Yeah, but reviewing existing studies a) is a lot cheaper, and b) sometimes gives you enough evidence to ask for money to do it properly. Grant reviewers are a lot more likely to give you money if you can give some sort of empirical evidence that your idea is going in the right direction.
Correlation is not causality. And yet people fall for this type of stuff all the time. Wake me up when they produce an actual, double-blind and verified study.
While that's true, it'd take a lot of money and time to set up a real blind study (can't really do a double-blind study when the participants are either drinking coffee or not). If you have sufficient data from the other studies, you can control reasonably well for other effects. It's not as good as a prospective blinded study, but it's not nothing either. Practically speaking, this is about as good as it gets without some sort of totalitarian dictatorship enforcing clinical trial participation.
I, too, am eager for the hop race to end. I quite like the barrel-aging trend though. I also enjoy some very hoppy IPAs, but they really have to be balanced well, and most breweries don't do that. Dogfishhead 90 minute IPA is damn good though. And the black IPA that Founders makes is excellent.
Well, some towns did make good beer (especially in the Midwest) but never on a large enough scale to export it much. The macrobreweries (from what I'm told) used to be better - not good, of course, but better. And the American beer scene is actually really damn good now. Arguably, since it doesn't have the strict purity laws, better than Germany's for sheer variety.
The most soulless country on the face of the planet.
Ha, good one. I mean, maybe that's true if you ignore most of Africa, most of the Middle East, large parts of SE Asia, some of Eastern Europe, and about half of South America.
"fewer people", not "less people". You use fewer when it's a countable number, and less when it's not. "less milk in that cup" versus "fewer milliliters of milk in that cup".
Right, because nobody is interested in making humans less susceptible to disease. Obviously.
There are lots of potential ways to improve the immune system. Adding proteins to block the effects of certain viral proteins, adding miRNAs to knockdown viral genomes, etc. If you wanted to go full mad scientist on it, you could even replace our DNA and RNA with similar structures, so that viruses wouldn't be able to hijack the host machinery. We aren't anywhere close to being able to do that, but in principle it's doable.
I think saying "We could never reach there" is a really stupid thing to say. We certainly could reach there, given enough time. How long will humanity (or human-based civilizations) last? Unless we destroy ourselves, there's no reason that we couldn't eventually get there. Thousands of years in the future, possibly. Not in my lifetime, certainly, but "never" is a silly thing to say.
Sure, them trashing your career is always a possibility, and that does introduce a lot of potential for harm.
When I said "inevitably said no", I was referring to the cases mentioned in the article. All the women in those cases said no.
Again, I said he shouldn't have made those advances, but I don't think he should get the same punishment as someone who actually kept pushing the issue, destroyed careers, etc.
When you say "let this one slide", which specific alleged incident are you referring to? I think he should get in trouble for the incidents with the undergrads, but less trouble than if he'd tried to hurt their careers afterwards. I'm not sure if the incident in Italy is something he should be in trouble for. What I am sure of is that using the phrase "let this one slide" is bad, as it implies that something bad definitely happened but I (and others) are failing in a duty to be mad/try to get him in trouble. I also think that putting the responsibility for behaving well entirely on him is sexist (against both people involved, in fact) and does nothing to help prevent future things like this from happening.
Yeah, the double standard of "men can consent while drunk but women can't" is a bad one. It's also hard to judge someone else's level of intoxication (especially if you yourself are intoxicated) - I have a female friend who looks stone-cold sober right up until she blacks out. And in undergrad I had to monitor a buddy of mine; he'd seem fine at parties but not remember things the next day. I eventually figured out that I could roughly gauge his sobriety by asking him thermo questions.
Well, that's certainly not true. What we know is that several women have reported this one particular guy for unwanted sexual advances. He should not have made them, for sure, but it doesn't seem like he did anything to harm their careers when they inevitably said no and left. As such, your characterization "Almost a generation of the finest minds in world anthropology were forced to submit to overtly sexual humiliation and/or have their career's [sic] destroyed" is inaccurate. Again - I'm not condoning his actions. I will say that when one is intoxicated, it can be pretty hard to know how intoxicated someone else is. He may have thought the woman in Italy was not incapacitated. Intent matters in cases like this, but it's so hard to prove. I'm not sure what the right answer is.
Forth: Does the energy produced from the solar panel over its expected life actually offset the cost of implementing it, and long term maintenance. Most math we use in our days was invented or refined by arabs. So trust me: yes, it will make more money than it costs. (*facepalm*)
So you're saying that because some Arabs in the past were good at math, everything they do now will make more money than it costs? That's... really not a good argument.
To be clear, I think this is a neat plant, and fully expect it to produce net money (and power too, of course). Just don't use stupid arguments to justify it.
Ehh... Those are all awfully strong poisons. Healthy computers aren't going to die from visiting most sites. They might suffer a bit, but ricin doesn't just make you suffer a bit. Something nausea-inducing might have been a better (less hyperbolic) example.
Slashdot Mirror
No, the ~90% numbers do include refueling and maintenance.
Yes, they do.
Yeah, but reviewing existing studies a) is a lot cheaper, and b) sometimes gives you enough evidence to ask for money to do it properly. Grant reviewers are a lot more likely to give you money if you can give some sort of empirical evidence that your idea is going in the right direction.
Correlation is not causality. And yet people fall for this type of stuff all the time. Wake me up when they produce an actual, double-blind and verified study.
