Drs Duesberg Rasnick and Farmer dont exist in your world, right? And certainly Dr Mullis (the inventor of the PCR test used in AIDS clinics worldwide) never existed, right?
Duesberg...that was the guy who had a role in all those AIDS deaths in South Africa, right? Isn't he also the guy who got pimp-slapped by multiple peer reviewers and investigated for scientific misconduct?
Rasnick...Rasnick...oh yeah, he was the dude who illegally set up clinical trials where he recruited poor black HIV+ individuals and instructed them to forgo antivirals in favor of "VitaCell cures AIDS" vitamin supplements.
Farmer? Never heard of him.
Mullis - the Nobel Prize winning chemist who dropped a boatload of acid in the 60s and claims he's encountered aliens and also believes in astrology.
Yep, nothing low rent about those guys.
Without any opinion at all on which side is right about the disease...
"The drugs given to the children are toxic, known to cause genetic mutation, organ failure, bone marrow death, bodily deformations, brain damage and fatal skin disorders. If the children refuse the drugs, they’re held down and force fed. Should they continue to resist, they’re taken to Columbia University Presbyterian hospital, where a surgeon puts a plastic tube through their abdominal wall into their stomachs. The drugs are injected directly into their intestines. In 2003, two children, ages 6 and 12, had debilitating strokes due to drug toxicities. The 6-year-old went blind and they both died shortly after. Another 14 year old died later and an 8-year-old boy had two plastic surgeries to remove large, fatty, drug-induced lumps from his neck."
The NY State Department of Health investigated and found nothing to substantiate Scheff's claims.
Scheff is a complete nut-job, and a dangerous one at that. Scheff pointing fingers and crying "propaganda" is chutzpah at a pathological level.
I used to be a High School teacher so I know all about what young people are capable of doing.
Being a former high school teacher doesn't explain how you know with such certainty that young Mr. Banerjee relied on outside help to produce his project - especially since you freely admit that there are kids his age that are capable of such work without assistance.
A valid explanation for your ridiculous claim would be something along the lines of "I know him/his parents personally" or "I secretly watch him through his window at night" or maybe even "I'm Professor Xavier and Mr. Banerjee is one of my mutant protégés, therefore I can read his mind with my telepathic powers".
__________________________
These stories pop up from time to time on slashdot, and the responses are predictable. Some posts are supportive of the young person's achievement, but unfortunately there are many that display a pathetic mix of malevolence/jealousy and Dunning-Kruger.
Then there's guys like you and the OP who simply come off as a rancorous, resentful old men.
there are **real** kids out there doing stuff at this level with only basic guidance & procurement help
So after you rant about how the kid in TFA couldn't possibly have built the printer himself, you go on to claim that other unnamed "real" kids are capable of doing comparable work unaided.
Congratulations. That's some world class reasoning you got going on there.
...he's just been set up by a tiger dad or mom. Big fucking deal.
Nope. Tiger moms/dads are the least likely to give their kids an expensive pile of toys, or coddle them in any way at all. Tiger parents are typically hyper-strict disciplinarians who might threaten to burn their children's stuffed animals if their homework isn't perfect, or if they make anything other than A grades.
As for the rest of your post, well...you sound pretty bitter about something related to childhood. Would you like to talk about it?
If Kickstarter would accept Space Bucks, Flanian Pobble Beads, Jangles, bitcoins, and other fictional currencies, the projects would get fully funded overnight.
"These suits are effectively meeting the aggressive operational challenges presented in Sochi."
Meanwhile, a congressional appropriations bill to purchase 2.5 million suits for "combat personnel enhancement" was passed late last night without debate.
How about you add a disclaimer to the top of your post? "Warning: Post contains my anecdotally-proven religious and racial stereotypes."
No shit. I cringed as soon as I read:
"They are in so many ways so similar to the Chinese - and yet, they are far superior to the Chinese (yes, insecurity complex at play here) in that the Jews have a purpose in their own private lives and also for their community lives - on the other hand, most Chinese do not.
It will be hard to find a more unfortunate sentence than that on/. today.
Hey, I'm just working off of the USAF pro-formas. : )
Fuel (and other direct/indirect expenses) are booked to "Air Operations", then a portion of those costs are allocated to training for reporting purposes. So yes, the $792M figure for training doesn't represent all the costs associated with training. And you're right, $792M isn't even close to the "real" number once all the expenses are allocated.
I would however point out that even if one adds the entire 2014 USAF Air Operations budget to the $792M Flight Training budget, it still only amounts to a little over 5% of the total USAF budget for FY2014. So I think my original (clumsily made) point still stands.
But I'm becoming argumentative. I certainly defer to your experience in any case.
