I'm not sure this writer has been to silicon valley in the last 10 years. There are "walkable, urban" spaces all over the place. The problem is that they're crazy expensive.
The valley is not full of the sleepy suburban areas from 30 years ago. There's a significant amount of high density housing, hip restaurants and bars. A lot of it looks like what you'd expect to see around a large college campus - cheaply built apartments with "interesting" architecture, gelato, coffee, smoke shops and international cuisine. The single family homes actually in the valley are not an option for anyone you might consider a "worker."
The only still-suburban spaces are squeezed between the urbanizing centers in the valley and the two cities: San Francisco and San Jose. Talking about Oakland as an important city to Silicon Valley is... weird.
I know there are several companies in Oakland, but it seems more like a separate, nearby community than part of Silicon Valley. San Jose is larger in population than both San Francisco and Oakland, but is far more spread out. San Francisco still dominates the local political landscape, but San Jose long ago took over the role of counterbalancing city to SF in regional policy and diversity - Oakland is just another set of SF neighborhoods now.
If you have a background like this and don't like the idea of working as a contractor, you may want to work in the civil service. The military employs many civilian engineers with uniformed experience in everything from testing to program management. Take a look at the various labs and research organizations and get in touch with one near where you'd like to end up.
Biosensors and Bioelectronics (where this was published) publishes dozens of papers a month like this. There are many equivalent journals published by Wiley, ACS and I'm sure many smaller University presses. We're at a point where publishing a paper is not a useful metric to demonstrate an advancement. There are too many recycled ideas, impractical demonstrations and outright (though peer-reviewed) lies.
Does he have a clinical partner willing to test this in a working hospital? Does he have financial backers willing to front him the couple million necessary to bring this to market? Does he have customers waiting to purchase finished devices?
It's been 20 years we've been working on nanoelectronic chemical sensors. We've been watching individual cells for more than a decade. Very few of us have made a serious attempt at making an actual commercialized prototype. None of us have succeeded. This business of patting each other on the back for publishing needs to end. Outside a small community (which evidently includes slashdot editors), nanotechnology in general has lost credibility as anything other than an academic pursuit.
I think there's an argument that a truly open government would allow us to see what's going on in the public offices of the elected officials (I think that would also further decrease our ability to compromise, but that's a digression...).
However, this was in a campaign office. That's not a public function, it's necessarily a private group which is (supposed to be) separate from the staff and work of the public office. Recording campaign discussions is just dirty politics, not looking out for the public good.
The problems of poor education and inefficient military bureaucracy are not solvable by a clever program or a nifty piece of hardware. Entrepreneurship is not a welcome trait in many facets of our society. These are deep cultural differences.
Solving these types of problems takes a lot more than 2-3 years of work, no matter how inspired it may be. The young people getting into civil service today have 10 years before they're going to be able to make changes. It's going to take patience, stubbornness and a superhuman resistance to cynicism for these young staffers and bureaucrats to solve these problems.
Yeah, not every school can afford an LHC, that is simply the unfortunate reality we all have to live with.
Just about all of them have (or had) cloud chambers though, which you can use to do some early 20th century era particle physics. That would be enough to get students pretty far into particle physics if we actually wanted to teach it.
The US produces approximately 7000 professional physicists a year, yet almost every student in the country takes physics classes.
These "everyone" physics classes are insufficient training to do any sort professional physics. What they do accomplish is help expose people to physics so that 1) they can see that physicists think a bit differently and 2) they can think about physics as a career. The classes are designed to do this instead of actually teaching useful modern physics (this is why you're repeating 400 year old experiments in a college class).
So yeah, physicists have to deal with crackpots and managers who haven't actually learned any physics from the last 150 years, but in the end, it's a net positive experience for all of us. Doing the same thing with programming would be a good idea.
It is not ok to bend the rules just because maybe the politicians didn't mean to tie the hands of the civil service quite so much. It may make some logical sense, but it is still an improper use of the government and we shouldn't be ok with that.
