I don't get it. I advocate that research groups should do both fundamental and applied research and that's the reply I get.
Have the scientists really become so "bipartisan" that it is inconceivable that a lab could not only conduct both fundamental and applied research, but would do it in a manner that the different segments (fundamental/applied) actually support each other?
The fact that they're physicists in fundamental research.
That didn't answer my question. My question was, "Why can't these guys also do applied research?". Your answer was "These guys cannot do applied research because they're in fundamental research".
So I ask again, what's stopping them from doing also applied research? Is it unkosher somehow? Are they afraid that having anything to do with even applied research somehow taints them?
Or have they "become specialized" in fundamental research. Funny thing, I've never had to limit myself in such an artificial way.
This is not an either-or situation. You can do both applied and fundamental research on the same topic so that they support each other. That's elegant!
Ok, I'm not the AC you replied to, but I'll reply to your quotes with this quote:
For example, I was a little surprised when I was talking to a friend who was going to go on the radio. He does work on cosmology and astronomy, and he wondered how he would explain what the applications of his work were. "Well," I said, "there aren't any." He said, "Yes, but then we won't get support for more research of this kind." I think that's kind of dishonest. If you're representing yourself as a scientist, then you should explain to the layman what you're doing-- and if they don't support you under those circumstances, then that's their decision.(Cargo Cult Science, Richard Feynman)
In other words, it's fine if your fundamental research gets funding even although it doesn't have applications or potential for further applied research. However, you should be honest about it.
"It seemed unworthy of a grown man to spend his time on such trivialities..."
I was not going to comment on this, but I found it so appallingly elitist and arrogant that I just can't let it be. Making sure that our tax monies are spent in the most responsible of way is not a triviality. It's our duty as scientists to be responsible when we're living on other peoples' money. It's not that hard to come up with a research project that has both a fundamental segement and an applied segment and tie them together. Those are the strong, responsible projects that benefit both the science and the society.
Agreed. I liked the detached, clinical way it was written in without any hysterics or overdue emotion. No doubt some people will find that particular style offensive, but as a (dare I say, fellow) scientist I found the style comforting.
Thats really interesting because I have heard the same about A.Hitler. That he was extremely lazy, getting out of bed very late in the day
Indeed and with serious consequences (for the Nazi Germany that is), too.
The German commanders in Normandy missed their chance of mounting a serious counterattack partly because Hitler a) had assumed direct command of most divisions in the area and b) he was still in bed six hours after the start of the invasion.
Field Marshal Rundstedt wished to move the crack 12th SS Panzer and Panzer Lehr divisions towards Caen, but the divisions were in OKW reserve and could not be committed without Hitler's orders. An armored counterattack from Caen area (when the skies were still overcast) could have driven a wedge between the US and British armies and, most importantly, the all important Carentan-Bayeux-Caen road could have been held.
Does anyone know why BBC consistently spells NASA like a word - Nasa?
p
Maybe BBC has a lameness filter too: "DO NOT USE SO MANY CAPS - IT'S LIKE SHOUTING!"
Even if you do, finding a new ISP or smarthost is a five minute job. Whereas deleting and filtering spam takes millions of people a significant amount of time every single day.
Nice spin: five minutes for me and a significant amount of time for the millions.
Now, come on. Do you really think that it's not easier just to let your e-mail client's learning filter to go through your mail after which you delete the junk with one press of a delete key? That's how it works for me.
Only if you do business with people who do business with spammers. If you don't, you won't have this problem.
Look, there are several levels of problems here caused by spam:
1) Network's infrastructural problems due to heavy traffic caused by spam. To be brutally honest, that is not my problem. I pay my ISP for a service and they pay for their access to national/international feeds. If spam is such a problem, the providers/backbones as large national level entities should fight the spammers by legal and technical means. If they can't, then they should lobby the governments. If it means that my monthly ISP bill will go up, fine by me. If the ISPs and governments cannot help, nothing will. Vigilantism like SPEWS will only help to speed up the fall of e-mail system because it breaks down the means of communications deliberately.
2) Spam in someone else's mailbox. Couldn't care less. Filter it or get a monkey to push the delete button, I don't care. What I care about is that my legit e-mail gets delievered and received by people. Spam doesn't block it; SPEWS and the idiot admins who use it do.
3) Spam I get in my mailbox. Sure avoiding the pure raw spamfeed is nice, but less draconian filters can take care of it. I'd rather have pure unfiltered, unscreened feed from an ISP that doesn't care if it signs up spammers and filter it rather than begin the game of "let's see if I have to switch my ISP again today because SPEWS listed it and the idiot sysadmins at the place I do business with use SPEWS".
Suggesting that I use "a decent webmail provider" is ridiculous because, as SPEWS people readily admit, this particular webmail provider could end up blocked any day no matter how draconian their user vetting process and TOS are. No, they only option would be to embark on the time and resource consuming "ok, my isp got blocked, time to change the provider" process. After all, that's what SPEWS has been telling me: "Don't give a bad ISP any money but switch and tell them why you did it".
