Most of the work funded by the B&MGF doesn't directly save lives so much as reduce the DALY cost of neglected diseases, etc. In other words, you can improve individuals' lives, and concomittantly their economic output, without necessarily causing more people to be born. Actually such improvements typically allow birth rates to fall (compare the heat maps in both links).
And if your main task for today was to find some safe drinking water, tomorrow you may be thanking B&MGF. And you wont care that his company was once convicted of anti-trust violations.
This is apt. B&MGF uses first world money to fight a set of illnesses which cause the greatest amount of suffering from any cause except for hunger (NTDs), but which the first world has nefariously ignored for decades.
And yes he's concentrating his philanthropy in areas that dollar for dollar pay of the most dividends
To some degree that's true - thus B&MGF funds distribution of the polio vaccine, of mosquito nets, and of antimalarial, antifiliarial and antihelminthic drugs. But the foundation is still provides funding for basic research in multiple fields targeting a wide range of neglected diseases.
My (computer vision) research aims to develop automated drug screening methods for neglected tropical diseases and B&MGF is a strong funding source for many in the field. It is absolutely true that the foundation is much more results-oriented than say, the National Institutes of Health (which mostly expects publications).
People in the niger delta have loads of vision issues, asthma and bronchitis because of the companies he invests in
Because of?! Get real. Actually Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation funds a lot of basic research towards curing the parasitic illnesses endemic in sub-Saharan Africa. My lab at a public university has grants from B&MGF to develop drugs against Onchocerciasis, Leshmaniasis, Brugia...three diseases you've probably never heard of, but which affect tens of millions of people in sub-Saharan Africa..
The article implies that the new module overwrites with random data instead of just deleting files. I guess the original authors didn't think of that one...government inefficiency in action I suppose.
What does observation of new states of matter have to do with belief? All you are saying is that all knowledge is (justified) belief, a Platonic conception which is not widely accepted today.
The last section of the ANZUS article states that the US and NZ have resumed military cooperation, without NZ having to lift its port ban of nuclear vessels.
Helios is myth, and does not rest on observational evidence. The same culture that begat Helios, begat those observers who did notice that eclipses require a heliocentric model.
My point is just that, contrary to popular belief, naked-eye, terrestrial observations do support that heliocentric model (just as other naked-eye, terrestrial observations aren't consistent with a flat Earth).
That sounds like a cool product. Look, I mostly agree with what you say, just not the hyperbole. Our economy is not a corpse. It's not shrinking, just not growing as fast as desired. China and India are facing a slowing of growth as well. We all have to deal with the energy contraction just the same.
If US corporations have to lobby for weaker IP laws in order to remain competitive, they will. At that time, the politicians will conveniently recall that patent piracy was once a core American value.
But look how many of these patents are turning out to be invalid on reexamination. It sucks that the patent office has an incentive to approve every patent (making money on reexamination fees), and it sucks that the little guy can't deal with a lawsuit (regardless of merit). It still doesn't seem that likely to lead to a patocolypse, as most developers are ignoring that sort of patent and getting away with it.
I don't know that we can really define science in a rigorous way. One point of interest in the history of the philosophy of science is that it was initially an attempt to make philosophy more like science, to emulate the "standing on the shoulders of giants" that enables science to become so great (as in Carnap's Logical Structure of the World, sorry if the translated title isn't quite right). Even though Popper's work is pretty widely accepted in the scientific community there are plenty of stories about him answering questions at talks, where scientists would say "we do this thing in our lab, it sort of looks like induction" and he would say "it's not science." I think to scientists, science is just that thing we do.
Actually I pretty much agree with everything you said, but I'm still butt hurt about Kuhn calling me a helpless addict.
To me, "religion" connotes some type of ritual and/or mythological structure, while "spirituality" only implies a feeling, or experience, which is difficult to describe but many people (and modern psychology) seem to agree exists (if not what it means).
In my view, sincere religion is necessarily spiritual, but sincere spirituality is not necessarily religious.
My scores were always good, but I've just met so many people, at each level of education, whose trajectories were cut short by unfair testing. Some of them should have been taking advantage of accommodations, but weren't due to the stigma. Others, well, I have mixed feelings about them (and after all English proficiency is important in US society), but on the whole I think it was unfair.
We're not unhappy because there isn't a huge wave of newly educated scientists coming to fill our ranks.
We're unhappy because blatantly illogical claims made without evidence are accepted without criticism and then endlessly disseminated by the media and the masses. If people (in the masses and the media) had basic scientific literacy they would question those claims, and ignore (or better, get angry over) misleading statistics and evidence-less policies.
That is the ideal. In reality, scientists are human, are prone to error, and often become attached to bad ideas. For instance, it took decades for plate tectonics to become accepted scientific theory, even among experts, even in the face of solid predictions and observations.
What does it matter how long it takes? Scientists may be human, but science is more than the successes and failings of individual scientists.
Slashdot Mirror
Most of the work funded by the B&MGF doesn't directly save lives so much as reduce the DALY cost of neglected diseases, etc. In other words, you can improve individuals' lives, and concomittantly their economic output, without necessarily causing more people to be born. Actually such improvements typically allow birth rates to fall (compare the heat maps in both links).
And if your main task for today was to find some safe drinking water, tomorrow you may be thanking B&MGF. And you wont care that his company was once convicted of anti-trust violations.
