In other words: a conductive shield is a solution with serious side effects. An absorbing (dissipative) wallpaper would be much better. Perhaps a little bit of bulk conductivity but not too much would do the trick? No, this isn't what I had in mind, why, thank you.
Oh the reason is, perhaps not entirely good, but at least solid. Yes, a very solidly understood reason at that. One begins with an understanding that there are busybodies, a class of people whose superiors obviously had better things to do. Looking for work and not finding any, they had to come up with something to keep them occupied. For reasons lost in the mist of history, such occupation never involves things that are pleasant, like, say, reading a comic book, shooting one's sister with pebbles from a blowpipe, or even soaping up the bottom of the teacher's chair. No, definitely not. You see, a busybody's job must maintain tangential relevance and progressive outlook. That alone should sound serious enough, but in case it didn't, busybodies always work on honing their talents. A policy of tangential relevance as applied to writing strict policies of tangential relevance to corporate mission. You can't stray too far without pulling from a swarm of buzzwords, after all. A well appointed smoker is your friend in that task.
Terry Pratchett took this to the logical conclusion in his vision of the Discworld. Listen in to some conversations going on at the Unseen University, and generally with wizards in Discworld, and you'll hear stuff that makes just about as much "sense". Nature is a bitch:)
I'd think that if you had multiple sensors that "intermittently malfunctioned" , you either had a poorly designed ECU, or, more likely, a rotting wire harness. Injectors should last "forever", as long as you get them regularly cleaned and have the entire set checked for calibration/balance. The only sensors I changed on my car were two O2 sensors that were replaced along with the marginal catalytic converter (that's the right way to replace them -- as a system), and the engine temp and IAT. The former were OK but were they to go bad, they'd likely take my brand new cat with it. The latter simply went permanently badd -- off by tens of degrees C. That's on a 12 year old, 200k mile car. My wife's car didn't have any sensors changed -- not in the last 6 years or so, at least, and it's same vintage and mileage.
:) Uh-oh. The "those must fit the 12 inch rotors" brake shoes I got were in fact for 11 inch rotors, and no one had the right ones here on a Sunday. I presume the dealer would have had them, but they are closed on Sundays. I relented and ordered them online, might as well. Wife will have to survive without a car until those shoes come back -- just in case her front-right caliper sprang a major leak and she needed that emergency brake.
How uncanny:) I bleeded a caliper (rebuilt replacement is in the mail), then took care of delaminated emergency/parking brake shoes, finally did some yardwork. Tonight I'll probably work on a translation, chat, and maybe play a game.
Heck, if you use thin laminate, and tweak your laser printer's fuser to run hotter, you can print directly on the laminate without any transfer steps. Print, etch, drill -- for one-sided boards it doesn't get much easier than that.
+1 Informative. I agree. It'd be way more useful if they had shown how to use a printer (not necessarily a 3D one!) to print resistors on a PCB. Having a cheap way to print bulk resistive material on top of a PCB, and then using a laser "router" to trim those, would be a nice way to get higher density prototype boards without dealing with 0402 parts (those parts are 20mils wide -- about as wide as signal traces were on cheap PCBs in the 80s).
I know where you were going with your grandparent post, but you finished it with a fairly general statement. That statement was not qualified with "because of a degree of the hired person", you only mentioned superiors and their degrees. So, what is it if the hired person has a degree, his superiors don't, and yet he is objectively better? I don't think that's necessarily such an unthinkable or rare situation, quite the contrary.
Alas, I do agree with the rest of your argument, even though it is quite often is that lack of education can narrow one's horizons. Every once in a while some haughty 6-figure-a-year troll shows up on/. who insists that him not having any formal CS education is OK, because look, he got took some fool for 6 figures, that's how good he is! Almost universally, upon further inquiry, it looks like said troll is very productive yet stuck with CS background of a somewhat-interested young teenager, and thinks it prudent to publicly announce it. Yes, the converse is true as well: there are plenty of no-good CS Ph.D.s, I know that.
But what if the hired person actually is better than said superiors? Put up and shut up or else, because the king enjoys being naked as long as no one says it out loud? Perhaps people would be well advised to stay away from you:(
Most of the graduate curricula can be finished without much interaction with non-students. If you're enterprising, doing undergrad while avoiding group projects can also be pulled off. At least in grad school I had rather poor luck with project mates. In undergrad it was 2 bad out of three, but one guy was very good. Only two group projects in undergrad, yay!