Don't you have a responsibility to report "proven" cheating to the disiplinary board? I think your ultimatum is quite unfair.
To answer you and the poster below, yes in principle I am supposed to report all cheating to the disciplinary board. I am ignoring the order because it is neither logical, productive or true to the spirit or the tradition of university. If I am ever challenged on this practise, I would argue my case on following points:
1) People are fallible - in particular the first and second year students I'm teaching. Categorical zero-tolerance punishments and public expulsions are not fitting of any free western institution and they go against my personal sense of justice.
2) No-one gets a free ride here. I am not going easy on the cheater. The cheater loses 12 months of work and has to repeat the course next year. I believe in reform not punishment.
3) In a way I admire the audacity of some of these cheaters. Some of them are certifiably stupid but some of them believe that they can outwit me and the department and go to considerable lengths learning stuff way above the course requirements to achieve that. There's nothing wrong with that. I want to harvest that potential and redirect it to a better purpose. Throwing these people away "just because they broke a rule" is a waste.
Yes it is but it is the only fair way to do it. If someone trusts a program to cast down sentences, he doesn't deserve to teach.
Typically I teach a class of 100-150 people. It is my experience that less than 10% of them cheat in one way or another. That's at most 10-15 individuals per class. I read all the reports personally and the program simply helps to draw my attention to the ones that might be plagiarised. I will read these works more thoroughly.
I won't confront the student unless I can show that he has copied parts of a research paper, web page or an old report to his work.
Well, maybe I was oversimplifying. However, as a physicist and a history buff I took offense at the anti-humanities rant above. I don't know what kind of humanities the original poster was ranting about but I'd rate the "strength" of the right and wrong in physics to that in history.
So are you proposing that I shouldn't check for plagiarism because some people might be falsely accused and might not be able to defend themselves?
I don't dismiss anyone's work as plagiarised unless I can prove it. If I can prove, there's really not much you can do about it no matter how skilled a verbal acrobat you are.
The point of the whole exercise is to confront the student, make it clear that as far as I can see his work is plagiarised and that I can prove it to the disciplinary board if necessary. He will fail the course this year, but has two options in the future: 1) he can take the course again next year with no prejudice from my part; the disciplinary board will not be informed of the incident, 2) he can take me and my evidence to the board right now and let them decide.
Slashdot Mirror
Have the scientists really become so "bipartisan" that it is inconceivable that a lab could not only conduct both fundamental and applied research, but would do it in a manner that the different segments (fundamental/applied) actually support each other?
I'd rather accept a license that's restrictive than suffer reverse engineered drivers.
That didn't answer my question. My question was, "Why can't these guys also do applied research?". Your answer was "These guys cannot do applied research because they're in fundamental research".
So I ask again, what's stopping them from doing also applied research? Is it unkosher somehow? Are they afraid that having anything to do with even applied research somehow taints them?
Or have they "become specialized" in fundamental research. Funny thing, I've never had to limit myself in such an artificial way.
This is not an either-or situation. You can do both applied and fundamental research on the same topic so that they support each other. That's elegant!
Huh? Not over an issue like this.
On the other hand, I do have a very strong opinion about SPEWS. That's why it's in my sig for the time being.
In other words, it's fine if your fundamental research gets funding even although it doesn't have applications or potential for further applied research. However, you should be honest about it.
"It seemed unworthy of a grown man to spend his time on such trivialities..."
I was not going to comment on this, but I found it so appallingly elitist and arrogant that I just can't let it be. Making sure that our tax monies are spent in the most responsible of way is not a triviality. It's our duty as scientists to be responsible when we're living on other peoples' money. It's not that hard to come up with a research project that has both a fundamental segement and an applied segment and tie them together. Those are the strong, responsible projects that benefit both the science and the society.
Forced? Who's pointing the gun at you?
What's stopping you from researching something in which you can reasonably accurately predict the possible applications/applied research?
On another note, I wouldn't mind seeing more attractive female lab workers around here wearing snug "labtops"...
Why is Linus feeding Darl, the ultimate troll?
Agreed. I liked the detached, clinical way it was written in without any hysterics or overdue emotion. No doubt some people will find that particular style offensive, but as a (dare I say, fellow) scientist I found the style comforting.
E-mail is cheap, worthless. At least say that you're willing to send your portfolio/resume by mail if requested.
Indeed and with serious consequences (for the Nazi Germany that is), too.
The German commanders in Normandy missed their chance of mounting a serious counterattack partly because Hitler a) had assumed direct command of most divisions in the area and b) he was still in bed six hours after the start of the invasion. Field Marshal Rundstedt wished to move the crack 12th SS Panzer and Panzer Lehr divisions towards Caen, but the divisions were in OKW reserve and could not be committed without Hitler's orders. An armored counterattack from Caen area (when the skies were still overcast) could have driven a wedge between the US and British armies and, most importantly, the all important Carentan-Bayeux-Caen road could have been held.
