Have fun trying to live on $50K in any major or minor city in the USA, particularly if you want to have a family.
Actually I live in NYC (Manhattan) with a wife and kid making less than $50K. It can be done, but don't expect to live the lap of luxury, or eat out, or have a car, or... It's surely not "fun" but it beats not having anything.
(just as an example, many of the prestigious law firms want you to bill at least 2,000 hours in a year only to be eligible for a bonus - that's over 38 hours per week assuming you don't take any vacation, and that's purely billable hours, so expect to be working a LOT more than that)
Isn't 2000 hours a year normally the minimum for any job to be considered full time? 2000 hours / 50 weeks (2 weeks for vacation + holidays) is 40 hours a week (which is 8 hour days x 5 days/week). Granted I can't remember the last time I (science field) or anyone else I know (science and engineering fields) has worked only 40 hours a week, but.... 2000 hours a year doesn't seem like much of a requirement.
Free will means that you are not bound to act in a particular way based on initial conditions and some laws. I'm not sure your definition of free will is exact enough. Will implies intent or desire. Weather may be non-deterministic but that's a far car from concluding it has free will. Plus it seems that assessing if something is deterministic requires one knowing all the "initial conditions and laws" that govern. Knowing a few historical conditions and assuming a few rudimentary laws, could make any deterministic system seem chaotic.
2) If publishers are really contributing nothing to academic publishing, and just charge high prices and force you to sign away your rights (which I think is a fair characterization), here's a crazy idea: stop publishing through them! Set up your own journals and charge nothing or a token amount for access. If scientists are so bigoted they only deign to acknowledge work published in overpriced, unnecessary, exploitative publishers' journals, the problem is on the scientists' end. It's a bit unfair to say that aren't contributing anything. There's a fair amount of work that needs to be done in order to A) assign appropriate reviewers for the submitted articles B) handle correspondence between the reviewers and author, C) typeset and proofread the article, D) actually publish the article in non-electronic format. The fees they charge not only go to offset the cost of publication and help pay salaries, but IMHO are there to prevent a flooding of craptastic articles. If you know you have to pay $500-$1000 per article, I'm sure you're going to make sure it's as polished as possible before submission. This helps to reduce the actual time-to-publish and improves the quality of the journal. Most scientists I know don't publish 10s of articles every year, so having to dish out $$$ a few times a year usually won't break their budgets.
As for not publishing in those journals, it's just not realistic right now.. While open access journals are becoming more popular (personally i like the Public Library of Science http://www.plos.org/, they are still not as well read as some of the high profile (as well as usually restrictive and expensive) journals. The bottom line for most scientists is to get their science out and read. Setting up your own journal is a great idea, if you don't mind waiting years to gain the respect and "number of eye-balls" of some of the more prominent journals.
3) Yes, it would be nice if no publicly funded worker could ever hold any exclusive IP in their intellectual works. However, this would mean less intellectual work production by them. It's a tradeoff like any other. I wonder exactly how much of that article he really "owns." At most universities, the university itself owns the IP, but the author owns the copyright. Basically it's his article, but he doesn't own the findings (i.e., he can't go to another university and publish the results he obtained using his previous university's findings/resources). Doesn't mean it doesn't happen...
4) Why did OUP ever accept it if it were labled as CC? Maybe he signed an agreement waiver which was worded to contradict his CC license?
It's not that organisms need to understand math, but rather that organism use math intrinsically. Math describes the fundamentals of nature, whether or not we're aware of it. Organisms can live perfectly well without consciously knowing the the mathematics behind what they are doing. On the other hand, knowing the mathematics can help an organism obtain a goal faster than mere trial-and-error.
Let's say an organisms wants to design a hammer. Knowing the mathematics of physics and chemistry, one can easily design a tool that has the appropriate hardness, generates the appropriate force on the hammer's head, etc. Then again, one could always just grab a stone and a stick and tie them together with sinew. So more on topic. Mathematics is necessary for Comp Scientists only to the extent that it tells them if their solution is optimal or if a solution to a problem is even possible.
On a side note. I think almost all branches of science would benefit from Mathematics. In general, Biology is described by Chemistry, Chemistry is described by Physics, Physics is described by Mathematics, and Mathematics is described by Philosophy (Meta-Mathematics).
We are all free, sovereign individuals, with absolutely inalienable rights, not subjects.
None of this is - btw - an argument against voluntarily forming associations (call the governments, or whatever) for various purposes where it makes sense for sovereign individuals to work in a communal fashion for the greater good of all. But the point is, any sort of construct of that nature is artificial, created, and cannot preempt the inalienable rights of Freemen.
Under what authority gives one the "right" of being free? Freedom is a notion that assumes the ability to act without constraint. While it's true that we all have the inalienable ability to act on notions, doesn't mean we have right to do it. Rights (freedom to do things) are social constructs. No one has "inalienable" rights, rather society grants them rights. They allow for individuals to act without retribution. In return, the individual agrees to limit other actions. And why? well, partially because of what you said, "threat of force," but in general, I think it's more because the perceived gains outweigh the preceived loss (with the greatest loss being possibly the loss of your life). Without society granting these rights, we're nothing more than hairless apes hellbent of self destruction.
