The beauty of/. is that I don't know if this is someone being incredibly pedantic or an ironic troll. I'm leaning towards the latter, but either was I got a laugh.
As the AC noted, that article makes a lot of dubious assumptions. Complaining about paying extra when you call to book (how many people do that?) is silly. Adding ticket change costs only makes sense if a lot of people actually do that. When you look at what the average flier does, most of that article's arguments become irrelevant. He only looks at one route, so we don't know how representative that is. Lastly, he's comparing the cheapest flight in 1975 to one specific day in 2014. That's certainly not a valid comparison.
Sorry - are you trying to contradict the AC you replied to or not? Because the game can tackle both of those things, but it read like you were trying to disagree.
No, that's just silly. He's clearly an authoritarian; he wants power to do what he wants with the government. That's decidedly not libertarianism, and the fact that you don't understand that just means that you aren't paying attention.
Gary Johnson was a reasonably well-liked governor who got bipartisan support and could reach across the aisle. He was weak on foreign policy, and wasn't all that charismatic, but I really don't think he was worse than either Hillary or Donald.
Socialism tends to degrade to a dictatorship. Canada and the Nordic countries aren't socialist, they're social democracies. There are still plenty of big businesses, a lot of their regulations make more sense and actually address the problem, and people are allowed to own capital and invest in things. Using them to try to show that socialism works is like using North Korea as an example of a democracy.
Social attitudes have changed a lot over time though too. When you have companies pulling advertising campaigns or products over people complaining on social media, they do listen to customers. Do you really think Wal-Mart would keep making money if they made kids work 19 hour days?
Those stories aren't about war, they're about the depravity and inhumanity that can live inside all of us.
Yes, but adaptations can add themes to varying effect. As it turns out, it's pretty easy to set a story about "the depravity and inhumanity that can live inside all of us" in a war.
I really can't figure out why inequality is such a bad thing. Surely the conditions of the people on the bottom are what we should be worried about? If everybody, even those who have it the worst off, could live a pretty comfortable life, why care if someone has ridiculous amounts of money? We should focus on bringing people up, not bringing others down.
The easy solution to make sure people remember the second one is to make it be the first one plus a small number, say 1-10. You could even just make it be the first one plus the last digit of the first one (or first, second, etc.) to make it even easier.
"More effective" does not always mean "better". Chlorine trifluoride would be more effective at killing cancer too, but we don't want to start using it for that.
You don't have to name patients in medical research. In clinical trials, patients are assigned an ID (generally based on order of enrollment), and data is tied to that. Only a few people (or just one, depending on the size of the trial) actually have the sheet that tells you which ID goes with an actual name. Nothing says you have to publish that based on the other data.
No, I'm sorry, but that's false. Moreover, since the journal owns the copyright of the publication, there could be copyright issues in publishing additional material tied to a specific publication in another location.
That's not necessarily true. Many universities don't want to (or don't have anything in place to, at least) host videos or lots of extra files. That could change, but as it stands most universities don't have good web people. Labs may not be able to spend grant money on hosting their own site either, since grant money can be tightly controlled depending on the source and institution.
Ah yes, I'm sure car manufacturers will only make self-driving cars, and they'll price them high enough to exclude a bunch of people who would otherwise be paying customers. That sounds like a smart idea.
Well, sometimes physical procedures are easier to show than tell. Some researchers I know do a lot of surgical dissections, and sectioning preserved tissue for some applications is really tricky, and it's a lot easier to show than it is to describe. A lot of things that require you to finish in a certain amount of time (snap-freezing organ sections to look at RNA levels, for instance) may be easier to learn by watching rather than reading.
Reading is often more information-dense - and I definitely don't want to watch someone make up a buffer, I just want to know what's in it - but there's a reason we make med students watch doctors do things before they do it themselves. Video isn't the solution to everything, but for some things, especially ones that require some finesse, it's much more useful than text is.
I agree, documentation of protocols needs to be improved; however, it's hard to document everything you did for a paper when the journal doesn't give you very many words at all to actually explain what you did, and many don't support video sections for online papers.
Because no one cares. The funding model for science in the US encourages each lab to find a "niche," an approach or an experimental model unique to that lab, defended by a barrier of custom-fabricated apparatus or years-long technique development. No other lab can afford the loss of productivity associated with that kind of investment, to say nothing of the direct expense.
In my US-based institution - and, indeed, my field - this is not true. Labs do specialize, but there is no equipment so specialized that nobody else can do it, and the various government funding sources mandate that we share our models with other labs who are interested.
If *someone else* can't replicate it, then they might be doing it differently than you were, even if they think it's the same way because journals don't give you enough space to actually explain what you did in a lot of detail.
Slashdot Mirror
The beauty of /. is that I don't know if this is someone being incredibly pedantic or an ironic troll. I'm leaning towards the latter, but either was I got a laugh.
