no he's referring to the excessive consumption of rice which is quickly digested and results in the feeling you're hungry after an hour? half hour now? lacist!
Until relatively recently, 3 large wireless companies completely dominated the market. there are 3rd party offerings in urban areas that have largely been crippled by regulation favouring the large incumbents. Mobilicity (now telus), Wind, and Public Mobile recently Withdrew from their own lobbying organization claiming they were also in the pocket of the big 3.
“It has been evident for quite some time that, rather than being a true industry association which represents the views of all players regardless of size, the CWTA has instead largely been an advocate for Rogers, TELUS and Bell, and often directly contrary to the interests of new entrant wireless carriers” said Bob Boron, General Counsel and Senior Vice-President, Legal & Regulatory Affairs for Public Mobile.
Recently, all 3 new entrants in the urban wireless market became up for sale, and Telus is intending to buy Mobilicity, and Rogers is attempting to purchase the spectrum originally allocated by the CRTC to new entrants to increase market competition.
Canadian wireless service has less choice, higher prices, offering fewer services and typically lower bandwidth caps, thanks to collusion from the large telcos. It's a caricature of the US market.
don't worry about unbalancing the "krill biomass" by killing whales: we do a great job of harvesting Krill already. when we talk about overfishing, we are observing a trend of moving south as northern hemisphere fisheries are depleted. we are also observing a trend of moving up the food web to procecute the primary producers. We are literally fishing as south as we can go, and we are now harvesting the source of food for the larger animals we fish for in the ocean. There's no where else to go, and there's nothing left to fish.
Dr. Daniel Pauly from the UBC Fisheries Centre states that fisheries are a gigantic Ponzi Scheme. We also don't even know what the pre-fishery populations were, so there is no initial baseline to base your advocacy on. To think we can change the krill biomass and put the ocean back into balance by modifying whale populations is rearranging deck chairs on the Hindenberg.
We're already seeing the Canadian east coast becoming a popular place to locate call centres for North American businesses because they speak good English,
the French wikiversion has links to other wireless stations around france. this is a portion of the French emergency communications network to be used in the event of nuclear war. i think this is why France is interested in keeping this off wikipedia, no matter how badly they screwed it up.
The patent information is more than just the 'mini' suffix; they state the "i" in iPad, as well as the "Pad" in iPad, are also merely descriptive. When they named the iMac in 1998, the 'i' prefix was more novel that it was now. i wonder what position that puts the next 'iPhone' in for trademarks.
Apple's (i.e. Jobs') naming strategy was to make product names as simple and representative as possible to the product or function (e.g. iTunes, iMac, iPod). It is interesting that their nomenclature may be a double edged sword in terms of how aggressively even apple could defend such generic trademarks, if one had been given. If this rejection criteria becomes presidence, maybe we'll see "MS Word" and "Adobe Illustrator" also lose trademark privilege.
If you are doing a PhD, your subject matter will have to become your hobby. it shouldn't be your only one, but you should be absolutely enraptured with what you're studying. You are guaranteed to run into a dichotomous moment in your 5-7 year program where you will honestly consider quitting. It will only be through your personal passion and drive that gets you through the 'salmon of doubt'.
Since your spot is secured, you either have obtained grants, you have an academic advisor, or both. Spend the summer reading everything your advisor has written, and read everything in your field. If you are coming into a new PhD program you will most likely have a comprehensive exam (ours is verbal) where your committee will test your knowledge in the field to the point they would be comfortable allowing you to research independently. If you have not formed a research committee, use the summer to select internal and external examiners for your project. Selecting your committee is like drafting for a hockey team: there are heavy hitters and there are marginal academics. you may even encounter, as i have, a committee member that will attempt to sabotage your research. that's all part of grad school, so investigate who you're working with through previous students. Your prospective committee's individual publications is a good first step.
Spend the summer reading to the level where you can converse with someone in your field and be able to drop first and last names of the most pertinent research done between the last 50-100 years ago; much of this research (at least in my field of fish larval development) will be in the stacks and in the library; it is incredibly irksome to encounter a PhD candidate that has no references out of what they could pull out of an online paywall. A lack of understanding the foundational research makes the researcher rootless; it is as if a leaf has no idea it is attached to a tree.