OK, I freely admit I didn't recall, for whatever reasons, that oceanic storage of CO2 is considered to be a part of the carbon cycle. Doesn't make me a troll, sorry.
if you want to patent and protect something, you can't always be totally clear. It's just how this game is played
I'd be seriously pissed if any of my taxes went to fund your research (if you do such). Not only you're a bad-science apologist (it's all a game to you), you're wrong. If you want to patent something, you're free to be as clear as you wish. There's at least one patent from HP where they include entire instrument's firmware in the US patent. Yes, it runs hundreds of pages. You have a limited time to apply for a patent once you publish, but that's it. Go read up on IP law one day, please.
Reproducing an algorithm from descriptions in a paper is usually a student's job
And how on earth does this help with anything? It's completely backwards! If your lab setup is just a bunch of code, why not publish it along with your paper and let others simply re-run it on same data and see same output?? Why task a student with reproducing something that's already done, and that costs next to nothing to distribute? It's not about reproducing someone's handmade one-off lab setup, it's about getting some code compiled with same tools and running it on same files. Other than having the source, data and makefiles needed to re-run the code on the data, there's nothing to it.
And where the heck did I said one needs "publishable quality code"? I lamented that most research code is a dirty hack, but it doesn't mean it can't be published! It'd be too long to publish in the sense of including it in a journal article anyway. It's all about putting up a zip file in supplemental materials that are distributed electronically by the journal publisher (almost all do, these days).
What you're advocating is forcing everyone who wants to enter the field into wasting time on busywork. Sure they can catch up with you quicker if they can get your software, but so what? I don't see what's wrong with it. Heck, I think anything less is just making up excuses. It doesn't take a year of work to have the entirety of your code and data processing done from Makefiles or a similar mechanism, and making sure that whatever ends up in your paper is produced in the same make run. It takes just a tiny bit of discipline. I've helped a few Ph.D. students do it this way, under version control, all the way to the thesis PDF, all from one cmake file. At least it made them trust their results and embrace change without fear of breaking something irreversibly. Sure, there will be times when you're running calculations on a cluster and such, but even then you should be able to go from the source code to results in one repeatable, no-manual-tweaks-needed operation. How can you trust your own results if you can't simply re-run everything at will, or at least smaller subproblems in the name of saving time?
Hmm, exposure to "evidence of football" causes brain damage? Hey, that's just like homeopathy! Water exposed to other things at one time causes things. I wonder what's the homeopathic value of the rain water. That one surely has been "exposed" to stuff you don't wanna know about:)
I think that there are valid reasons for distrusting the group think here. To me, there are four orthogonal issues: whether there is a warming, to what extent it's anthropogenic, what will the fallout be, and for how long. I think that the first two are answered with a yes, perhaps even a resounding one. To the third, there's plenty of reasonable scenarios. My main beef is with presumptions and handwaving on the last one. That's the real policy driver.
It's not unthinkable that the warming and cooling would happen with different time constants, as would increase and decrease in atmospheric CO2. Suppose we stopped all fossil fuel use right now. How far would the warming trend go, and for how long? One presumes that if we merely reduce emissions, it'll go farther and longer. How much are our sacrifices worth?
In a computational paper, software is part of the methodology. Not being able to use the code as the reader pleases is equivalent to not being able to reproduce the results. If a journal makes it purposefully hard to reproduce the results, it's not a scientific journal.
The reason is probably obvious: they really wanted to publish good science. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of computational results are obtained with software that's tweaked until it "works" and held together with chewing gum and spit, and don't dare upgrade that FORTRAN compiler or else. Nobody cared enough to comply with their high standards if the same-old way of "doing it" will get you published elsewhere. Their failure is probably a contribution to the body of proof that there's a lot of published "science" out there that has that pungent aroma of a freshly fertilized field on an organic farm. They did exactly what Feynman would have liked journals to do, and exactly what he'd have expected all scientists to follow. It's sad in a way that it didn't work out.
Slashdot Mirror
In other words: a conductive shield is a solution with serious side effects. An absorbing (dissipative) wallpaper would be much better. Perhaps a little bit of bulk conductivity but not too much would do the trick? No, this isn't what I had in mind, why, thank you.
Get off your lazy ass and have a current version for Mac, and an HTML version for at least both platforms, will you? Less trolling, more doing.