All those nice arguments aside, you really need to read some of the articles on this event. This wasn't just profiling, it was the IRS asking for documentation and details that went beyond what they're allowed to ask for in an audit of one of these types of applications. If they had simply strictly audited every single application mentioning "Tea Party" it would have been a non-issue.
There are two things lacking in this order: 1) teeth 2) funding
Asking the civil service to "report" on something quarterly is only going to lead to a meaningless blip in the inboxes of countless government employees. Data calls like this come in endlessly. Not funding it ensures that to actually write the reports and implement the policy we'll be scraping the bottom of the barrel looking for people who couldn't get on a real (aka funded) project.
This conversation is a lot of grumpy old men complaining about things changing too much.
I hated Win 8 until I saw one of my friend's kids using it on a tablet. If you haven't seen a "touch native" use it yet, track one down. This kid was great, he was doing things with shocking efficiency. His dad was telling me he wouldn't use the (substantially more powerful) desktop anymore because "it's too slow".
We are not the market segment Win 8 was built for, and we're not going to drive the market maybe ever again. This is the kind of thing we're going to need to get used to. It was only a matter of time before technology changed so substantially that even technophiles got future shock.
In the end, it doesn't matter that Win 8 is a market failure. Our first computers were DOS or Windows 3 boxes. Our kid's first computers are cell phones and tablets. They're going to want an operating system similar to the one they grew up using the most.
If you have good video enhancement software, don't go strait to a VC. The government (read: military) has plenty of programs which will pay you to develop your idea into a tool which will be used with established systems.
If, for some reason, you don't want the military to get its hands on your work, don't try commercialize it. You may as well get the "free" investment out of it. to
I used to work at General Atomics's original campus in La Jolla, which was created in the 60s.
The campus was mainly a series of concentric circles. The main circular building had a curvature which was "calculated" to maximize random interactions with scientists and engineers outside your normal working group while also giving an illusion of working in a small group. There were pools, gyms, baseball fields and support buildings around the outside and along the radial lines. The center of the circle was a large cafeteria.
This was all great as long as nuclear power was going to save the world and money was rolling in. When the company hit hard times the ball fields were turned into office rentals and many non essential services were stopped.
When the company once again was making money with military hardware, the new buildings were simpler and located in a less expensive area of San Diego.
Intrusive regulation "may" discourage infectious disease research? Of course it would. It has done just that for (non-medical) nuclear research.
We sent a UCLA professor to jail when a student in his lab died in an accident related to poor training. Maybe that's the right idea.
If a deadly accident or malicious release occurs from your lab, you go to jail. Just reiterate that to everyone: you're ultimately responsible for what comes out of your lab. It's a lot less harsh than the permanent label you earn as a terrorist and an enemy of civilization for a nuclear mistake.
and particle accelerators are the best way to address each of those issues?!
I didn't say physics wasn't interesting, I said particle physics is not relevant to the most interesting problems (see your list for some great examples).
I don't agree at all. The butt-hurt-ness is all about funding and relevance in modern physics.
Given that this is a monolithic (minimal competition) field with not much on the horizon in terms of applications or fundamental discoveries, it is shocking and a little embarrassing that there is so much money and so many students in particle physics. Particle physicists did this by positing that the cosmologists, observational astronomers and theoreticians could be wrong about what the higgs was and/or what LHC could show us. More bluntly, there never was a compelling reason to fund and build the LHC unless you believed the particle physicists knew something amazing that none of the rest of us did. The marketing of the "God Particle" was exquisite and effective.
Now that it looks like everyone else was right, the rest of us in physics are left scratching our heads wondering why we allowed particle physics to grab such a sizable chunk of the intellectual and financial "market share" of our field in the last 20 years. Would we have learned more focusing on cosmology, planetary science, power and energy issues, new materials, biophysics...? We trained A LOT of PhDs to build and operate LHC and there are a finite set of good students with a functionally infinite set of problems to work on.
Who pays the fees to publish a paper? Grants and research contracts, (generally, the government).