Don't stop reading. keep reading. you should be reading already, but keep reading throughout the summer. clearcut an entire state of trees if you need to; keep reading. This is a primary failure mode of the graduate student: not everyone can take graduate school because not everybody can stand having their brain physiologically rewired on a daily basis as they encounter conflicting research, bad research, obscure research, and science-related gossip. Read until you feel comfortable holding conflicting ideas in your head. read until you find yourself asking a question that leads to no answer, and begin to formulate your project from there.
Changing gears slightly, the second most important thing to knowing your pertinent research intimately is the ability to communicate science to non scientists. My program stresses and indoctrinates strong presentation skills. i would highly recommend reading a book like Randy Olson's Don't Be Such a Scientist. Learn the jargon, and learn to internalise the jargon and be able to speak to non-technical audiences. the more you can communicate your message and research, the better you will be.
By that logic, you should still be flying Spitfires. Heck, you'd be arguing over why you abandoned the Sopwith Camel for those risky new fangled monoplanes.
by that slippery slope argument, you should be invoking Godwin's law in about 30 seconds.
No. But it also doesn't make it OK to be an unholy prick to people who have suffered such an abuse, just because you don't want to have to accommodate them.
So what makes it OK to be an unholy prick to people who simply hold a different opinion than your own? earlier in this same comment page you called someone a "sociopathic asshole". If you can do nothing but namecall, then you are someone that does more damage to your own cause than forward it.
This implies a lack of comprehension on your part, or perhaps an inability to engage in high-level thinking. the person you disagree with may be "an unholy prick", but everyone else thinks your an idiot. - Hillary Clinton
it's supposed to mean that just because you have not been hurt in that particular manner, does not give you a right to be a sociopathic asshole about it to those that have.
utilizing the same terminology, what gave you the right to be a sociopathic asshole in response?
how can they review the content of the talk before it is given? judging a presentation based on a submitted abstract is like thinking the Daily Show provides a good summary of current events.
The talk was completely off-topic and couldn't possibly improve the environment of the conference.
It's too bad that the talk was censored by Ada Initiative; otherwise the rest of the grownups could have made up their own minds on the subject instead of believing your opinion of a talk that never occurred.
extremely insightful that your idea of tangential, may be another person's epiphany. This is the exact purpose of a conference: to listen to new ideas, even if they are not in your narrow field of research.
and the geek community has real problems with sexism, creeping on women at conferences, and just generally losing its shit when the topic of women comes up.
so the solution is not to talk about sexuality at all at conferences? If you feel the best way to deal with these "real problems" is to internalize the very issues you take a strong position against, that's fine. but to request someone "pull the plug" to a lecture at a technical symposium just because it disagrees with your political worldview is tantamount to burying your head in the sand becuase you don't like all the men at the beach. the sooner we can talk about sex like grownups, the sooner raise the bar of discussion past adolescence.
The cruelest lies are often told in silence. - Robert Lewis Stevenson.
Solendra, look it up. Just because you are lazy or stupid doesn't mean it didn't happen.
ok, lets look it up: Solyndra recieved $535M in a federal subsidy, and in response, China put up $35 Billion to subsidize their own solar research and industry.
It appears that both an agressive foreign entity and a softening PV market played roles in Solyndra's demise.
what do you mean by 'look it up', exactly? i don't read publications that exist exclusively inside your political 'bubble'.
His very expertise and lifelong, professional interest were very lamely attacked by the right wing machine, typically accusing him of avocating raising oil prices and gas prices.
Having Dr. Chu there did more to forward the cause of science in the US Government in generations. How many administrations could walk down a hallway and access a scientist at the top of his game? He should be held and paraded around on slashdot's shoulders for his hard work.
right; this would have put some of the other discussions (e.g. 52% americans believe in thought crime) in perspective. the article does define what 'crime' is ambiguously.
Slashdot Mirror
no he's referring to the excessive consumption of rice which is quickly digested and results in the feeling you're hungry after an hour? half hour now? lacist!
Yes.
Until relatively recently, 3 large wireless companies completely dominated the market. there are 3rd party offerings in urban areas that have largely been crippled by regulation favouring the large incumbents. Mobilicity (now telus), Wind, and Public Mobile recently Withdrew from their own lobbying organization claiming they were also in the pocket of the big 3.
“It has been evident for quite some time that, rather than being a true industry association which represents the views of all players regardless of size, the CWTA has instead largely been an advocate for Rogers, TELUS and Bell, and often directly contrary to the interests of new entrant wireless carriers” said Bob Boron, General Counsel and Senior Vice-President, Legal & Regulatory Affairs for Public Mobile.