As the AC noted, that article makes a lot of dubious assumptions. Complaining about paying extra when you call to book (how many people do that?) is silly. Adding ticket change costs only makes sense if a lot of people actually do that. When you look at what the average flier does, most of that article's arguments become irrelevant. He only looks at one route, so we don't know how representative that is. Lastly, he's comparing the cheapest flight in 1975 to one specific day in 2014. That's certainly not a valid comparison.
Sorry - are you trying to contradict the AC you replied to or not? Because the game can tackle both of those things, but it read like you were trying to disagree.
I could see the statement being classist, but fascist? You're devaluing the word.
No, that's just silly. He's clearly an authoritarian; he wants power to do what he wants with the government. That's decidedly not libertarianism, and the fact that you don't understand that just means that you aren't paying attention.
Gary Johnson was a reasonably well-liked governor who got bipartisan support and could reach across the aisle. He was weak on foreign policy, and wasn't all that charismatic, but I really don't think he was worse than either Hillary or Donald.
Calling Trump a libertarian is probably the funniest thing I've seen all week, so thanks for that.
Socialism tends to degrade to a dictatorship. Canada and the Nordic countries aren't socialist, they're social democracies. There are still plenty of big businesses, a lot of their regulations make more sense and actually address the problem, and people are allowed to own capital and invest in things. Using them to try to show that socialism works is like using North Korea as an example of a democracy.
Social attitudes have changed a lot over time though too. When you have companies pulling advertising campaigns or products over people complaining on social media, they do listen to customers. Do you really think Wal-Mart would keep making money if they made kids work 19 hour days?
Those stories aren't about war, they're about the depravity and inhumanity that can live inside all of us.
Yes, but adaptations can add themes to varying effect. As it turns out, it's pretty easy to set a story about "the depravity and inhumanity that can live inside all of us" in a war.
Where in the US was this friend's kid from? The quality of math education can vary pretty dramatically from place to place.
"You wouldn't download some lemonade"
I really can't figure out why inequality is such a bad thing. Surely the conditions of the people on the bottom are what we should be worried about? If everybody, even those who have it the worst off, could live a pretty comfortable life, why care if someone has ridiculous amounts of money? We should focus on bringing people up, not bringing others down.
The easy solution to make sure people remember the second one is to make it be the first one plus a small number, say 1-10. You could even just make it be the first one plus the last digit of the first one (or first, second, etc.) to make it even easier.
but where I live, pretty much all the public schools require uniforms
Note the "where I live" qualifier there.
Ha, thanks!
"More effective" does not always mean "better". Chlorine trifluoride would be more effective at killing cancer too, but we don't want to start using it for that.
You don't have to name patients in medical research. In clinical trials, patients are assigned an ID (generally based on order of enrollment), and data is tied to that. Only a few people (or just one, depending on the size of the trial) actually have the sheet that tells you which ID goes with an actual name. Nothing says you have to publish that based on the other data.
No, I'm sorry, but that's false. Moreover, since the journal owns the copyright of the publication, there could be copyright issues in publishing additional material tied to a specific publication in another location.
That's not necessarily true. Many universities don't want to (or don't have anything in place to, at least) host videos or lots of extra files. That could change, but as it stands most universities don't have good web people. Labs may not be able to spend grant money on hosting their own site either, since grant money can be tightly controlled depending on the source and institution.
Ah yes, I'm sure car manufacturers will only make self-driving cars, and they'll price them high enough to exclude a bunch of people who would otherwise be paying customers. That sounds like a smart idea.
Well, sometimes physical procedures are easier to show than tell. Some researchers I know do a lot of surgical dissections, and sectioning preserved tissue for some applications is really tricky, and it's a lot easier to show than it is to describe. A lot of things that require you to finish in a certain amount of time (snap-freezing organ sections to look at RNA levels, for instance) may be easier to learn by watching rather than reading.
Reading is often more information-dense - and I definitely don't want to watch someone make up a buffer, I just want to know what's in it - but there's a reason we make med students watch doctors do things before they do it themselves. Video isn't the solution to everything, but for some things, especially ones that require some finesse, it's much more useful than text is.
I agree, documentation of protocols needs to be improved; however, it's hard to document everything you did for a paper when the journal doesn't give you very many words at all to actually explain what you did, and many don't support video sections for online papers.
Because no one cares. The funding model for science in the US encourages each lab to find a "niche," an approach or an experimental model unique to that lab, defended by a barrier of custom-fabricated apparatus or years-long technique development. No other lab can afford the loss of productivity associated with that kind of investment, to say nothing of the direct expense.
In my US-based institution - and, indeed, my field - this is not true. Labs do specialize, but there is no equipment so specialized that nobody else can do it, and the various government funding sources mandate that we share our models with other labs who are interested.
If *someone else* can't replicate it, then they might be doing it differently than you were, even if they think it's the same way because journals don't give you enough space to actually explain what you did in a lot of detail.