Part of almost every government research grant and contract is that the government has unlimited data rights, including unlimited rights to every publication which comes out of the research.
Academia started these journals. Academics run the journals. Academia (tries to) negotiate away these data rights from the government. Academia itself is a closed model.
You can go to DTIC and read any unclassified military research report for free. Try it! It's fun reading about Russian nuclear reactors from 1969. NRL and Lockheed have to put stuff up there, Harvard doesn't. It used to be we all knew the government owned government funded research.
Academia has an immense lobby, bigger than the defense industry. They've displaced the contractors and government labs in basic research and closed it off from the public. Why is it easier to get a military report on nuclear reactors than to get a report of what a professor did with the tax dollars we sent him?
All we need to do is remind Academia that we own this stuff, not them. The executive branch already has the power to do that.
Many of the journals we have now started as academic controlled publications like JMLR. It's fine to start over with new publications, but it's naive to think that doing so will solve the fundamental problems of access to research information.
JMLR, for example, is still under the control of a private publisher, which is affiliated with a private university. There's no real incentive for them to keep the information freely available any longer than is fashionable. In the several hundred year history of academic publishing, we've had many cycles of availability and restriction. In 20 years you may find yourself in the midst of another editorial mutiny unless things change more drastically.
This isn't about education, it's not about taxes and it's not about immigration. It's about investment.
The people the president is talking about will find it easier to start a high tech startup in China or Korea than they will here. It doesn't matter where they come from, whether they paid tuition or were funded by NSF and it doesn't matter if we make them leave or want them to stay.
They're leaving because the opportunity in high tech is right now somewhere else.
You need to know if the person you're planning on spending the rest of your life with, who you're planning on having kids with shares the same interests as you BEFORE you get married and have kids. If you're lucky and find a game she likes, great. Don't be surprised if you don't.
It's not fair to you to simply give up your hobby. It's not fair to her to expect her to pick up your hobby for your convenience.
You need to figure out what you like doing with your wife. Try board games, gardening, painting... there are many hobbies which will scratch that itch for you and which may appeal to your spouse as well.
What are these guys really doing? Are these materials even close to as good as "high performance" materials used in car and airplane frames? Are these coatings close to as hard and uniform as those used on drills? What is it about a study on millimeter scale crystallization that leads us to make these claims about macro scale properties?
Some of us in nanotechnology are scientifically comparing nanomaterials to their bulk counterparts. When we sit down and do measurements in realistic conditions, the kind of hyperbolic statements made here are a big problem. Think of it like the solid state physics version of the dot com bubble.
The work described here is good and it is important, but we shouldn't be projecting the results forward with such unfounded certainty.
Usually the main problem with press release science is that it has nothing to do with the real science behind it. Probably, there's an MIT professor embarrassed to show up to colloquia right now.
This press release is talking about acoustic metamaterials. The scientific description in the press release is bad, very bad, but one thing they got dead wrong is that this is not new.
I may be biased by living in San Diego, but the "civilian" oversight of nuclear energy has failed. We have a nuclear power plant here 60 miles from downtown which is bogged down in endless hearings and oversight. Taking the safety issues seriously is great, but it's obvious the government teams lack the expertise and will to actually help get the reactor running again or decide to shut it down permanently.
Meanwhile there are 3+ perfectly fine nuclear reactors running on aircraft carriers and subs docked right at downtown San Diego all the time. No one seems to mind and no one seems to worry.
Whether that's justified or not doesn't really matter. The Navy can and does build new nuclear power plants and generally has the trust of the public to do that. The DOE does not. These are the results: the military has effective nuclear power, the civilians do not.
A 26 year study, following 968,432 people and these guys draw a conclusion revolving around coffee and a cancer involving 0.09% of the people in the study?
That's some serious barrel scraping on that data set.
That said, it's one more argument to use when my wife complains that I drink too much coffee. Go science!
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure this writer has been to silicon valley in the last 10 years. There are "walkable, urban" spaces all over the place. The problem is that they're crazy expensive.