The CEOs of the big 3 mobile companies tell their shareholders proudly that they consistently have the highest revenue per customer in the world. This is not in dispute. However, when pressed to justify such high priced plans, they use the same hackneyed mantras of: sparse geographic distribution, threat of netflix and streaming services, and supposed customer satisfaction, which are largely corporate marketing spin repeated year after year until it's true.
Recently, all 3 new entrants in the urban wireless market became up for sale, and Telus is intending to buy Mobilicity, and Rogers is attempting to purchase the spectrum originally allocated by the CRTC to new entrants to increase market competition.
Canadian wireless service has less choice, higher prices, offering fewer services and typically lower bandwidth caps, thanks to collusion from the large telcos. It's a caricature of the US market.
don't worry about unbalancing the "krill biomass" by killing whales: we do a great job of harvesting Krill already. when we talk about overfishing, we are observing a trend of moving south as northern hemisphere fisheries are depleted. we are also observing a trend of moving up the food web to procecute the primary producers. We are literally fishing as south as we can go, and we are now harvesting the source of food for the larger animals we fish for in the ocean. There's no where else to go, and there's nothing left to fish.
Dr. Daniel Pauly from the UBC Fisheries Centre states that fisheries are a gigantic Ponzi Scheme. We also don't even know what the pre-fishery populations were, so there is no initial baseline to base your advocacy on. To think we can change the krill biomass and put the ocean back into balance by modifying whale populations is rearranging deck chairs on the Hindenberg.
We're already seeing the Canadian east coast becoming a popular place to locate call centres for North American businesses because they speak good English,
Noo doot aboot it!
the French wikiversion has links to other wireless stations around france. this is a portion of the French emergency communications network to be used in the event of nuclear war. i think this is why France is interested in keeping this off wikipedia, no matter how badly they screwed it up.
And coal comes from a dust-free dispenser next to the tree of gumdrops on lollipop lane. oh wait it's also mined.
The patent information is more than just the 'mini' suffix; they state the "i" in iPad, as well as the "Pad" in iPad, are also merely descriptive. When they named the iMac in 1998, the 'i' prefix was more novel that it was now. i wonder what position that puts the next 'iPhone' in for trademarks.
Apple's (i.e. Jobs') naming strategy was to make product names as simple and representative as possible to the product or function (e.g. iTunes, iMac, iPod). It is interesting that their nomenclature may be a double edged sword in terms of how aggressively even apple could defend such generic trademarks, if one had been given. If this rejection criteria becomes presidence, maybe we'll see "MS Word" and "Adobe Illustrator" also lose trademark privilege.
i guess you didn't read my post too closely.
read, comprehend, then post.
If you are doing a PhD, your subject matter will have to become your hobby. it shouldn't be your only one, but you should be absolutely enraptured with what you're studying. You are guaranteed to run into a dichotomous moment in your 5-7 year program where you will honestly consider quitting. It will only be through your personal passion and drive that gets you through the 'salmon of doubt'.
Since your spot is secured, you either have obtained grants, you have an academic advisor, or both. Spend the summer reading everything your advisor has written, and read everything in your field. If you are coming into a new PhD program you will most likely have a comprehensive exam (ours is verbal) where your committee will test your knowledge in the field to the point they would be comfortable allowing you to research independently. If you have not formed a research committee, use the summer to select internal and external examiners for your project. Selecting your committee is like drafting for a hockey team: there are heavy hitters and there are marginal academics. you may even encounter, as i have, a committee member that will attempt to sabotage your research. that's all part of grad school, so investigate who you're working with through previous students. Your prospective committee's individual publications is a good first step.
Spend the summer reading to the level where you can converse with someone in your field and be able to drop first and last names of the most pertinent research done between the last 50-100 years ago; much of this research (at least in my field of fish larval development) will be in the stacks and in the library; it is incredibly irksome to encounter a PhD candidate that has no references out of what they could pull out of an online paywall. A lack of understanding the foundational research makes the researcher rootless; it is as if a leaf has no idea it is attached to a tree.
Don't stop reading. keep reading. you should be reading already, but keep reading throughout the summer. clearcut an entire state of trees if you need to; keep reading. This is a primary failure mode of the graduate student: not everyone can take graduate school because not everybody can stand having their brain physiologically rewired on a daily basis as they encounter conflicting research, bad research, obscure research, and science-related gossip. Read until you feel comfortable holding conflicting ideas in your head. read until you find yourself asking a question that leads to no answer, and begin to formulate your project from there.
