the end of the conflict is simply unjustifiable. Yes, wars are cruel, usually led by the same morons on each side.
Total wars are first and foremost full of poor Joe Sixpacks sent to the front from each side for the love of God and country. Didn't ask to go but were not given any choice. Not worse or better on any side of the frontline. Your neighbor, your cousin, your colleagues, your barista... Anyway, it is comforting to realize via the slashdot crowd that modern and moderate views will prevent war crimes and atrocities from being committed again in the future.
Well, you can create your own profile and curate your own publications. And it does a decent work at doing it automatically in the first place. They also index way more publications than WOK or Scopus, yielding a more accurate citation count in certain fields where, for instance, people publish in books, proceedings and journals.
There is already a profusion of similar ID systems operated by the big players in the field. For instance, Web of Knowledge http://apps.webofknowledge.com/ and Scopus http://www.scopus.com/ already have some kind of an automated author sorting system behind their paywall. I think that Thomson is also behind ResearcherID. Plus there is ResearchGate which creates a profile for you without asking you anything and computes a totally non-transparent metric of your impact as a scientist. In the end, I think that free and transparent will prevail, that is Google Scholar. It is simple, accessible by anyone and already provides your h-index (yes I know how poor of a metric it is). Only you can create a profile for yourself and there is a minimal but meaningful level of control to check that the person creating the profile is indeed who he claims he is. Admittedly, it does not solve the Wang problem but there can be only so many Y. Wang in your tiny field of interest so searching for " Y. Wang + insert favorite keyword here " should do the trick.
And complaining about airport closure because of snow did not provide enough of a context? Seriously?
Speaking English only might be ok in an academic environment although my experience (in Japan) says that you might have most of the staff reading and writing English but unable to speak it. You might also want to apply directly to American or Western companies in the area. I assume there is no shortage of them.
It looks very much like a drop pod. It could be straight from this ODST ad http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzkL-vg8MHE.
I found it by chance yesterday, at least it looks good http://www.shapeways.com/model/432614/nanolet-ipod-nano-bracelet.html
" UK In Danger of Having Third World Standards Infrastructures "
There, fixed the title. A chance our taxpayers money is wisely spent to upgrade London in the wake of the Olympic Games.
I doubt they are stupid. They know it is broken. Seriously, how much do you think Zuckerberg's parole is worth? Sure, give us all these rights, we promise we won't abuse them.
Just go for a PhD and think about an academic career again once you are in your last year. In my experience, you will be disillusioned about science within 4-6 months. Most projects don't work and most PIs have unrealistic expectations and no time for supervision. Salaries suck and long-term career prospects suck, in all fields. There is a lot of jobs in competitive fields but cut-throat competition and no jobs in the other fields. Also I think that fraud is more widespread that a lot of academics would like to admit but it remains anecdotal and it will certainly not have any impact on your career prospects if you are honest. This being said, this is I think the best and most stimulating job in the world (or at least one of them). And I personally work from 9.30 till 9.00 every weekday and some hours over weekends.
My best advice is to consider it as seriously as you would any other job. It helps to have a clear career plan and know where you are going. Too many students start thinking it will just happen. Once you know in which field you want to work, seek advice about the best labs and apply there. Visit as many labs as you can. Don't be afraid about moving to other countries/states and if an excellent opportunity presents itself outside of what you initially considered, take some time to think about it. The most important things are (1) that you choose a project that you like, (2) that the lab where you work is full of nice people and (3) that your boss is really famous in his field, not necessarily in that order. Don't go for second grade universities, it is not worth it. If you want your academic career to be full of opportunities, you need to do your PhD in one of the top 50-100 best universities of the world and in a really good lab for your field. That will keep most doors opened and put you in the most stimulating environment. This is not to say that good research is not done outside of these but simply that you are guaranteed to get maximal exposure to foreign ideas and people.