That barely scratches the surface. Consider the time on jets, fuel, maintenance, support operations, etc. Once you add in actual secondary costs the cost is very very high.
It's true that the line item "Flight Training" in the USAF's 2014 budget likely doesn't include any of those costs. But even if you add in the entire "Air Operations" budget of $6,730B, you still only arrive at 5.2% of the USAF total. And the total "Air Operations" budget includes a lot more than support costs for training alone.
Disclaimer: I've never worked for the USAF, but I am an accountant familiar with GAAP for government/NFP. (well, I was...I'm semi-retired)
One (of many) reasons that the US military sucks up so much money is that our pilots train continuously.
Off topic, but the USAF flight training budget for FY2014 represents just over 1/2 of 1 percent of the total USAF budget. In terms of money suckers, flight training is way way down the list.
Several government oversight bodies have ALL said this is unconstitutional and needs to be stopped. Who says nay? Obama and his cronies in the current administration. Nobody else. (Of course the NSA does, too, but they're just employees. They don't count.)
I'm not sure what part of that Wikipedia article supports your claim. In fact the first sentence of the third paragraph of the article's summary reads:
"The cuts are split evenly (by dollar amounts, not by percentages) between the defense and non-defense categories."
It seems to me the sentence above only refutes your argument further. But I've been drinking since lunch, so perhaps you could point me to the section of that Wikipedia article that actually supports your assertion. Cheers!
Q: Why is non-defense getting more money than defense?
A: This agreement increases the statutory caps for defense and non-defense in equal amounts. Both caps are each increased by about $22 billion in FY 14 and by $9 billion in FY 15.
Q: But isn’t non-defense getting a bigger spending increase compared to 2013?
A: Under the Budget Control Act, the upcoming sequester in January would only reduce defense spending from 2013 levels. This agreement adds back equally to defense and non-defense, so it prevents what would be devastating sequester cuts to defense, and both sides end up above their 2013 levels."
I once taught my son how to build a tin can phone. At the time, he knew about cans (somewhat old tech) and he knew about string (really old tech), but he didn't know about tin can phones. He played with that thing with his friends for quite a while after that.
FWIW, he plans on studying engineering when he goes to college next Fall.
(funny thing is, that primitive toy we built all those years ago might be the only "wired" telephone hes ever used)
One should check with xarchive.org (and elsewhere) which ip-addresses have visited Michaelians' article...A few years back some Spanish researchers were caught tapping original data...These things happen.
Are you insinuating that England somehow plagiarized Michaelian's work? If you read Michaelian's comments in the referenced article, he himself doesn't make that claim. What is it exactly you are saying here?
Nonetheless, Jeremy L England's article is plain sloppy research for not finding Michaelian's paper.
England's paper lists eight other researchers as having reviewed his paper prior to submitting it for publication. England's paper cites 27 scientific works in his footnotes, referencing works as far back as 1961. The Journal of Chemical Physics (a publication that has been around since 1933 and whose first editor was THE Harold Clayton Urey) accepted, reviewed and published England's paper.
Seems to me England's paper has withstood plenty of scrutiny prior to publication. But since you think differently, why don't you back up your claim of "sloppy research" by identifying an original idea in Michaelian's paper that England used in his paper without proper citation.
Can anyone with more info on this tell me how this earlier paper is different - arxiv.org/abs/0907.0042
I certainly don't pretend to understand the content of the England/Michaelian papers.
But after a quick scan of Michaelian's paper, I think the difference might be that England's paper rigorously quantifies the theory mathematically, while Michaelian's paper does not.
Why would the article, or England for that matter, feel the need to explicitly state this?
[opinion] I feel like the scientific community has so rabid about avoiding anything resembling creationism that they have to reassure themselves when new ideas come up, even if the ideas are no threat to their core beliefs. [/opinion]
It's disappointing and makes it hard to take anything this guy says seriously, regardless of how reasonable or far fetched his formula is.
The way I read the article was that England was simply responding to a question by the interviewer about his theory vis-à-vis Dawin. I didn't get the impression he offered the comment independently (or rabidly).
Slashdot Mirror
Drs Duesberg Rasnick and Farmer dont exist in your world, right? And certainly Dr Mullis (the inventor of the PCR test used in AIDS clinics worldwide) never existed, right?
Duesberg...that was the guy who had a role in all those AIDS deaths in South Africa, right? Isn't he also the guy who got pimp-slapped by multiple peer reviewers and investigated for scientific misconduct?
Rasnick...Rasnick...oh yeah, he was the dude who illegally set up clinical trials where he recruited poor black HIV+ individuals and instructed them to forgo antivirals in favor of "VitaCell cures AIDS" vitamin supplements.
