Odd thing though, at the bottom of most articles is the statement, paraphrased, that publication of this article was paid in part by NIH grant #whatever, and is an advertisement
Incidental to my reading of Knuth, I've been looking at TeX, and am hoping to do something rather strange like a TeX to.PNG converter for inlined math formulae in web pages...
PI#1 is well known in field X, and reviews journal submissions for JournalY and is on the editorial staff of same.
PI#2 is an up and coming researcher in field X and has recently submitted a manuscript for publication to JournalY.
PI#2's manuscript is given to PI#1 et al. for review.
Said manuscript isn't quite strong enough for publication in JournalY, but is an excellant candidate for JournalZ (or some other journal).
But topic of manuscript is regarding a new gene and makes remarkable observations relevant to Field X.
It also happens to be the same gene recently found in PI#1's lab, for which virtually no work has been done (it's only known to be active in tissue X, and binds to transcription factor X)
So PI#1's response is to sit on the manuscript (that way, it cannot be resubmitted to another journal, like Journal Z) and show a copy to the undergrad working on the new gene in question.
damnit. This isn't science anymore. it's politics!!!
You will note that as of five months ago, only about 12% believed that God had no part in human evolution.
Sigh. Other than his failure to notice the original posters (nice!) troll, I fail to see anything extreme in the post to which you are responding.
The way you mock public opinion
Mockery! Smockery!! Dickory Dock!!!
I think Gallup polls are a mockery of scientific method. So nyah!
*Moons the Heavens*
I don't think he was forcing anyone to do anything. Just an (misdirected, it was a troll) appeal to see the benign power of The Method. Science is not about religion, and neither should politics be. Maybe that's why politics and religion are always out of place in a social setting, because they get all mixed up in eachother. Maybe Science and religion should be treated the same way.
And my meta-commentary was (I thought, very clearly) in response to your comment in light of the FBI's preoccupation especially in view of recent events (viz. The Free Dmitry scandal.)
This didn't "turn into the DMCA" except insofar as that is helpful in conjecture as to what the FBI/DoJ would take an interest in prosecuting.
I don't even think that's true. I was drawing on the irony of the current DMCA actions by the FBI, not sarcastic. And, Adobe has washed its hands of the case, so there is no loss being claimed.
The fact of the matter is the FBI is pursuing this case, and I believe it does have to do with money. But it isn't losses claimed that are the objective of this action. The FBI/DoJ are now the dog of Bush's dark cadre of interests wishing to enslave the American people[1] to its money machine (and hang constitutional law.)
That's pretty nifty, but I think it's passive, i.e., it only receives signal but doesn't transmit. Unless you have something in the BIOS (including at least a primitive TCP/IP stack) that'll send the received information over the ethernet/modem link to some way-point for collection, wiping the harddrive and reinstalling will defeat that.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, I can't get Natalie Portman's home address, either.
:)
IMHO, a little commercialism is ok for the 'Net, that'll help with the diversity thing.
The issue I have with this whole proposition is the amount of control over information flow it would give to inaccessible agents in the works.
Already we've seen a huge contraction in bandwidth carriers, ISPs, and a lot of content is flowing into only a few places.
I can't imagine how such a proposal could be construed as anything less than destabilizing and dangerous.
Time to get my lazy ass onto FreeNet.
But, business wants you on their 'Net.
:)
If packets can be filtered, anything can be blocked or slowed imperceptibly "for the sake of the children."
The "children" in reality are the ads and "content" released by those mothers...
true. Redhat was known as roothat for awhile because the (since fixed) lpd/rsh bugs and that worm were a part of the default install on many desktops.
The thing I don't get is why ppl (not you...) think a desktop install doesn't need to be as secure as a server.
Well, had I done that I would be. But I didn't.
Are you kidding? Quite a life???
Imagine being penned up with Billy Pilgrim!
oh man, that'll piss Cheney off real good!
What a stupid, unscientific, web-site.
It ignores much when it is convenient to its lousy hole-ridden theories.
Shame on you.
This article neglects the abuses of the National railroad act that were to follow.
