Pharmacists are trained to know about medications: that's the major reason why physicians can't usually dispense drugs directly.
Physicians are (or should be) well trained to practice medicine. They're good at diagnosing individual patients, choosing treatments, and monitoring progress. They're invaluable collaborators in medical research because they have direct contact with the patients, and they're the ones who you hope are ultimately going to be applying any advances. But an MD doesn't involve the necessary training to do science. Unfortunately society has confused the two.
I'm a medical scientist. It would be ridiculous, not to mention illegal, for me to diagnose and treat patients. I simply don't have the training. But it's equally ridiculous, though unfortunately not illegal, for an MD (absent specific scientific training like an earned PhD) to design, conduct and analyze a proper experiment. Yet major research grants today tend to go to MDs and it's getting extremely difficult to get a faculty job in medical research without an MD.
Interesting I like the hidden scroll bars. They free up some extra screen space and it's been years since I actually wanted to click on one. Using a trackpad or a mouse that has any sort of two axis scrolling interface makes them superfluous.
In medical research, the problem is that most of it is run by amateurs. Medical doctors receive somewhere between no and very little scientific education, and conduct research in their spare time while not treating patients, yet in North America an MD is considered not only sufficient, but actually desirable for a "clinician scientist." There are some excellent scientists who also hold MDs, but it's secondary to their scientific training. Clinicians have very creative ideas about how to do science.
Half? In many fields (like medical research) it's essentially all, and there's no "at some point." Many places offer one or two year starting faculty appointments, at the end of which you're expected to have a major grant (success rate is somewhere around 10% on those). So you better get busy writing applications. Once you're established, you better keep writing them, because now you've got a lab full of people depending on you for their livelihood.
If you drop the (US), then quite often. In Canada the maximum punishment for a provincial crime is two years less a day. Anything more serious than that is federal.
It's true in that those universal statements aren't universally true. Grass isn't green in the winter here, it's brown. The sky is blue outside my window currently, but yesterday it was gray. There's an awful lot of water around here that isn't wet during the winter.
The impact hypothesis nicely explains why the moon is less dense than Earth: the impact preferentially threw up light elements from the crust and upper mantle, not heavy elements that would have sunk to the core. The densities of Phobos and Deimos are also less than that of Mars, but because they're so small, and are probably more like orbiting gravel piles, their densities are also consistent with small asteroids.
"many of the planets have orbits that are very near circular, but we do not interpret their existence in a similar fashion."
We do actually. It's pretty well accepted that the planets around the sun coalesced from a protoplanetary disc surrounding the young sun. The impact hypothesis for moon formation is similar: a big impact causes debris to be thrown into an orbiting disc around the planet and one or more moons then coalesce out of it. The alternative, capture of a separately orbiting body, isn't seriously considered for the origin of the planets.
See my third paragraph. You're implicitly buying into the myth that people losing their jobs to automation makes the economy poorer. The opposite happens: there's more wealth. Even if a significant number of people lose their jobs and don't get new jobs (or get crappy ones), that loss is more than made up by someone (or everyone) else having more money. There are always customers. The decision whether it's a few super rich people being waited on hand and foot and some people working as gladiators in the entertainment arenas (reality television) or a more equitable distribution, such as in Switzerland where everyone is guaranteed a minimum income, is a political problem that will be solved one way or another. The free market is quite capable of sorting it out by itself, but that way is almost sure to be a lot nastier, probably involving food riots and rich people lined up against walls.
Sure, a truck going the same speed as a car can have the brakes fail completely, or the driver have a heart attack too, then it can take twice, three times, or arbitrarily longer to stop than a car. Or vice versa. Sorry, I assumed you were trying to say something relevant.
I quite pointedly said that things are somewhat more complicated with real vehicles than the simple physics analysis of locked wheels. It's not my theory, it's basic physics (which you claimed did not support my original post), and also the formula that most police forces use to estimate (note, estimate) the speed of vehicles involved in collisions.
You are completely ignoring the fact that, as I posted, US regulations require trucks be able to stop in much less than twice the distance cars can, and test results that indicate most (well maintained) trucks can stop quite a bit better than required. In real life, as is demonstrated in transport safety statistics, large trucks are quite frequently poorly maintained and so their stopping distances may well be longer.
Sure you can. Right up until 100% of us work in service. The majority of us already do, mostly selling each other stuff.
Personally I hope it really does get to the point where people realize how ridiculous it is and we all cut back on how much we work.
The issue of wealth distribution is an entirely different matter, and it's much more of a problem in the US than in any other modern economy. It's not a hard problem to solve technically, although prevailing attitudes in the US seem to make it quite difficult. Technology and automation make economies more efficient and the countries who own them richer. Replacing truck drivers will reduce the price of virtually everything, for everybody. It's a political decision whether you want that increased wealth to go to a few people who don't need it, leaving everyone else poor, or to be spread more equitably.