The valley is not full of the sleepy suburban areas from 30 years ago. There's a significant amount of high density housing, hip restaurants and bars. A lot of it looks like what you'd expect to see around a large college campus - cheaply built apartments with "interesting" architecture, gelato, coffee, smoke shops and international cuisine. The single family homes actually in the valley are not an option for anyone you might consider a "worker."
The only still-suburban spaces are squeezed between the urbanizing centers in the valley and the two cities: San Francisco and San Jose. Talking about Oakland as an important city to Silicon Valley is... weird.
I know there are several companies in Oakland, but it seems more like a separate, nearby community than part of Silicon Valley. San Jose is larger in population than both San Francisco and Oakland, but is far more spread out. San Francisco still dominates the local political landscape, but San Jose long ago took over the role of counterbalancing city to SF in regional policy and diversity - Oakland is just another set of SF neighborhoods now.
If you have a background like this and don't like the idea of working as a contractor, you may want to work in the civil service. The military employs many civilian engineers with uniformed experience in everything from testing to program management. Take a look at the various labs and research organizations and get in touch with one near where you'd like to end up.
The government needs good people.
Biosensors and Bioelectronics (where this was published) publishes dozens of papers a month like this. There are many equivalent journals published by Wiley, ACS and I'm sure many smaller University presses. We're at a point where publishing a paper is not a useful metric to demonstrate an advancement. There are too many recycled ideas, impractical demonstrations and outright (though peer-reviewed) lies.
Does he have a clinical partner willing to test this in a working hospital? Does he have financial backers willing to front him the couple million necessary to bring this to market? Does he have customers waiting to purchase finished devices?
It's been 20 years we've been working on nanoelectronic chemical sensors. We've been watching individual cells for more than a decade. Very few of us have made a serious attempt at making an actual commercialized prototype. None of us have succeeded. This business of patting each other on the back for publishing needs to end. Outside a small community (which evidently includes slashdot editors), nanotechnology in general has lost credibility as anything other than an academic pursuit.
I think there's an argument that a truly open government would allow us to see what's going on in the public offices of the elected officials (I think that would also further decrease our ability to compromise, but that's a digression...).
However, this was in a campaign office. That's not a public function, it's necessarily a private group which is (supposed to be) separate from the staff and work of the public office. Recording campaign discussions is just dirty politics, not looking out for the public good.
The problems of poor education and inefficient military bureaucracy are not solvable by a clever program or a nifty piece of hardware. Entrepreneurship is not a welcome trait in many facets of our society. These are deep cultural differences.
Solving these types of problems takes a lot more than 2-3 years of work, no matter how inspired it may be. The young people getting into civil service today have 10 years before they're going to be able to make changes. It's going to take patience, stubbornness and a superhuman resistance to cynicism for these young staffers and bureaucrats to solve these problems.
Yeah, not every school can afford an LHC, that is simply the unfortunate reality we all have to live with.
Just about all of them have (or had) cloud chambers though, which you can use to do some early 20th century era particle physics. That would be enough to get students pretty far into particle physics if we actually wanted to teach it.
How many people here took physics?
The US produces approximately 7000 professional physicists a year, yet almost every student in the country takes physics classes.
These "everyone" physics classes are insufficient training to do any sort professional physics. What they do accomplish is help expose people to physics so that 1) they can see that physicists think a bit differently and 2) they can think about physics as a career. The classes are designed to do this instead of actually teaching useful modern physics (this is why you're repeating 400 year old experiments in a college class).
So yeah, physicists have to deal with crackpots and managers who haven't actually learned any physics from the last 150 years, but in the end, it's a net positive experience for all of us. Doing the same thing with programming would be a good idea.
It is not ok to bend the rules just because maybe the politicians didn't mean to tie the hands of the civil service quite so much. It may make some logical sense, but it is still an improper use of the government and we shouldn't be ok with that.
All those nice arguments aside, you really need to read some of the articles on this event. This wasn't just profiling, it was the IRS asking for documentation and details that went beyond what they're allowed to ask for in an audit of one of these types of applications. If they had simply strictly audited every single application mentioning "Tea Party" it would have been a non-issue.