While that's true, it'd take a lot of money and time to set up a real blind study (can't really do a double-blind study when the participants are either drinking coffee or not). If you have sufficient data from the other studies, you can control reasonably well for other effects. It's not as good as a prospective blinded study, but it's not nothing either. Practically speaking, this is about as good as it gets without some sort of totalitarian dictatorship enforcing clinical trial participation.
Taken from here:
[CSI at Starbucks]
"Ma'am you've been robbed. Suspect is at large."
Barista: At what?
"At large"
At what?
"At venti?"
OMG HOW AWFUL!!!
I, too, am eager for the hop race to end. I quite like the barrel-aging trend though. I also enjoy some very hoppy IPAs, but they really have to be balanced well, and most breweries don't do that. Dogfishhead 90 minute IPA is damn good though. And the black IPA that Founders makes is excellent.
Well, some towns did make good beer (especially in the Midwest) but never on a large enough scale to export it much. The macrobreweries (from what I'm told) used to be better - not good, of course, but better. And the American beer scene is actually really damn good now. Arguably, since it doesn't have the strict purity laws, better than Germany's for sheer variety.
As a grad student, I guess my liver is safe!
My guess is it's Lawrence Summers, and somehow the last name got changed.
The most soulless country on the face of the planet.
Ha, good one. I mean, maybe that's true if you ignore most of Africa, most of the Middle East, large parts of SE Asia, some of Eastern Europe, and about half of South America.
"fewer people", not "less people". You use fewer when it's a countable number, and less when it's not. "less milk in that cup" versus "fewer milliliters of milk in that cup".
Hemophilia is a pretty clear defect. So is Lesch-Nyhan disease.
Right, because nobody is interested in making humans less susceptible to disease. Obviously.
There are lots of potential ways to improve the immune system. Adding proteins to block the effects of certain viral proteins, adding miRNAs to knockdown viral genomes, etc. If you wanted to go full mad scientist on it, you could even replace our DNA and RNA with similar structures, so that viruses wouldn't be able to hijack the host machinery. We aren't anywhere close to being able to do that, but in principle it's doable.
I think saying "We could never reach there" is a really stupid thing to say. We certainly could reach there, given enough time. How long will humanity (or human-based civilizations) last? Unless we destroy ourselves, there's no reason that we couldn't eventually get there. Thousands of years in the future, possibly. Not in my lifetime, certainly, but "never" is a silly thing to say.
"stole"
Some people who are at the top are thieves, but I'd argue that most of them aren't, by any reasonable definition of the word "thief".
Sure, them trashing your career is always a possibility, and that does introduce a lot of potential for harm.
When I said "inevitably said no", I was referring to the cases mentioned in the article. All the women in those cases said no.
Again, I said he shouldn't have made those advances, but I don't think he should get the same punishment as someone who actually kept pushing the issue, destroyed careers, etc.
Yep, that's a much better analogy. Nicely done!
Fair enough - sarcasm often doesn't convey well through text. Consider my criticisms retracted then.
When you say "let this one slide", which specific alleged incident are you referring to? I think he should get in trouble for the incidents with the undergrads, but less trouble than if he'd tried to hurt their careers afterwards. I'm not sure if the incident in Italy is something he should be in trouble for. What I am sure of is that using the phrase "let this one slide" is bad, as it implies that something bad definitely happened but I (and others) are failing in a duty to be mad/try to get him in trouble. I also think that putting the responsibility for behaving well entirely on him is sexist (against both people involved, in fact) and does nothing to help prevent future things like this from happening.
Yeah, the double standard of "men can consent while drunk but women can't" is a bad one. It's also hard to judge someone else's level of intoxication (especially if you yourself are intoxicated) - I have a female friend who looks stone-cold sober right up until she blacks out. And in undergrad I had to monitor a buddy of mine; he'd seem fine at parties but not remember things the next day. I eventually figured out that I could roughly gauge his sobriety by asking him thermo questions.
Thank you for pointing that out.
Well, that's certainly not true. What we know is that several women have reported this one particular guy for unwanted sexual advances. He should not have made them, for sure, but it doesn't seem like he did anything to harm their careers when they inevitably said no and left. As such, your characterization "Almost a generation of the finest minds in world anthropology were forced to submit to overtly sexual humiliation and/or have their career's [sic] destroyed" is inaccurate. Again - I'm not condoning his actions. I will say that when one is intoxicated, it can be pretty hard to know how intoxicated someone else is. He may have thought the woman in Italy was not incapacitated. Intent matters in cases like this, but it's so hard to prove. I'm not sure what the right answer is.
Forth: Does the energy produced from the solar panel over its expected life actually offset the cost of implementing it, and long term maintenance. Most math we use in our days was invented or refined by arabs. So trust me: yes, it will make more money than it costs. (*facepalm*)
So you're saying that because some Arabs in the past were good at math, everything they do now will make more money than it costs? That's... really not a good argument.
To be clear, I think this is a neat plant, and fully expect it to produce net money (and power too, of course). Just don't use stupid arguments to justify it.
Don't be a fool - heat generated through nuclear radiation is far superior to dirty oil! RTGs in every home! /s
Ehh... Those are all awfully strong poisons. Healthy computers aren't going to die from visiting most sites. They might suffer a bit, but ricin doesn't just make you suffer a bit. Something nausea-inducing might have been a better (less hyperbolic) example.