Farmer? Never heard of him.
Mullis - the Nobel Prize winning chemist who dropped a boatload of acid in the 60s and claims he's encountered aliens and also believes in astrology.
Yep, nothing low rent about those guys.
Without any opinion at all on which side is right about the disease...
Riiight...
And Liam Scheff is one of the more virulent practitioners of the art. This is the guy who infamously wrote about the Incarnation Children's Center:
"The drugs given to the children are toxic, known to cause genetic mutation, organ failure, bone marrow death, bodily deformations, brain damage and fatal skin disorders. If the children refuse the drugs, they’re held down and force fed. Should they continue to resist, they’re taken to Columbia University Presbyterian hospital, where a surgeon puts a plastic tube through their abdominal wall into their stomachs. The drugs are injected directly into their intestines. In 2003, two children, ages 6 and 12, had debilitating strokes due to drug toxicities. The 6-year-old went blind and they both died shortly after. Another 14 year old died later and an 8-year-old boy had two plastic surgeries to remove large, fatty, drug-induced lumps from his neck."
The NY State Department of Health investigated and found nothing to substantiate Scheff's claims.
Scheff is a complete nut-job, and a dangerous one at that. Scheff pointing fingers and crying "propaganda" is chutzpah at a pathological level.
I used to be a High School teacher so I know all about what young people are capable of doing.
Being a former high school teacher doesn't explain how you know with such certainty that young Mr. Banerjee relied on outside help to produce his project - especially since you freely admit that there are kids his age that are capable of such work without assistance.
A valid explanation for your ridiculous claim would be something along the lines of "I know him/his parents personally" or "I secretly watch him through his window at night" or maybe even "I'm Professor Xavier and Mr. Banerjee is one of my mutant protégés, therefore I can read his mind with my telepathic powers".
__________________________
These stories pop up from time to time on slashdot, and the responses are predictable. Some posts are supportive of the young person's achievement, but unfortunately there are many that display a pathetic mix of malevolence/jealousy and Dunning-Kruger.
Then there's guys like you and the OP who simply come off as a rancorous, resentful old men.
Cheers!
there are **real** kids out there doing stuff at this level with only basic guidance & procurement help
So after you rant about how the kid in TFA couldn't possibly have built the printer himself, you go on to claim that other unnamed "real" kids are capable of doing comparable work unaided.
Congratulations. That's some world class reasoning you got going on there.
...he's just been set up by a tiger dad or mom. Big fucking deal.
Nope. Tiger moms/dads are the least likely to give their kids an expensive pile of toys, or coddle them in any way at all. Tiger parents are typically hyper-strict disciplinarians who might threaten to burn their children's stuffed animals if their homework isn't perfect, or if they make anything other than A grades.
As for the rest of your post, well...you sound pretty bitter about something related to childhood. Would you like to talk about it?
A cheap lousy prototype does not improve upon what we've already got.
So...you don't know what "prototype" means. Thanks for clearing that up.
The problem has never been about technology, braille embossers have been around for decades ... it's a problem of volume.
Or, the problem is about affordable technology.
As far as the device being useful, TFA mentions that the device is a prototype. I guess you didn't read TFA, or you don't know what "prototype" means.
If Kickstarter would accept Space Bucks, Flanian Pobble Beads, Jangles, bitcoins, and other fictional currencies, the projects would get fully funded overnight.
"These suits are effectively meeting the aggressive operational challenges presented in Sochi."
Meanwhile, a congressional appropriations bill to purchase 2.5 million suits for "combat personnel enhancement" was passed late last night without debate.
How about you add a disclaimer to the top of your post? "Warning: Post contains my anecdotally-proven religious and racial stereotypes."
No shit. I cringed as soon as I read:
"They are in so many ways so similar to the Chinese - and yet, they are far superior to the Chinese (yes, insecurity complex at play here) in that the Jews have a purpose in their own private lives and also for their community lives - on the other hand, most Chinese do not.
It will be hard to find a more unfortunate sentence than that on /. today.
Total budget = $144,425B
144 Trillion?
LOL! I guess I mad a shitty BM mistake.
Hey, I'm just working off of the USAF pro-formas. : )
Fuel (and other direct/indirect expenses) are booked to "Air Operations", then a portion of those costs are allocated to training for reporting purposes. So yes, the $792M figure for training doesn't represent all the costs associated with training. And you're right, $792M isn't even close to the "real" number once all the expenses are allocated.
I would however point out that even if one adds the entire 2014 USAF Air Operations budget to the $792M Flight Training budget, it still only amounts to a little over 5% of the total USAF budget for FY2014. So I think my original (clumsily made) point still stands.