There are two things lacking in this order:
1) teeth
2) funding
Asking the civil service to "report" on something quarterly is only going to lead to a meaningless blip in the inboxes of countless government employees. Data calls like this come in endlessly. Not funding it ensures that to actually write the reports and implement the policy we'll be scraping the bottom of the barrel looking for people who couldn't get on a real (aka funded) project.
This conversation is a lot of grumpy old men complaining about things changing too much.
I hated Win 8 until I saw one of my friend's kids using it on a tablet. If you haven't seen a "touch native" use it yet, track one down. This kid was great, he was doing things with shocking efficiency. His dad was telling me he wouldn't use the (substantially more powerful) desktop anymore because "it's too slow".
We are not the market segment Win 8 was built for, and we're not going to drive the market maybe ever again. This is the kind of thing we're going to need to get used to. It was only a matter of time before technology changed so substantially that even technophiles got future shock.
In the end, it doesn't matter that Win 8 is a market failure. Our first computers were DOS or Windows 3 boxes. Our kid's first computers are cell phones and tablets. They're going to want an operating system similar to the one they grew up using the most.
If you have good video enhancement software, don't go strait to a VC. The government (read: military) has plenty of programs which will pay you to develop your idea into a tool which will be used with established systems.
If, for some reason, you don't want the military to get its hands on your work, don't try commercialize it. You may as well get the "free" investment out of it. to
I used to work at General Atomics's original campus in La Jolla, which was created in the 60s.
The campus was mainly a series of concentric circles. The main circular building had a curvature which was "calculated" to maximize random interactions with scientists and engineers outside your normal working group while also giving an illusion of working in a small group. There were pools, gyms, baseball fields and support buildings around the outside and along the radial lines. The center of the circle was a large cafeteria.
This was all great as long as nuclear power was going to save the world and money was rolling in. When the company hit hard times the ball fields were turned into office rentals and many non essential services were stopped.
When the company once again was making money with military hardware, the new buildings were simpler and located in a less expensive area of San Diego.
Intrusive regulation "may" discourage infectious disease research? Of course it would. It has done just that for (non-medical) nuclear research.
We sent a UCLA professor to jail when a student in his lab died in an accident related to poor training. Maybe that's the right idea.
If a deadly accident or malicious release occurs from your lab, you go to jail. Just reiterate that to everyone: you're ultimately responsible for what comes out of your lab. It's a lot less harsh than the permanent label you earn as a terrorist and an enemy of civilization for a nuclear mistake.
and particle accelerators are the best way to address each of those issues?!
I didn't say physics wasn't interesting, I said particle physics is not relevant to the most interesting problems (see your list for some great examples).
I don't agree at all. The butt-hurt-ness is all about funding and relevance in modern physics.
Given that this is a monolithic (minimal competition) field with not much on the horizon in terms of applications or fundamental discoveries, it is shocking and a little embarrassing that there is so much money and so many students in particle physics. Particle physicists did this by positing that the cosmologists, observational astronomers and theoreticians could be wrong about what the higgs was and/or what LHC could show us. More bluntly, there never was a compelling reason to fund and build the LHC unless you believed the particle physicists knew something amazing that none of the rest of us did. The marketing of the "God Particle" was exquisite and effective.
Now that it looks like everyone else was right, the rest of us in physics are left scratching our heads wondering why we allowed particle physics to grab such a sizable chunk of the intellectual and financial "market share" of our field in the last 20 years. Would we have learned more focusing on cosmology, planetary science, power and energy issues, new materials, biophysics...? We trained A LOT of PhDs to build and operate LHC and there are a finite set of good students with a functionally infinite set of problems to work on.
Who pays the fees to publish a paper? Grants and research contracts, (generally, the government).
Part of almost every government research grant and contract is that the government has unlimited data rights, including unlimited rights to every publication which comes out of the research.
Academia started these journals. Academics run the journals. Academia (tries to) negotiate away these data rights from the government. Academia itself is a closed model.