As for sovereignty... You're only sovereign if you can prevent others from forcing you into a social contract. I'm not sure what it would mean to have innate sovereignty. Can a isolated person be sovereign? Doesn't the meaning of "sovereignty" necessitate the relationship between two individuals? If so, it cannot be innate to an individual.
Is it just me or does this seem a bit high? I can see this lasting may a few more years, but to state it something that is persistent seems wrong. At that rate, the entire work force would be telecommuting in less than 20 years, no?;)
You wont damage your card. The GPU's cooling system is rated for keeping the GPU within its thermal design spec at full load, how long you run it doesnt matter as long as there is adequate ventilation.
With the exception that most cooling systems are mechanical (i.e. fan) have a mean time before failure. So keeping your system at full spec 24/7 may not be harmful to the ICs (assuming proper cooling), but the overall lifespan of the system will be decreased. Granted, most fans have MTBF of upwards of 2-3 years non-stop running, but I'm sure that only in ideal settings (i.e. dust free). I've had plenty of cheapo case/cpu fans die within 2 years, on machines that are run 24/7 (not at full load). Sure there are companies (i.e. panasonic's panaflo) that make high reliablity fans with MTBF of 70000 hours, but what are the odds that your average OEM uses them by default? Just a thought..
"Oh, and 400 GB HDD? Nope. 160 GB notebook drive from Newegg adds $50."
I'm not sure where you found that but... newegg only sells one 160GB notebook HDD (the Seagate Momentus 5400.3 2.5 inch drive), and it goes for over $350. But you're right.. You can probably strip away most of the things found in the article.
"because theylack the basic intelligence necessary to do something that others have been doing for more than 100 years."
Knowing how to do something, and having the resources to do it isn't the same. While it may seem trivial to those in technologically advanced countries, the production of electricity in useful quantities isn't easy. Not everyone has access to the same resources that some of us take for granted. This is especially the case in countries where there is a huge diachotomy between the rich and poor. And by resources I'm not just referring to physical machinery and fuel, but education as well. And on top of that you occasionally have oppressive regimes trying to keep the poor in dependent situtations so that the rich won't lose their labor force. okay, I'm starting to get off topic now.. All I'm trying to say is it would be fallacious to assume that the only reason that certain populations don't have electricity is because they're not intelligent enough.
A wireless version would be nice as well as one that well.. didn't make you stand out as much in a crowd.. last thing one needs in a big city is to draw more atttention to the fact that you're wearing a pretty expensive toys...
So maybe someone can explain something to me... If Microsoft is willing to suggest that Longhorn will need such advanced equipment, exactly what do Microsoft developers currently have that allow to them to even test their own product? Does this mean that Longhorn development is guaranteed not to be finished until the developers at least get fast enough hardware to support what they think the average user will have (4-6GHz,1TB,etc)? Otherwise how do companies typically determine what hardware to "recommend" for their "future" products?
While the other responses to this message about ascertaining the validity of the science before awarding the Nobel Prize are valid, one must also look to the politics of science as well. Just because one is offered the Nobel Prize does not mean one acccepts it blindly; especially if it's offered to two or three scientists that may have had some rivalry between them. Sometimes priciples outweigh the desire for public recognition.
While I'm not much for gossip, let's just say that there was talk at the BMRL that Dr. Lauterbur was offered the Nobel Prize before but declined due to personal differences. I'm not sure how deep these differences were, but turning down the Nobel Prize isn't a decision one takes lightly.
I'm glad the Dr. Lauterbur finally accepted the prize and will be award the recognition he truely deserves for his work in "zeugmatography." And with Dr. Mansfield, he's definitely in good company.
Slashdot Mirror
Have fun trying to live on $50K in any major or minor city in the USA, particularly if you want to have a family.
Actually I live in NYC (Manhattan) with a wife and kid making less than $50K. It can be done, but don't expect to live the lap of luxury, or eat out, or have a car, or ... It's surely not "fun" but it beats not having anything.
(just as an example, many of the prestigious law firms want you to bill at least 2,000 hours in a year only to be eligible for a bonus - that's over 38 hours per week assuming you don't take any vacation, and that's purely billable hours, so expect to be working a LOT more than that)
Isn't 2000 hours a year normally the minimum for any job to be considered full time? 2000 hours / 50 weeks (2 weeks for vacation + holidays) is 40 hours a week (which is 8 hour days x 5 days/week). Granted I can't remember the last time I (science field) or anyone else I know (science and engineering fields) has worked only 40 hours a week, but.... 2000 hours a year doesn't seem like much of a requirement.