Changing gears slightly, the second most important thing to knowing your pertinent research intimately is the ability to communicate science to non scientists. My program stresses and indoctrinates strong presentation skills. i would highly recommend reading a book like Randy Olson's Don't Be Such a Scientist. Learn the jargon, and learn to internalise the jargon and be able to speak to non-technical audiences. the more you can communicate your message and research, the better you will be.
Good luck!
that point is moot if aerial photography is prohibited.
By that logic, you should still be flying Spitfires. Heck, you'd be arguing over why you abandoned the Sopwith Camel for those risky new fangled monoplanes.
by that slippery slope argument, you should be invoking Godwin's law in about 30 seconds.
Sexism, creeping, and acting like a hormone-fueled 14 year old are not going to be addressed by talking about "sex under the effect of drugs"
so why not restrict the conference to 15 and above?
thanks, twat!
No. But it also doesn't make it OK to be an unholy prick to people who have suffered such an abuse, just because you don't want to have to accommodate them.
So what makes it OK to be an unholy prick to people who simply hold a different opinion than your own? earlier in this same comment page you called someone a "sociopathic asshole". If you can do nothing but namecall, then you are someone that does more damage to your own cause than forward it.
This implies a lack of comprehension on your part, or perhaps an inability to engage in high-level thinking. the person you disagree with may be "an unholy prick", but everyone else thinks your an idiot. - Hillary Clinton
it's supposed to mean that just because you have not been hurt in that particular manner, does not give you a right to be a sociopathic asshole about it to those that have.
utilizing the same terminology, what gave you the right to be a sociopathic asshole in response?
Your response to a request to reiterate your original argument is to attack the response?
how can they review the content of the talk before it is given? judging a presentation based on a submitted abstract is like thinking the Daily Show provides a good summary of current events.
The talk was completely off-topic and couldn't possibly improve the environment of the conference.
It's too bad that the talk was censored by Ada Initiative; otherwise the rest of the grownups could have made up their own minds on the subject instead of believing your opinion of a talk that never occurred.
extremely insightful that your idea of tangential, may be another person's epiphany. This is the exact purpose of a conference: to listen to new ideas, even if they are not in your narrow field of research.
and the geek community has real problems with sexism, creeping on women at conferences, and just generally losing its shit when the topic of women comes up.
so the solution is not to talk about sexuality at all at conferences? If you feel the best way to deal with these "real problems" is to internalize the very issues you take a strong position against, that's fine. but to request someone "pull the plug" to a lecture at a technical symposium just because it disagrees with your political worldview is tantamount to burying your head in the sand becuase you don't like all the men at the beach. the sooner we can talk about sex like grownups, the sooner raise the bar of discussion past adolescence.
The cruelest lies are often told in silence. - Robert Lewis Stevenson.
this was a great comment. can you explaln more about the tunnelling effect?
what anti-intellectual trolling.
Solendra, look it up. Just because you are lazy or stupid doesn't mean it didn't happen.
ok, lets look it up: Solyndra recieved $535M in a federal subsidy, and in response, China put up $35 Billion to subsidize their own solar research and industry.
It appears that both an agressive foreign entity and a softening PV market played roles in Solyndra's demise.
what do you mean by 'look it up', exactly? i don't read publications that exist exclusively inside your political 'bubble'.
Then he became Secretary of Energy and it became inconvenient and he retracted it.
thanks for confirming my point.
Some of the other ideas Chu proposed were a glucose economy as part of a progressive, diverse, alternate energy plan, and was decried for practical ideas such as smart grids and painting house roofs and pavements white to reduce heating and cooling costs.
Dr. Steven Chu brought authority and evidence-based science to the US Cabinet. Former professor of physics at Stanford, he shared a Nobel prize for physics in 1997 for cooling and trapping atoms with laser light. he continued to publish science while serving as Secretary of Energy.
His very expertise and lifelong, professional interest were very lamely attacked by the right wing machine, typically accusing him of avocating raising oil prices and gas prices.
Having Dr. Chu there did more to forward the cause of science in the US Government in generations. How many administrations could walk down a hallway and access a scientist at the top of his game? He should be held and paraded around on slashdot's shoulders for his hard work.
right; this would have put some of the other discussions (e.g. 52% americans believe in thought crime) in perspective. the article does define what 'crime' is ambiguously.