You can go to DTIC and read any unclassified military research report for free. Try it! It's fun reading about Russian nuclear reactors from 1969. NRL and Lockheed have to put stuff up there, Harvard doesn't. It used to be we all knew the government owned government funded research.
Academia has an immense lobby, bigger than the defense industry. They've displaced the contractors and government labs in basic research and closed it off from the public. Why is it easier to get a military report on nuclear reactors than to get a report of what a professor did with the tax dollars we sent him?
All we need to do is remind Academia that we own this stuff, not them. The executive branch already has the power to do that.
Many of the journals we have now started as academic controlled publications like JMLR. It's fine to start over with new publications, but it's naive to think that doing so will solve the fundamental problems of access to research information.
JMLR, for example, is still under the control of a private publisher, which is affiliated with a private university. There's no real incentive for them to keep the information freely available any longer than is fashionable. In the several hundred year history of academic publishing, we've had many cycles of availability and restriction. In 20 years you may find yourself in the midst of another editorial mutiny unless things change more drastically.
This isn't about education, it's not about taxes and it's not about immigration. It's about investment.
The people the president is talking about will find it easier to start a high tech startup in China or Korea than they will here. It doesn't matter where they come from, whether they paid tuition or were funded by NSF and it doesn't matter if we make them leave or want them to stay.
They're leaving because the opportunity in high tech is right now somewhere else.
You need to know if the person you're planning on spending the rest of your life with, who you're planning on having kids with shares the same interests as you BEFORE you get married and have kids. If you're lucky and find a game she likes, great. Don't be surprised if you don't.
It's not fair to you to simply give up your hobby. It's not fair to her to expect her to pick up your hobby for your convenience.
You need to figure out what you like doing with your wife. Try board games, gardening, painting... there are many hobbies which will scratch that itch for you and which may appeal to your spouse as well.
What are these guys really doing? Are these materials even close to as good as "high performance" materials used in car and airplane frames? Are these coatings close to as hard and uniform as those used on drills? What is it about a study on millimeter scale crystallization that leads us to make these claims about macro scale properties?
Some of us in nanotechnology are scientifically comparing nanomaterials to their bulk counterparts. When we sit down and do measurements in realistic conditions, the kind of hyperbolic statements made here are a big problem. Think of it like the solid state physics version of the dot com bubble.
The work described here is good and it is important, but we shouldn't be projecting the results forward with such unfounded certainty.
Kudos to Pasquali for continuing Smalley's work and getting this far.
Slashdot first covered his group back in 2003
http://science.slashdot.org/story/03/12/09/2359259/first-pure-nanotube-fibers-made
I'm glad he's continued to work at this.
Usually the main problem with press release science is that it has nothing to do with the real science behind it. Probably, there's an MIT professor embarrassed to show up to colloquia right now.
This press release is talking about acoustic metamaterials. The scientific description in the press release is bad, very bad, but one thing they got dead wrong is that this is not new.
There are good alternatives to barium (such as gold), but you can't use them until the FDA approves them.
I may be biased by living in San Diego, but the "civilian" oversight of nuclear energy has failed. We have a nuclear power plant here 60 miles from downtown which is bogged down in endless hearings and oversight. Taking the safety issues seriously is great, but it's obvious the government teams lack the expertise and will to actually help get the reactor running again or decide to shut it down permanently.
Meanwhile there are 3+ perfectly fine nuclear reactors running on aircraft carriers and subs docked right at downtown San Diego all the time. No one seems to mind and no one seems to worry.
Whether that's justified or not doesn't really matter. The Navy can and does build new nuclear power plants and generally has the trust of the public to do that. The DOE does not. These are the results: the military has effective nuclear power, the civilians do not.
A 26 year study, following 968,432 people and these guys draw a conclusion revolving around coffee and a cancer involving 0.09% of the people in the study?
That's some serious barrel scraping on that data set.
That said, it's one more argument to use when my wife complains that I drink too much coffee. Go science!