As for not publishing in those journals, it's just not realistic right now.. While open access journals are becoming more popular (personally i like the Public Library of Science http://www.plos.org/, they are still not as well read as some of the high profile (as well as usually restrictive and expensive) journals. The bottom line for most scientists is to get their science out and read. Setting up your own journal is a great idea, if you don't mind waiting years to gain the respect and "number of eye-balls" of some of the more prominent journals. 3) Yes, it would be nice if no publicly funded worker could ever hold any exclusive IP in their intellectual works. However, this would mean less intellectual work production by them. It's a tradeoff like any other. I wonder exactly how much of that article he really "owns." At most universities, the university itself owns the IP, but the author owns the copyright. Basically it's his article, but he doesn't own the findings (i.e., he can't go to another university and publish the results he obtained using his previous university's findings/resources). Doesn't mean it doesn't happen... 4) Why did OUP ever accept it if it were labled as CC? Maybe he signed an agreement waiver which was worded to contradict his CC license?
It's not that organisms need to understand math, but rather that organism use math intrinsically. Math describes the fundamentals of nature, whether or not we're aware of it. Organisms can live perfectly well without consciously knowing the the mathematics behind what they are doing. On the other hand, knowing the mathematics can help an organism obtain a goal faster than mere trial-and-error.
Let's say an organisms wants to design a hammer. Knowing the mathematics of physics and chemistry, one can easily design a tool that has the appropriate hardness, generates the appropriate force on the hammer's head, etc. Then again, one could always just grab a stone and a stick and tie them together with sinew. So more on topic. Mathematics is necessary for Comp Scientists only to the extent that it tells them if their solution is optimal or if a solution to a problem is even possible.
On a side note. I think almost all branches of science would benefit from Mathematics. In general, Biology is described by Chemistry, Chemistry is described by Physics, Physics is described by Mathematics, and Mathematics is described by Philosophy (Meta-Mathematics).
- Ascoo
Under what authority gives one the "right" of being free? Freedom is a notion that assumes the ability to act without constraint. While it's true that we all have the inalienable ability to act on notions, doesn't mean we have right to do it. Rights (freedom to do things) are social constructs. No one has "inalienable" rights, rather society grants them rights. They allow for individuals to act without retribution. In return, the individual agrees to limit other actions. And why? well, partially because of what you said, "threat of force," but in general, I think it's more because the perceived gains outweigh the preceived loss (with the greatest loss being possibly the loss of your life). Without society granting these rights, we're nothing more than hairless apes hellbent of self destruction.
As for sovereignty... You're only sovereign if you can prevent others from forcing you into a social contract. I'm not sure what it would mean to have innate sovereignty. Can a isolated person be sovereign? Doesn't the meaning of "sovereignty" necessitate the relationship between two individuals? If so, it cannot be innate to an individual.
-Ascoo
Is it just me or does this seem a bit high? I can see this lasting may a few more years, but to state it something that is persistent seems wrong. At that rate, the entire work force would be telecommuting in less than 20 years, no? ;)
"Oh, and 400 GB HDD? Nope. 160 GB notebook drive from Newegg adds $50."
I'm not sure where you found that but... newegg only sells one 160GB notebook HDD (the Seagate Momentus 5400.3 2.5 inch drive), and it goes for over $350. But you're right.. You can probably strip away most of the things found in the article.
"because theylack the basic intelligence necessary to do something that others have been doing for more than 100 years."
Knowing how to do something, and having the resources to do it isn't the same. While it may seem trivial to those in technologically advanced countries, the production of electricity in useful quantities isn't easy. Not everyone has access to the same resources that some of us take for granted. This is especially the case in countries where there is a huge diachotomy between the rich and poor. And by resources I'm not just referring to physical machinery and fuel, but education as well. And on top of that you occasionally have oppressive regimes trying to keep the poor in dependent situtations so that the rich won't lose their labor force. okay, I'm starting to get off topic now.. All I'm trying to say is it would be fallacious to assume that the only reason that certain populations don't have electricity is because they're not intelligent enough.
A wireless version would be nice as well as one that well.. didn't make you stand out as much in a crowd.. last thing one needs in a big city is to draw more atttention to the fact that you're wearing a pretty expensive toys...
So maybe someone can explain something to me... If Microsoft is willing to suggest that Longhorn will need such advanced equipment, exactly what do Microsoft developers currently have that allow to them to even test their own product? Does this mean that Longhorn development is guaranteed not to be finished until the developers at least get fast enough hardware to support what they think the average user will have (4-6GHz,1TB,etc)? Otherwise how do companies typically determine what hardware to "recommend" for their "future" products?
While the other responses to this message about ascertaining the validity of the science before awarding the Nobel Prize are valid, one must also look to the politics of science as well. Just because one is offered the Nobel Prize does not mean one acccepts it blindly; especially if it's offered to two or three scientists that may have had some rivalry between them. Sometimes priciples outweigh the desire for public recognition.
While I'm not much for gossip, let's just say that there was talk at the BMRL that Dr. Lauterbur was offered the Nobel Prize before but declined due to personal differences. I'm not sure how deep these differences were, but turning down the Nobel Prize isn't a decision one takes lightly.
I'm glad the Dr. Lauterbur finally accepted the prize and will be award the recognition he truely deserves for his work in "zeugmatography." And with Dr. Mansfield, he's definitely in good company.