Friction force is a function of the coefficient of friction times the downward force. The simple physics interpretation says that the stopping distance is independent of the "amount of rubber per pound":
In practice, particularly with anti-lock brakes, the situation is a bit more complicated, but it shouldn't be as bad as double. I notice that you've chosen the "truck with hot brakes" versus the car, presumably with cool brakes, for your comparison. That's not only not a fair comparison, riding around in emergency braking situations with hot brakes all the time is the result of either poor maintenance or poor driving.
Note that US federal regulations require large trucks to stop in considerably less than twice the distance of passenger cars (or even motor bikes), and that tested trucks average quite a bit better than that maximum: http://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA....
So if a truck does take twice the distance of a car, it may literally be criminally poorly maintained.
History disagrees with most of the things you said. As menial, unskilled and repetitive jobs get eliminated, the service industry grows. Fast food servers have been useless for a long time, but they're very rarely replaced by automation. The enormous service industries that are hallmarks of successful western economies are make work programs because we have this antiquated idea that everyone needs a 40+ hour a week job. Plus, most people like having others serve them.
If there's that much difference in stopping distance then the truck is criminally poorly maintained. If you get rid of the reaction time and finally fix brake lag, then the truck may well have an advantage in stopping, especially at lower speeds. In a realistic braking situation, where the driver in front doesn't just slam on the brakes full as soon as he pulls in front, the automated trucks will probably have a huge advantage. Plus they don't get tired and inattentive.
Well, that's irrelevant. And also wrong: regular silicone generally has a density of 1.1 - 2 or so and brick is even more dense, so no, a brick won't float no matter how much silicone you coat it with.
No, you don't. Despite the geek mythos, programming is not some wunderskill that only the genetically gifted can learn. If you're willing to put in the effort, you'll learn, just like anything else.
Mostly that's true, although you should also be careful of being potentially black.
I'm clearly not black, yet I apparently share a name with some kind of international badass who is. I had a border guard ask me if I was pulling a Michael Jackson on them once, after a dozen of them hauled me off at gunpoint. I'd hate to think what might have happened had I actually been black.
Slashdot Mirror
Pharmacists are trained to know about medications: that's the major reason why physicians can't usually dispense drugs directly.
Physicians are (or should be) well trained to practice medicine. They're good at diagnosing individual patients, choosing treatments, and monitoring progress. They're invaluable collaborators in medical research because they have direct contact with the patients, and they're the ones who you hope are ultimately going to be applying any advances. But an MD doesn't involve the necessary training to do science. Unfortunately society has confused the two.
I'm a medical scientist. It would be ridiculous, not to mention illegal, for me to diagnose and treat patients. I simply don't have the training. But it's equally ridiculous, though unfortunately not illegal, for an MD (absent specific scientific training like an earned PhD) to design, conduct and analyze a proper experiment. Yet major research grants today tend to go to MDs and it's getting extremely difficult to get a faculty job in medical research without an MD.
Interesting I like the hidden scroll bars. They free up some extra screen space and it's been years since I actually wanted to click on one. Using a trackpad or a mouse that has any sort of two axis scrolling interface makes them superfluous.
In medical research, the problem is that most of it is run by amateurs. Medical doctors receive somewhere between no and very little scientific education, and conduct research in their spare time while not treating patients, yet in North America an MD is considered not only sufficient, but actually desirable for a "clinician scientist." There are some excellent scientists who also hold MDs, but it's secondary to their scientific training. Clinicians have very creative ideas about how to do science.
Half? In many fields (like medical research) it's essentially all, and there's no "at some point." Many places offer one or two year starting faculty appointments, at the end of which you're expected to have a major grant (success rate is somewhere around 10% on those). So you better get busy writing applications. Once you're established, you better keep writing them, because now you've got a lab full of people depending on you for their livelihood.
https://scholar.google.ca/scho...
I agree though, the world would be a better place if journalists writing pieces on science were expected to provide references.
Sure. Except that extracting them and tossing them in a fluidic vortex to untangle them will kill you.
Go to a library.
If you drop the (US), then quite often. In Canada the maximum punishment for a provincial crime is two years less a day. Anything more serious than that is federal.
It's true in that those universal statements aren't universally true. Grass isn't green in the winter here, it's brown. The sky is blue outside my window currently, but yesterday it was gray. There's an awful lot of water around here that isn't wet during the winter.
The Russians tried to send a sample return mission to Phobos. It failed to get out of Earth orbit. Eventually we'll probably do that though.
The impact hypothesis nicely explains why the moon is less dense than Earth: the impact preferentially threw up light elements from the crust and upper mantle, not heavy elements that would have sunk to the core. The densities of Phobos and Deimos are also less than that of Mars, but because they're so small, and are probably more like orbiting gravel piles, their densities are also consistent with small asteroids.