In essence it is a confirmation that corporations must occasionally be sanctioned as a matter of necessity.
Dude I don't know where you've been, but a lot has happened since 1975.
'Course, nothing on the scale of Kennedy's aspirations, if you're thinking of national efforts.
I came back to this post 'cause I was thinking it said threshold=6
<BAG>
Odd thing though, at the bottom of most articles is the statement, paraphrased, that publication of this article was paid in part by NIH grant #whatever, and is an advertisement
What's that all about, anyway?
Cool!
.PNG converter for inlined math formulae in web pages...
Incidental to my reading of Knuth, I've been looking at TeX, and am hoping to do something rather strange like a TeX to
Can someone with mod points please do this one up???
:)
Thank you
It gets even worse than that:
PI#1 is well known in field X, and reviews journal submissions for JournalY and is on the editorial staff of same.
PI#2 is an up and coming researcher in field X and has recently submitted a manuscript for publication to JournalY.
PI#2's manuscript is given to PI#1 et al. for review.
Said manuscript isn't quite strong enough for publication in JournalY, but is an excellant candidate for JournalZ (or some other journal).
But topic of manuscript is regarding a new gene and makes remarkable observations relevant to Field X.
It also happens to be the same gene recently found in PI#1's lab, for which virtually no work has been done (it's only known to be active in tissue X, and binds to transcription factor X)
So PI#1's response is to sit on the manuscript (that way, it cannot be resubmitted to another journal, like Journal Z) and show a copy to the undergrad working on the new gene in question.
damnit. This isn't science anymore. it's politics!!!
What efforts is IEEE making that might be construed as being against their readers' interests, might I ask?
(Me being a reader and IEEE member)
Or, in old school parlance (yeah, I'm old school :)
10th grade == 3rd grade
Sigh. Other than his failure to notice the original posters (nice!) troll, I fail to see anything extreme in the post to which you are responding.
Mockery! Smockery!! Dickory Dock!!!
I think Gallup polls are a mockery of scientific method. So nyah!
*Moons the Heavens*
I don't think he was forcing anyone to do anything. Just an (misdirected, it was a troll) appeal to see the benign power of The Method. Science is not about religion, and neither should politics be. Maybe that's why politics and religion are always out of place in a social setting, because they get all mixed up in eachother. Maybe Science and religion should be treated the same way.
Science = Orthodoxy - Mysticism
And my meta-commentary was (I thought, very clearly) in response to your comment in light of the FBI's preoccupation especially in view of recent events (viz. The Free Dmitry scandal.)
This didn't "turn into the DMCA" except insofar as that is helpful in conjecture as to what the FBI/DoJ would take an interest in prosecuting.
Sorry if I didn't make that clear
mefus
--
um, er... eh -- *click*
Hmmm. That article makes no such statement.
Are you sure you saw it there? If so, it's since been edited.
mefus
--
um, er... eh -- *click*
I don't even think that's true. I was drawing on the irony of the current DMCA actions by the FBI, not sarcastic. And, Adobe has washed its hands of the case, so there is no loss being claimed.
The fact of the matter is the FBI is pursuing this case, and I believe it does have to do with money. But it isn't losses claimed that are the objective of this action. The FBI/DoJ are now the dog of Bush's dark cadre of interests wishing to enslave the American people[1] to its money machine (and hang constitutional law.)
[1] A different way of saying "captive market".
mefus
--
um, er... eh -- *click*
where high-dollar == corporate finance numbers dance?
mefus
--
um, er... eh -- *click*
Dude, his friends are getting an Outlook Virus.
Say anything to you?
mefus
--
um, er... eh -- *click*
That's pretty nifty, but I think it's passive, i.e., it only receives signal but doesn't transmit. Unless you have something in the BIOS (including at least a primitive TCP/IP stack) that'll send the received information over the ethernet/modem link to some way-point for collection, wiping the harddrive and reinstalling will defeat that.
mefus
--
um, er... eh -- *click*
Nope, the FBI is only interested in thought crimes.
This, it's physical.
mefus
--
um, er... eh -- *click*