Actually I find that Computer Science is one of the most narrow disciplines. Compare computer science, say to the curriculum that a Chemical Engineer gets:
Physics 1 year Calculus 2 years Numerical Algorithms Control Theory Organic Chemistry 1 year Physical Chemistry 1 year Thermodynamics Mech and Electrical Engineering intro Separation Phenomena Unit Ops Process Economics
etc.
It can be used for many careers - some of the people I know who went through that are now in geology, or used it as pre med.
It is the investors who generally gain the most from the market being up, the largest investors typically being pension funds, university endowments or 401K accounts belonging to individuals.
Ah, the "others". Please provide an example that doesn't fit into either superstitious babble or the set of observations subject to naturalistic explanations. Without that you have an idea but nothing to support it.
Your proposal that modelling is a factor in recognition of something new is an error. Many phenomena were recognized as being real long before they were capable of being modeled. Example - the precession of the orbit of Mercury.
As far as research funding, you have thrown up a straw man. Irrelevant to your proposal. Similarly the idea that monetization is important to the advancement of science. The biggest experiments underway today are very unlikely to be monetized anytime soon, if ever.
I have been working on the development of a computer which can calculate a chain of reasoning that is needed to justify any arbitrary conclusion given any starting data set. I think it will sell to governments, economists and political parties like hotcakes.
It is now quite evident that the solution is going to lie in the realm of quantum computing.
Well that's the first thing I thought, but on further reflection it doesn't seem to be the right response.
Statisticians say correlation doesn't imply causation, and they certainly don't say anything about when effect happens, so why should they give a rat's ass about which comes first, cause or effect?
I think it's more a 'told you so'. No particular reason to prefer cause to be first because they don't really give you any information about cause anyway.
All this talk about cause coming first is pure speculation, just like any other discussions about cause.
I know a fair amount about the science he is talking about; I happen to hold a PhD in chemistry. I also happen to know that Gary is a journalist with no degree in any field related to medicine or biology.
He took down the section where he was selling advice; there is a comment about it on the site.
"2) I agreed to take down the âDiabetes Supportâ page. Itâ(TM)s a page few people new about, I did not âpromote itâ(TM) but people could become my client and I would assist them doing what I had done, for a fee. My earnings were meager and I left the link up there just in case someone wanted my assistance."
"It clearly states that all powers now explicitly given to the federal government belong to the citizens and the states."
No it doesn't. The 10th Amendment does NOT contain the word explicitly. This was actually a bone of contention at the time of adoption of the Constitution and was left out after much discussion. This is an extremely important fact as it allows the federal government to use powers IMPLICIT in various parts of the Constitution including the Commerce Clause.
This person is selling advice which he claims is superior to the consensus. Looking at some of the things he writes, in particular the attacks on the ADA diet it is pretty obvious that his advice can be very dangerous (could cause hypoglycemia).
On this blog there is advice to ignore dietary recommendations from the American Diabetics Association and use his diet instead. From what I have seen of his recommendations they could easily cause hypoglycemia, a potentially fatal condition.
Slashdot Mirror
Not to mention that if the issuer of the token is hacked, the token becomes a liability.
Actually I find that Computer Science is one of the most narrow disciplines. Compare computer science, say to the curriculum that a Chemical Engineer gets:
Physics 1 year
Calculus 2 years
Numerical Algorithms
Control Theory
Organic Chemistry 1 year
Physical Chemistry 1 year
Thermodynamics
Mech and Electrical Engineering intro
Separation Phenomena
Unit Ops
Process Economics
etc.
It can be used for many careers - some of the people I know who went through that are now in geology, or used it as pre med.
Just so you are aware, Wall Street bonuses have little to do with the market being up.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/29/business/29bonus.html
It is the investors who generally gain the most from the market being up, the largest investors typically being pension funds, university endowments or 401K accounts belonging to individuals.
So learn a little before shooting off your mouth.
Ah, the "others". Please provide an example that doesn't fit into either superstitious babble or the set of observations subject to naturalistic explanations. Without that you have an idea but nothing to support it.
Your proposal that modelling is a factor in recognition of something new is an error. Many phenomena were recognized as being real long before they were capable of being modeled. Example - the precession of the orbit of Mercury.