"many of the planets have orbits that are very near circular, but we do not interpret their existence in a similar fashion."
We do actually. It's pretty well accepted that the planets around the sun coalesced from a protoplanetary disc surrounding the young sun. The impact hypothesis for moon formation is similar: a big impact causes debris to be thrown into an orbiting disc around the planet and one or more moons then coalesce out of it. The alternative, capture of a separately orbiting body, isn't seriously considered for the origin of the planets.
See my third paragraph. You're implicitly buying into the myth that people losing their jobs to automation makes the economy poorer. The opposite happens: there's more wealth. Even if a significant number of people lose their jobs and don't get new jobs (or get crappy ones), that loss is more than made up by someone (or everyone) else having more money. There are always customers. The decision whether it's a few super rich people being waited on hand and foot and some people working as gladiators in the entertainment arenas (reality television) or a more equitable distribution, such as in Switzerland where everyone is guaranteed a minimum income, is a political problem that will be solved one way or another. The free market is quite capable of sorting it out by itself, but that way is almost sure to be a lot nastier, probably involving food riots and rich people lined up against walls.
Sure, a truck going the same speed as a car can have the brakes fail completely, or the driver have a heart attack too, then it can take twice, three times, or arbitrarily longer to stop than a car. Or vice versa. Sorry, I assumed you were trying to say something relevant.
I quite pointedly said that things are somewhat more complicated with real vehicles than the simple physics analysis of locked wheels. It's not my theory, it's basic physics (which you claimed did not support my original post), and also the formula that most police forces use to estimate (note, estimate) the speed of vehicles involved in collisions.
You are completely ignoring the fact that, as I posted, US regulations require trucks be able to stop in much less than twice the distance cars can, and test results that indicate most (well maintained) trucks can stop quite a bit better than required. In real life, as is demonstrated in transport safety statistics, large trucks are quite frequently poorly maintained and so their stopping distances may well be longer.
Sure you can. Right up until 100% of us work in service. The majority of us already do, mostly selling each other stuff.
Personally I hope it really does get to the point where people realize how ridiculous it is and we all cut back on how much we work.
The issue of wealth distribution is an entirely different matter, and it's much more of a problem in the US than in any other modern economy. It's not a hard problem to solve technically, although prevailing attitudes in the US seem to make it quite difficult. Technology and automation make economies more efficient and the countries who own them richer. Replacing truck drivers will reduce the price of virtually everything, for everybody. It's a political decision whether you want that increased wealth to go to a few people who don't need it, leaving everyone else poor, or to be spread more equitably.
Friction force is a function of the coefficient of friction times the downward force. The simple physics interpretation says that the stopping distance is independent of the "amount of rubber per pound":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...
In practice, particularly with anti-lock brakes, the situation is a bit more complicated, but it shouldn't be as bad as double. I notice that you've chosen the "truck with hot brakes" versus the car, presumably with cool brakes, for your comparison. That's not only not a fair comparison, riding around in emergency braking situations with hot brakes all the time is the result of either poor maintenance or poor driving.
Note that US federal regulations require large trucks to stop in considerably less than twice the distance of passenger cars (or even motor bikes), and that tested trucks average quite a bit better than that maximum: http://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA....
So if a truck does take twice the distance of a car, it may literally be criminally poorly maintained.
History disagrees with most of the things you said. As menial, unskilled and repetitive jobs get eliminated, the service industry grows. Fast food servers have been useless for a long time, but they're very rarely replaced by automation. The enormous service industries that are hallmarks of successful western economies are make work programs because we have this antiquated idea that everyone needs a 40+ hour a week job. Plus, most people like having others serve them.
If there's that much difference in stopping distance then the truck is criminally poorly maintained. If you get rid of the reaction time and finally fix brake lag, then the truck may well have an advantage in stopping, especially at lower speeds. In a realistic braking situation, where the driver in front doesn't just slam on the brakes full as soon as he pulls in front, the automated trucks will probably have a huge advantage. Plus they don't get tired and inattentive.
The Christian bible has lots of injunctions against idol worship and graven images too.
It was too high. It was reaching for heaven. God is a jealous god.
Well, that's irrelevant. And also wrong: regular silicone generally has a density of 1.1 - 2 or so and brick is even more dense, so no, a brick won't float no matter how much silicone you coat it with.
No, you don't. Despite the geek mythos, programming is not some wunderskill that only the genetically gifted can learn. If you're willing to put in the effort, you'll learn, just like anything else.
Sensitivity and specificity or it didn't happen.
Mostly that's true, although you should also be careful of being potentially black.
I'm clearly not black, yet I apparently share a name with some kind of international badass who is. I had a border guard ask me if I was pulling a Michael Jackson on them once, after a dozen of them hauled me off at gunpoint. I'd hate to think what might have happened had I actually been black.
Ah, Stockholm syndrome.