Oh the reason is, perhaps not entirely good, but at least solid. Yes, a very solidly understood reason at that. One begins with an understanding that there are busybodies, a class of people whose superiors obviously had better things to do. Looking for work and not finding any, they had to come up with something to keep them occupied. For reasons lost in the mist of history, such occupation never involves things that are pleasant, like, say, reading a comic book, shooting one's sister with pebbles from a blowpipe, or even soaping up the bottom of the teacher's chair. No, definitely not. You see, a busybody's job must maintain tangential relevance and progressive outlook. That alone should sound serious enough, but in case it didn't, busybodies always work on honing their talents. A policy of tangential relevance as applied to writing strict policies of tangential relevance to corporate mission. You can't stray too far without pulling from a swarm of buzzwords, after all. A well appointed smoker is your friend in that task.
With apologies to Sir Pratchett.
So they won't mind if I put up a billboard that reads
"... and when this Earth is fucked
the free market will build us a better one."
(read more at www.heartland.org)
That is quite epic. Thank you!
Terry Pratchett took this to the logical conclusion in his vision of the Discworld. Listen in to some conversations going on at the Unseen University, and generally with wizards in Discworld, and you'll hear stuff that makes just about as much "sense". Nature is a bitch :)
Care to elaborate? Do you not find their services useful?
I'd think that if you had multiple sensors that "intermittently malfunctioned" , you either had a poorly designed ECU, or, more likely, a rotting wire harness. Injectors should last "forever", as long as you get them regularly cleaned and have the entire set checked for calibration/balance. The only sensors I changed on my car were two O2 sensors that were replaced along with the marginal catalytic converter (that's the right way to replace them -- as a system), and the engine temp and IAT. The former were OK but were they to go bad, they'd likely take my brand new cat with it. The latter simply went permanently badd -- off by tens of degrees C. That's on a 12 year old, 200k mile car. My wife's car didn't have any sensors changed -- not in the last 6 years or so, at least, and it's same vintage and mileage.
IIRC they are citing relevant sources.
:) Uh-oh. The "those must fit the 12 inch rotors" brake shoes I got were in fact for 11 inch rotors, and no one had the right ones here on a Sunday. I presume the dealer would have had them, but they are closed on Sundays. I relented and ordered them online, might as well. Wife will have to survive without a car until those shoes come back -- just in case her front-right caliper sprang a major leak and she needed that emergency brake.
How uncanny :) I bleeded a caliper (rebuilt replacement is in the mail), then took care of delaminated emergency/parking brake shoes, finally did some yardwork. Tonight I'll probably work on a translation, chat, and maybe play a game.
Heck, if you use thin laminate, and tweak your laser printer's fuser to run hotter, you can print directly on the laminate without any transfer steps. Print, etch, drill -- for one-sided boards it doesn't get much easier than that.
+1 Informative. I agree. It'd be way more useful if they had shown how to use a printer (not necessarily a 3D one!) to print resistors on a PCB. Having a cheap way to print bulk resistive material on top of a PCB, and then using a laser "router" to trim those, would be a nice way to get higher density prototype boards without dealing with 0402 parts (those parts are 20mils wide -- about as wide as signal traces were on cheap PCBs in the 80s).
10.5 is Leopard, not Lion!
I know where you were going with your grandparent post, but you finished it with a fairly general statement. That statement was not qualified with "because of a degree of the hired person", you only mentioned superiors and their degrees. So, what is it if the hired person has a degree, his superiors don't, and yet he is objectively better? I don't think that's necessarily such an unthinkable or rare situation, quite the contrary.
Alas, I do agree with the rest of your argument, even though it is quite often is that lack of education can narrow one's horizons. Every once in a while some haughty 6-figure-a-year troll shows up on /. who insists that him not having any formal CS education is OK, because look, he got took some fool for 6 figures, that's how good he is! Almost universally, upon further inquiry, it looks like said troll is very productive yet stuck with CS background of a somewhat-interested young teenager, and thinks it prudent to publicly announce it. Yes, the converse is true as well: there are plenty of no-good CS Ph.D.s, I know that.