As far as research funding, you have thrown up a straw man. Irrelevant to your proposal. Similarly the idea that monetization is important to the advancement of science. The biggest experiments underway today are very unlikely to be monetized anytime soon, if ever.
Yes, the big tech luminaries were very successful at preventing smaller companies from taking over their territory.
Let's list some examples:
AT&T prevented the Cisco from replacing switched circuit POTS.
IBM prevented Intel/Dell from running them out of the hardware business.
Moto and RIM prevented Apple from running them out of the mobile telephone business.
NOT.
Don't forget that today's tech giant is yesterday's pip-squeek upstart.
If you weight it on a technology basis it's more like 10*9 Instagrams.
Science is fundamentally unsuited to understanding phenomena such as you describe.
However nobody has been able to demonstrate this kind of stuff. I think some dude name James Randi offers a prize if you can do it.
If they could maybe there would be some interesting new paradigms.....
I have been working on the development of a computer which can calculate a chain of reasoning that is needed to justify any arbitrary conclusion given any starting data set. I think it will sell to governments, economists and political parties like hotcakes.
It is now quite evident that the solution is going to lie in the realm of quantum computing.
Well that's the first thing I thought, but on further reflection it doesn't seem to be the right response.
Statisticians say correlation doesn't imply causation, and they certainly don't say anything about when effect happens, so why should they give a rat's ass about which comes first, cause or effect?
I think it's more a 'told you so'. No particular reason to prefer cause to be first because they don't really give you any information about cause anyway.
All this talk about cause coming first is pure speculation, just like any other discussions about cause.
The fine summary suggested this is marine bacteria farts rather than stored methane from clathrates being released.
I would be a lot more worried if it were clathrates.
Climate skeptics have a much worse history of trying to manipulate the peer review process:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-peer-review.html
It is obviously not legal advise because it is NOT advising anyone to do anything!
Unlike the site under discussion which is full of such actionable recommendations.
I know a fair amount about the science he is talking about; I happen to hold a PhD in chemistry. I also happen to know that Gary is a journalist with no degree in any field related to medicine or biology.
The ADA is NOT pushing high carb low fact diets. That is just another part of the problems with this site.
Read it and you will see... this guy is actually advocating reducing carb intakes to the point of ketosis.
I'd rather play Russian Roulette.
Gary Taubes? LOL. You have got to be kidding.
Not to mention the Wright Brothers were beaten to it by some Aussie dude.
This is why there aren't any high school students acting as Supreme Court Justices.
He took down the section where he was selling advice; there is a comment about it on the site.
"2) I agreed to take down the âDiabetes Supportâ page. Itâ(TM)s a page few people new about, I did not âpromote itâ(TM) but people could become my client and I would assist them doing what I had done, for a fee. My earnings were meager and I left the link up there just in case someone wanted my assistance."
"It clearly states that all powers now explicitly given to the federal government belong to the citizens and the states."
No it doesn't. The 10th Amendment does NOT contain the word explicitly. This was actually a bone of contention at the time of adoption of the Constitution and was left out after much discussion. This is an extremely important fact as it allows the federal government to use powers IMPLICIT in various parts of the Constitution including the Commerce Clause.
Gary Taube is a journalist with no training in any field even RELATED to medicine, biology etc.
You have got to be kidding me.
Take a look at the web site. He was offering to give nutrition advice for a fee on a page that he has since taken offline.
DOH!
And as far as my statement, where the hell did I give legal advice? Are you nuts?
Are you really that uninformed regarding the Constitution?
The US Supreme Court has long held that many forms of commercial speech are not protected. This is clearly such a case.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_speech
This person is selling advice which he claims is superior to the consensus. Looking at some of the things he writes, in particular the attacks on the ADA diet it is pretty obvious that his advice can be very dangerous (could cause hypoglycemia).
That is fraud IMHO.
It seems to me this IS the current situation.
Some of these fraudulent alternative "doctors" have even convinced state legislators to pass laws requiring insurers reimburse care by these quacks.
On this blog there is advice to ignore dietary recommendations from the American Diabetics Association and use his diet instead. From what I have seen of his recommendations they could easily cause hypoglycemia, a potentially fatal condition.