This is apt. B&MGF uses first world money to fight a set of illnesses which cause the greatest amount of suffering from any cause except for hunger (NTDs), but which the first world has nefariously ignored for decades.
And yes he's concentrating his philanthropy in areas that dollar for dollar pay of the most dividends
To some degree that's true - thus B&MGF funds distribution of the polio vaccine, of mosquito nets, and of antimalarial, antifiliarial and antihelminthic drugs. But the foundation is still provides funding for basic research in multiple fields targeting a wide range of neglected diseases.
My (computer vision) research aims to develop automated drug screening methods for neglected tropical diseases and B&MGF is a strong funding source for many in the field. It is absolutely true that the foundation is much more results-oriented than say, the National Institutes of Health (which mostly expects publications).
People in the niger delta have loads of vision issues, asthma and bronchitis because of the companies he invests in
Because of?! Get real. Actually Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation funds a lot of basic research towards curing the parasitic illnesses endemic in sub-Saharan Africa. My lab at a public university has grants from B&MGF to develop drugs against Onchocerciasis, Leshmaniasis, Brugia...three diseases you've probably never heard of, but which affect tens of millions of people in sub-Saharan Africa..
What a film...I'm sure you're right about that joke.
Have you seen La Haine?
The beauty of the future
will be the five mile mining pit where your national parks used to be, apparently.
The article implies that the new module overwrites with random data instead of just deleting files. I guess the original authors didn't think of that one...government inefficiency in action I suppose.
What does observation of new states of matter have to do with belief? All you are saying is that all knowledge is (justified) belief, a Platonic conception which is not widely accepted today.
Is quick 9 hours to get someone to verify it or 19 hours for that person to get the joke?
You don't have to verify it somehow, it ends in 5.
To install an OS you need to go into BIOS anyway because you have to select the boot order
I believe many systems are still shipping with the CD-ROM drive at highest boot priority.
The last section of the ANZUS article states that the US and NZ have resumed military cooperation, without NZ having to lift its port ban of nuclear vessels.
Helios is myth, and does not rest on observational evidence. The same culture that begat Helios, begat those observers who did notice that eclipses require a heliocentric model.
My point is just that, contrary to popular belief, naked-eye, terrestrial observations do support that heliocentric model (just as other naked-eye, terrestrial observations aren't consistent with a flat Earth).
That sounds like a cool product. Look, I mostly agree with what you say, just not the hyperbole. Our economy is not a corpse. It's not shrinking, just not growing as fast as desired. China and India are facing a slowing of growth as well. We all have to deal with the energy contraction just the same.
If US corporations have to lobby for weaker IP laws in order to remain competitive, they will. At that time, the politicians will conveniently recall that patent piracy was once a core American value.
Thanks, of course not (I don't mind).
But look how many of these patents are turning out to be invalid on reexamination. It sucks that the patent office has an incentive to approve every patent (making money on reexamination fees), and it sucks that the little guy can't deal with a lawsuit (regardless of merit). It still doesn't seem that likely to lead to a patocolypse, as most developers are ignoring that sort of patent and getting away with it.
I don't know that we can really define science in a rigorous way. One point of interest in the history of the philosophy of science is that it was initially an attempt to make philosophy more like science, to emulate the "standing on the shoulders of giants" that enables science to become so great (as in Carnap's Logical Structure of the World, sorry if the translated title isn't quite right). Even though Popper's work is pretty widely accepted in the scientific community there are plenty of stories about him answering questions at talks, where scientists would say "we do this thing in our lab, it sort of looks like induction" and he would say "it's not science." I think to scientists, science is just that thing we do.
Actually I pretty much agree with everything you said, but I'm still butt hurt about Kuhn calling me a helpless addict.
To me, "religion" connotes some type of ritual and/or mythological structure, while "spirituality" only implies a feeling, or experience, which is difficult to describe but many people (and modern psychology) seem to agree exists (if not what it means).
In my view, sincere religion is necessarily spiritual, but sincere spirituality is not necessarily religious.
My scores were always good, but I've just met so many people, at each level of education, whose trajectories were cut short by unfair testing. Some of them should have been taking advantage of accommodations, but weren't due to the stigma. Others, well, I have mixed feelings about them (and after all English proficiency is important in US society), but on the whole I think it was unfair.
Einstein was also religious
He didn't participate in any organized religion, and his view of God was basically Spinozan.
Religious? No. Spiritual? Definitely.
We're not unhappy because there isn't a huge wave of newly educated scientists coming to fill our ranks.
We're unhappy because blatantly illogical claims made without evidence are accepted without criticism and then endlessly disseminated by the media and the masses. If people (in the masses and the media) had basic scientific literacy they would question those claims, and ignore (or better, get angry over) misleading statistics and evidence-less policies.
Oh, you mean like how obsverable data demonstrated how the Sun revolves around the earth?
How so? More than two thousand years ago observers had seen eclipses, and realized what they mean.
That is the ideal. In reality, scientists are human, are prone to error, and often become attached to bad ideas. For instance, it took decades for plate tectonics to become accepted scientific theory, even among experts, even in the face of solid predictions and observations.
What does it matter how long it takes? Scientists may be human, but science is more than the successes and failings of individual scientists.