I totally agree with you on this one. The Dell Latitudes have gone downhill since the D630. The latest 13" E series has the same crappy 1366x768 display. This is a business laptop, for gods sake. I don't care if I have to pay $300 more, give me a screen with which I can actually get some work done!
I just switched to KMail 2 in 4.7.4, and so far it's working out nicely---definitely better than the old KMail. I was quite apprehensive, because I have a complex setup, with multiple IMAP accounts, local mail storage, several identities, and so on, and I had read all the issues people have. But it's working like a charm, and even mail folders with several thousand mails are snappy.
I think there has been a lot of progress since the first official release of KMail2 in 4.7, so I'd definitely give it another try.
Some of the most annoying bugs, like KMail IMAP not surviving a sleep-wake cycle or a brief network outage, are finally gone.
It's the same thing according to the guy who developed the psychopathy checklist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy (Go to section psychopathy vs. sociopathy)
Look for "antisocial personality disorder". Not all people with antisocial personality disorder are psychopaths, but all psychopaths have antisocial personality disorder.
Actually, percentage-wise your numbers are pretty much spot on. State funding now hovers around 10-15% in many state schools, and it used to be 50% or more (maybe not 10 years ago, but certainly 20-30 years ago).
It is important to mention that throughout the US, tuition has gone up at least partially in a response to declining state funding. If states are not willing to fund their state schools, then the state schools have little option other than operating just like the private schools.
Do you have any evidence to back up this statement, or are you just pulling numbers out of thin air? I highly doubt that's true, in particular if you include biology among the physical sciences. The typical NIH grant runs around $250,000 a year plus overhead. Most computer scientists I know do not have grants of this magnitude.
They also bring in large research grants, so it makes sense to offset those costs with the grants. I doubt the English Department gets large sums of money from the DoD or private industry.
It may make sense, but it is against the law (at least as far as federal money is concerned). Federal funding agencies regularly check that the funds they give (including overhead) are used specifically for the research project they were allocated to, and not for general university expenses. Overhead can be used for general university expenses to the extent that they are targeted for research.
If only it were that simple. How do I hide all the "X is now friend with Y" posts? Or the "X likes Y" posts? It would be trivial to implement this function, but for some reason Facebook thinks I have to see them.
They say in one part: "The most fundamental point to bear in mind from the outset is that a sample size of 10 for biochemical parameters measured two times in 90 days is largely insufficient to ensure an acceptable degree of power to the statistical analysis performed and presented by Monsanto. " They say that because they think Monsanto shouldn't say the corn is safe - but then they (these researchers) are using that same "Insufficient" data to say it's unsafe. That's the way this whole paper is- it just doesn't jive together.
You might want to re-read your statistics textbook. They say that the power of the Monsanto analysis is low. That implies that if Monsanto does not see a significant result, they cannot conclude that no effect exists. However, the authors of this study see significant results nevertheless. Thus, even though power was low, the effect was large enough to show up.
In a nutshell: To demonstrate that there is a problem, all you have to do is find the problem in some instance. To demonstrate that there is no problem, you have to demonstrate that you looked very hard and yet could not find a problem. What the authors are saying is: "Monsanto didn't look very hard, and yet there is evidence of problems."
That comparison is not valid. The problem with fuel from algae is to make it *commercially* viable. The problem with energy from fusion is to make it *viable*, period.
At this moment in time, there is not a single fusion reactor anywhere in the world that produces net energy. By contrast, there are many facilities that obtain fuel from algae. But the fuel that is being produced is not cheap enough to compete with fossil fuels at market prices.
As others have pointed out, algae are interesting because they produce oil, not because they produce cellulose. Regardless, the process of turning cellulose into fuel is well understood now and several companies are starting to implement it on an industrial scale. See e.g. http://www.gevo.com./
I totally agree. The current policy is broken. It looks good on paper, but creates major headaches for the researchers.
In my view, the NIH is taking the easy way out. Instead of negotiating with journals directly, NIH just puts the burden on the researchers to figure out, for every publication separately, what is the correct way to handle it.
In practice, a highly productive lab would need an extra administrative person just to deal with these issues. That doesn't seem like a good way to spend research money to me.
I would argue that if you are preparing a presentation that is running by itself, without a human presenter, a simple but elegant transition effect will work better than no effect at all. This might be quite useful for exhibits at tradeshows and similar occasions.
Well, the Open Access journals I'd be interested in (PLoS journals or BMC journals) all cost me on the order of $2000 per article. By contrast, many Elsevier journals don't cost anything to publish in. I know, that's because the libraries pay for the publication costs, but *to me*, it makes a big difference whether I pay or whether the libraries pay.
In principle, since Open Access reduces library costs, universities should be interested in (and have budgets for) supplementing Open Access costs. Yet, many universities have been surprisingly reluctant to supplement Open Access costs for their researchers.
Did you read all the comments to the article you cite? The issue is certainly more complicated than you make it sound.
From my perspective, one conclusion is clear: If the current funding situation continues for much longer, either article quantity or article quality or both will significantly decline as researchers spend more and more of their time writing grant proposals instead of articles.
Slashdot Mirror
Certainly not on their small-form-factor business-class laptops. 16:9 is your only option.
I totally agree with you on this one. The Dell Latitudes have gone downhill since the D630. The latest 13" E series has the same crappy 1366x768 display. This is a business laptop, for gods sake. I don't care if I have to pay $300 more, give me a screen with which I can actually get some work done!
Which version of KMail are you using? Since 4.7.4, it seems to be running nicely.