Vi Hart is a mathemusician, so you'd be in good company :)
But what if the hired person actually is better than said superiors? Put up and shut up or else, because the king enjoys being naked as long as no one says it out loud? Perhaps people would be well advised to stay away from you :(
Most of the graduate curricula can be finished without much interaction with non-students. If you're enterprising, doing undergrad while avoiding group projects can also be pulled off. At least in grad school I had rather poor luck with project mates. In undergrad it was 2 bad out of three, but one guy was very good. Only two group projects in undergrad, yay!
OK, I freely admit I didn't recall, for whatever reasons, that oceanic storage of CO2 is considered to be a part of the carbon cycle. Doesn't make me a troll, sorry.
if you want to patent and protect something, you can't always be totally clear. It's just how this game is played
I'd be seriously pissed if any of my taxes went to fund your research (if you do such). Not only you're a bad-science apologist (it's all a game to you), you're wrong. If you want to patent something, you're free to be as clear as you wish. There's at least one patent from HP where they include entire instrument's firmware in the US patent. Yes, it runs hundreds of pages. You have a limited time to apply for a patent once you publish, but that's it. Go read up on IP law one day, please.
Reproducing an algorithm from descriptions in a paper is usually a student's job
And how on earth does this help with anything? It's completely backwards! If your lab setup is just a bunch of code, why not publish it along with your paper and let others simply re-run it on same data and see same output?? Why task a student with reproducing something that's already done, and that costs next to nothing to distribute? It's not about reproducing someone's handmade one-off lab setup, it's about getting some code compiled with same tools and running it on same files. Other than having the source, data and makefiles needed to re-run the code on the data, there's nothing to it.
And where the heck did I said one needs "publishable quality code"? I lamented that most research code is a dirty hack, but it doesn't mean it can't be published! It'd be too long to publish in the sense of including it in a journal article anyway. It's all about putting up a zip file in supplemental materials that are distributed electronically by the journal publisher (almost all do, these days).
What you're advocating is forcing everyone who wants to enter the field into wasting time on busywork. Sure they can catch up with you quicker if they can get your software, but so what? I don't see what's wrong with it. Heck, I think anything less is just making up excuses. It doesn't take a year of work to have the entirety of your code and data processing done from Makefiles or a similar mechanism, and making sure that whatever ends up in your paper is produced in the same make run. It takes just a tiny bit of discipline. I've helped a few Ph.D. students do it this way, under version control, all the way to the thesis PDF, all from one cmake file. At least it made them trust their results and embrace change without fear of breaking something irreversibly. Sure, there will be times when you're running calculations on a cluster and such, but even then you should be able to go from the source code to results in one repeatable, no-manual-tweaks-needed operation. How can you trust your own results if you can't simply re-run everything at will, or at least smaller subproblems in the name of saving time?
Rimshot! Well done, well done.
Hmm, exposure to "evidence of football" causes brain damage? Hey, that's just like homeopathy! Water exposed to other things at one time causes things. I wonder what's the homeopathic value of the rain water. That one surely has been "exposed" to stuff you don't wanna know about :)
I think that there are valid reasons for distrusting the group think here. To me, there are four orthogonal issues: whether there is a warming, to what extent it's anthropogenic, what will the fallout be, and for how long. I think that the first two are answered with a yes, perhaps even a resounding one. To the third, there's plenty of reasonable scenarios. My main beef is with presumptions and handwaving on the last one. That's the real policy driver.
It's not unthinkable that the warming and cooling would happen with different time constants, as would increase and decrease in atmospheric CO2. Suppose we stopped all fossil fuel use right now. How far would the warming trend go, and for how long? One presumes that if we merely reduce emissions, it'll go farther and longer. How much are our sacrifices worth?
In a computational paper, software is part of the methodology. Not being able to use the code as the reader pleases is equivalent to not being able to reproduce the results. If a journal makes it purposefully hard to reproduce the results, it's not a scientific journal.
The reason is probably obvious: they really wanted to publish good science. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of computational results are obtained with software that's tweaked until it "works" and held together with chewing gum and spit, and don't dare upgrade that FORTRAN compiler or else. Nobody cared enough to comply with their high standards if the same-old way of "doing it" will get you published elsewhere. Their failure is probably a contribution to the body of proof that there's a lot of published "science" out there that has that pungent aroma of a freshly fertilized field on an organic farm. They did exactly what Feynman would have liked journals to do, and exactly what he'd have expected all scientists to follow. It's sad in a way that it didn't work out.
You win teh internetz for today. Well done!! [claps hands]