But I'm becoming argumentative. I certainly defer to your experience in any case.
Cheers!
That barely scratches the surface. Consider the time on jets, fuel, maintenance, support operations, etc. Once you add in actual secondary costs the cost is very very high.
It's true that the line item "Flight Training" in the USAF's 2014 budget likely doesn't include any of those costs. But even if you add in the entire "Air Operations" budget of $6,730B, you still only arrive at 5.2% of the USAF total. And the total "Air Operations" budget includes a lot more than support costs for training alone.
Disclaimer: I've never worked for the USAF, but I am an accountant familiar with GAAP for government/NFP. (well, I was...I'm semi-retired)
Another true story ruined by an eye-witness!
BTW, thanks for your service (hope that doesn't sound glib).
One (of many) reasons that the US military sucks up so much money is that our pilots train continuously.
Off topic, but the USAF flight training budget for FY2014 represents just over 1/2 of 1 percent of the total USAF budget. In terms of money suckers, flight training is way way down the list.
Total budget = $144,425B (page 4 here)
Flight training budget = $792M (page 1 here)
Thanks!
Several government oversight bodies have ALL said this is unconstitutional and needs to be stopped. Who says nay? Obama and his cronies in the current administration. Nobody else. (Of course the NSA does, too, but they're just employees. They don't count.)
Well, there is that Pete King guy. He seems to be naying pretty loudly. Does he count?
"The cuts are split evenly (by dollar amounts, not by percentages) between the defense and non-defense categories."
It seems to me the sentence above only refutes your argument further. But I've been drinking since lunch, so perhaps you could point me to the section of that Wikipedia article that actually supports your assertion. Cheers!
The GOP went along with the sequester and new budget, both of which cut the DOD and DHS more than any other cabinet-level department.
Not according to Paul Ryan:
Q: Why is non-defense getting more money than defense?
A: This agreement increases the statutory caps for defense and non-defense in equal amounts. Both caps are each increased by about $22 billion in FY 14 and by $9 billion in FY 15.
Q: But isn’t non-defense getting a bigger spending increase compared to 2013?
A: Under the Budget Control Act, the upcoming sequester in January would only reduce defense spending from 2013 levels. This agreement adds back equally to defense and non-defense, so it prevents what would be devastating sequester cuts to defense, and both sides end up above their 2013 levels."
That happens to me as well. More often than I care to admit LOL. Cheers!
I once taught my son how to build a tin can phone. At the time, he knew about cans (somewhat old tech) and he knew about string (really old tech), but he didn't know about tin can phones. He played with that thing with his friends for quite a while after that.
FWIW, he plans on studying engineering when he goes to college next Fall.
(funny thing is, that primitive toy we built all those years ago might be the only "wired" telephone hes ever used)
One should check with xarchive.org (and elsewhere) which ip-addresses have visited Michaelians' article...A few years back some Spanish researchers were caught tapping original data...These things happen.
Are you insinuating that England somehow plagiarized Michaelian's work? If you read Michaelian's comments in the referenced article, he himself doesn't make that claim. What is it exactly you are saying here?
Nonetheless, Jeremy L England's article is plain sloppy research for not finding Michaelian's paper.
England's paper lists eight other researchers as having reviewed his paper prior to submitting it for publication. England's paper cites 27 scientific works in his footnotes, referencing works as far back as 1961. The Journal of Chemical Physics (a publication that has been around since 1933 and whose first editor was THE Harold Clayton Urey) accepted, reviewed and published England's paper.
Seems to me England's paper has withstood plenty of scrutiny prior to publication. But since you think differently, why don't you back up your claim of "sloppy research" by identifying an original idea in Michaelian's paper that England used in his paper without proper citation.
Can anyone with more info on this tell me how this earlier paper is different - arxiv.org/abs/0907.0042
I certainly don't pretend to understand the content of the England/Michaelian papers.
But after a quick scan of Michaelian's paper, I think the difference might be that England's paper rigorously quantifies the theory mathematically, while Michaelian's paper does not.
Why would the article, or England for that matter, feel the need to explicitly state this?
[opinion] I feel like the scientific community has so rabid about avoiding anything resembling creationism that they have to reassure themselves when new ideas come up, even if the ideas are no threat to their core beliefs. [/opinion]
It's disappointing and makes it hard to take anything this guy says seriously, regardless of how reasonable or far fetched his formula is.
The way I read the article was that England was simply responding to a question by the interviewer about his theory vis-à-vis Dawin. I didn't get the impression he offered the comment independently (or rabidly).
http://www.wired.com/wiredscie...
http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/13/...
Those articles reference water vapor, not liquid water.