I just switched to KMail 2 in 4.7.4, and so far it's working out nicely---definitely better than the old KMail. I was quite apprehensive, because I have a complex setup, with multiple IMAP accounts, local mail storage, several identities, and so on, and I had read all the issues people have. But it's working like a charm, and even mail folders with several thousand mails are snappy.
I think there has been a lot of progress since the first official release of KMail2 in 4.7, so I'd definitely give it another try.
Some of the most annoying bugs, like KMail IMAP not surviving a sleep-wake cycle or a brief network outage, are finally gone.
It's the same thing according to the guy who developed the psychopathy checklist:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy
(Go to section psychopathy vs. sociopathy)
What he was saying, which I think is correct, is that you can spot psychopaths easily once you know what to look for.
Look for "antisocial personality disorder". Not all people with antisocial personality disorder are psychopaths, but all psychopaths have antisocial personality disorder.
The archetypical psychopath is actually not a serial killer but a con man/woman.
Clearly you didn't read the abstract of the paper. It says right there. They used an independent test of psychopathy.
Actually, percentage-wise your numbers are pretty much spot on. State funding now hovers around 10-15% in many state schools, and it used to be 50% or more (maybe not 10 years ago, but certainly 20-30 years ago).
That's because it's easy to raise private funds for buildings, but it's much harder to raise private funds for faculty salary.
It's like this everywhere in the US. The UC system receives so little money from the state that some parts of UC have considered leaving the state system alltogether:
http://www.mbamission.com/blog/2011/09/22/mba-news-ucla-anderson-wants-to-go-private/
It is important to mention that throughout the US, tuition has gone up at least partially in a response to declining state funding. If states are not willing to fund their state schools, then the state schools have little option other than operating just like the private schools.
Do you have any evidence to back up this statement, or are you just pulling numbers out of thin air? I highly doubt that's true, in particular if you include biology among the physical sciences. The typical NIH grant runs around $250,000 a year plus overhead. Most computer scientists I know do not have grants of this magnitude.
They also bring in large research grants, so it makes sense to offset those costs with the grants. I doubt the English Department gets large sums of money from the DoD or private industry.
It may make sense, but it is against the law (at least as far as federal money is concerned). Federal funding agencies regularly check that the funds they give (including overhead) are used specifically for the research project they were allocated to, and not for general university expenses. Overhead can be used for general university expenses to the extent that they are targeted for research.
Apparently Algebra II includes complex numbers. Are you saying complex numbers are not complex?
If only it were that simple. How do I hide all the "X is now friend with Y" posts? Or the "X likes Y" posts? It would be trivial to implement this function, but for some reason Facebook thinks I have to see them.
Whatever, it just makes me use it less.
They say in one part: "The most fundamental point to bear in mind from the outset is that a sample size of 10 for biochemical parameters measured two times in 90 days is largely insufficient to ensure an acceptable degree of power to the statistical analysis performed and presented by Monsanto. " They say that because they think Monsanto shouldn't say the corn is safe - but then they (these researchers) are using that same "Insufficient" data to say it's unsafe. That's the way this whole paper is- it just doesn't jive together.
You might want to re-read your statistics textbook. They say that the power of the Monsanto analysis is low. That implies that if Monsanto does not see a significant result, they cannot conclude that no effect exists. However, the authors of this study see significant results nevertheless. Thus, even though power was low, the effect was large enough to show up.
In a nutshell: To demonstrate that there is a problem, all you have to do is find the problem in some instance. To demonstrate that there is no problem, you have to demonstrate that you looked very hard and yet could not find a problem. What the authors are saying is: "Monsanto didn't look very hard, and yet there is evidence of problems."
That comparison is not valid. The problem with fuel from algae is to make it *commercially* viable. The problem with energy from fusion is to make it *viable*, period.
At this moment in time, there is not a single fusion reactor anywhere in the world that produces net energy. By contrast, there are many facilities that obtain fuel from algae. But the fuel that is being produced is not cheap enough to compete with fossil fuels at market prices.
As others have pointed out, algae are interesting because they produce oil, not because they produce cellulose. Regardless, the process of turning cellulose into fuel is well understood now and several companies are starting to implement it on an industrial scale. See e.g. http://www.gevo.com./
I totally agree. The current policy is broken. It looks good on paper, but creates major headaches for the researchers.
In my view, the NIH is taking the easy way out. Instead of negotiating with journals directly, NIH just puts the burden on the researchers to figure out, for every publication separately, what is the correct way to handle it.
To get a sense of the hoops you have to jump through to do it properly,
read e.g. this blog post by a person whose job it is to take care of pubmed central submissions.
In practice, a highly productive lab would need an extra administrative person just to deal with these issues. That doesn't seem like a good way to spend research money to me.
scientific use (with attribution) may very well come under the defense of fair use.
It helps to read the report. Attribution was missing, that was the whole point of this allegation.
I would argue that if you are preparing a presentation that is running by itself, without a human presenter, a simple but elegant transition effect will work better than no effect at all. This might be quite useful for exhibits at tradeshows and similar occasions.
Well, the Open Access journals I'd be interested in (PLoS journals or BMC journals) all cost me on the order of $2000 per article. By contrast, many Elsevier journals don't cost anything to publish in. I know, that's because the libraries pay for the publication costs, but *to me*, it makes a big difference whether I pay or whether the libraries pay.
In principle, since Open Access reduces library costs, universities should be interested in (and have budgets for) supplementing Open Access costs. Yet, many universities have been surprisingly reluctant to supplement Open Access costs for their researchers.
Did you read all the comments to the article you cite? The issue is certainly more complicated than you make it sound.
From my perspective, one conclusion is clear: If the current funding situation continues for much longer, either article quantity or article quality or both will significantly decline as researchers spend more and more of their time writing grant proposals instead of articles.