Does anyone know why BBC consistently spells NASA like a word - Nasa? p Maybe BBC has a lameness filter too: "DO NOT USE SO MANY CAPS - IT'S LIKE SHOUTING!"
You'd make much more sense if you'd provided some references.
I'm not a big fan of copyleft as an ideology, but intentionally mispelling it as "copy left" is a spin if I've ever seen one.
I was going to post the same thing, but the parent got it right first.
It contracts down your veins and increases metabolism.
Nice spin: five minutes for me and a significant amount of time for the millions.
Now, come on. Do you really think that it's not easier just to let your e-mail client's learning filter to go through your mail after which you delete the junk with one press of a delete key? That's how it works for me.
Only if you do business with people who do business with spammers. If you don't, you won't have this problem.
Ok. I give up. One can't argue with a fanatic.
1) Network's infrastructural problems due to heavy traffic caused by spam. To be brutally honest, that is not my problem. I pay my ISP for a service and they pay for their access to national/international feeds. If spam is such a problem, the providers/backbones as large national level entities should fight the spammers by legal and technical means. If they can't, then they should lobby the governments. If it means that my monthly ISP bill will go up, fine by me. If the ISPs and governments cannot help, nothing will. Vigilantism like SPEWS will only help to speed up the fall of e-mail system because it breaks down the means of communications deliberately.
2) Spam in someone else's mailbox. Couldn't care less. Filter it or get a monkey to push the delete button, I don't care. What I care about is that my legit e-mail gets delievered and received by people. Spam doesn't block it; SPEWS and the idiot admins who use it do.
3) Spam I get in my mailbox. Sure avoiding the pure raw spamfeed is nice, but less draconian filters can take care of it. I'd rather have pure unfiltered, unscreened feed from an ISP that doesn't care if it signs up spammers and filter it rather than begin the game of "let's see if I have to switch my ISP again today because SPEWS listed it and the idiot sysadmins at the place I do business with use SPEWS".
Suggesting that I use "a decent webmail provider" is ridiculous because, as SPEWS people readily admit, this particular webmail provider could end up blocked any day no matter how draconian their user vetting process and TOS are. No, they only option would be to embark on the time and resource consuming "ok, my isp got blocked, time to change the provider" process. After all, that's what SPEWS has been telling me: "Don't give a bad ISP any money but switch and tell them why you did it".
So, instead of having the choice to simply delete/filter the spam I receive, I have to start the arduous task of webmail/smarthost/ISP hopping?
This cure is definitely worse than the disesase.
I thought the internet is where men are men, women are men and women/boys under 18 are FBI agents.
To answer you and the poster below, yes in principle I am supposed to report all cheating to the disciplinary board. I am ignoring the order because it is neither logical, productive or true to the spirit or the tradition of university. If I am ever challenged on this practise, I would argue my case on following points:
1) People are fallible - in particular the first and second year students I'm teaching. Categorical zero-tolerance punishments and public expulsions are not fitting of any free western institution and they go against my personal sense of justice.
2) No-one gets a free ride here. I am not going easy on the cheater. The cheater loses 12 months of work and has to repeat the course next year. I believe in reform not punishment.
3) In a way I admire the audacity of some of these cheaters. Some of them are certifiably stupid but some of them believe that they can outwit me and the department and go to considerable lengths learning stuff way above the course requirements to achieve that. There's nothing wrong with that. I want to harvest that potential and redirect it to a better purpose. Throwing these people away "just because they broke a rule" is a waste.
If it's already revised, everything's ok.
Why restrict it to geeks in the first place...
Yes it is but it is the only fair way to do it. If someone trusts a program to cast down sentences, he doesn't deserve to teach.
Typically I teach a class of 100-150 people. It is my experience that less than 10% of them cheat in one way or another. That's at most 10-15 individuals per class. I read all the reports personally and the program simply helps to draw my attention to the ones that might be plagiarised. I will read these works more thoroughly.
I won't confront the student unless I can show that he has copied parts of a research paper, web page or an old report to his work.
Well, maybe I was oversimplifying. However, as a physicist and a history buff I took offense at the anti-humanities rant above. I don't know what kind of humanities the original poster was ranting about but I'd rate the "strength" of the right and wrong in physics to that in history.
I don't dismiss anyone's work as plagiarised unless I can prove it. If I can prove, there's really not much you can do about it no matter how skilled a verbal acrobat you are.
The point of the whole exercise is to confront the student, make it clear that as far as I can see his work is plagiarised and that I can prove it to the disciplinary board if necessary. He will fail the course this year, but has two options in the future: 1) he can take the course again next year with no prejudice from my part; the disciplinary board will not be informed of the incident, 2) he can take me and my evidence to the board right now and let them decide.