Funny, my class was never encouraged to copy texts. And in elementary school we were specifically taken to the library and taught how to do research, then close all the books and write in our own words.
There are cultures where plagiarism isn't necessarily bad. I've come across some people who genuinely don't understand plagiarism, even in grad school. I didn't think the US was one of those places though.
It seems odd that the UK would put that much effort into hunting down a bail jumper. Particularly a bail jumper who isn't wanted on UK charges. And why is Sweden so adamant that he be returned, sending demands to the UK, if he's only wanted for a minor crime and is likely to not even be charged?
Assange seems to be a bit of a jerk, but there also seems to be something fishy going on. A lot of resources are being spent to get Assange into a position where he can be extradited to the US. And the US doesn't have a particularly good track record at the moment for fair trials, due process and human rights where foreigners they don't like are concerned.
Severe West Nile is treated with supportive care. It makes a tremendous difference to survival rates and, since you're hospitalized, potentially for quite a while, it's probably fairly expensive in the US.
I used to do that, on my regularly listed land line. Once my roommate was practicing cello when I set down the phone. A little while later it rang. It was the same telemarketer who had hung up and called back. He opened with complimenting the cellist. I said thank you, I'll tell her, and hung up.
"Some of that money is used to offset the cost of maintaining your line. Without that revenue stream they need to add a fee in order for you to be a profitable customer."
I agreed with you up to there. I strongly suspect that selling your information makes you a more profitable customer. An easy experiment would be for a Verizon subscriber to call up, ask to have his number unlisted, refuse to pay the fee, and go through the process of disconnecting his line. If customer retention decides to "do him a special favour" before he's actually disconnected, Verizon is profiting even without selling his number.
But supposing it IS the sun and it does affect carbon, the output of the sun is pretty stable on the timescale that carbon dating is used, and carbon dating is already calibrated to other dating standards because the ratio of carbon isotopes in the air changes.
Also, one of their explanations for why nobody else seems to be able to measure these changes in decay rate are that it only affects certain atoms... the ones they happen to be measuring.
They measured radon decay (which dispenses with the explanation that not all isotopes are the same) over twenty years. They saw a seasonal variation, just like Jenkins does. But when they measured the ratio of radon decay with europium decay, the variation went away. It turned out their detector also had a seasonal variation.
The paper cited in the summary shows they do have a seasonal variation in line voltage to their experimental apparatus. They hand wave that away, but if there's that much variation in something as simple as the power supply to their instruments, what else might they not be controlling?
You haven't been following it very well then. There are other datasets that don't show the variation Jenkins et al see. Plus their habit of writing papers that don't include any statistics OR error bars means their hypothesis (it's definitely not a theory - they don't offer any explanatory or predictive ability at all) is poorly supported in the first place.
The overall conclusion is "extraordinary claims, particularly those in opposition to both theory AND many other experiments, require extraordinary evidence. Or at least ordinary evidence."
Not to mention that reliably detecting seasonal variation requires several years.
IF the rate of radioactive decay changes with flare activity, which seems unlikely, then the rate we use for carbon dating is the average, which will work just fine over any reasonable timespan. Plus the effect is extremely small.
Cleaning water to drinking standard, then cleaning sewage to dumping-in-the-river standard require time, land, energy and chemicals, even if the water does go back where it came from (mostly) eventually. I many places in the world they simply don't have the water or infrastructure to distribute it, so there isn't any flushing anyway.
It seems to me the right people are currently paying for replication. If a drug company wants to use some results, they replicate them first. The drug company SHOULD pay for that study. If someone else in academia is interested in using a result, they replicate it first.
The problem seems to be that people, including most researchers, put entirely too much faith in individual studies.
Well, that is already part of the previous problem, also since long.
Very few journals have been publishing "contradictory results", unless "seriously warranted", or something along those lines.
I've never run into that. What usually happens is that researchers don't produce contradictory results, they produce inconclusive ones. As it is, lots of inconclusive studies get published with discussions and conclusions that imply they are negative findings.
Yes, this is curious. Why would the original authors be credited, again?
They paid for it. Perhaps the confirmers will also get their names on the paper.
Do we have any suggestions for any major research bogus research producers?
They don't have a row of permanent icons along the bottom and a four by four grid of icons above that though. Nor do they meet any of the several other claims. Nor are they easily confused with the iPhone or iPad, which is what the trade dress part of the suit requires.
Why? Because he scored an exclusive on a platform that everybody has known is dying for years? Because his efforts to secure that exclusive hastened the death of Flash by making it run only on some phones and a tablet that very few people own?
A postdoc is a holding pattern. It's a place to sit and do research which MAY get you into a professor spot. The pay is crap ($50-60k? Try 35-45k unless you're very, very lucky). Most postdocs last longer than two years. You might spend two years at one institution then move on to another, and another, and another, but ten year postdocs are not unusual.
The exception is if you're doing a postdoc and looking for an industry job. In that case, the postdoc is a way to eat while you're job hunting.
It depends where you are. A thesis based masters in Canada is generally treated as a mini PhD. Technically it doesn't have the same requirement (advance the state of human knowledge) but generally that's expected anyway.
As a masters student I did five courses (split over two semesters to leave lots of time for research) then spent the rest of the time doing research, before transferring into a PhD, where I had to take two more courses. My supervisor required that his masters students have at least one paper that was at least reasonable to submit for publication before they were ready to defend.
In Canada my old university required graduate students be paid $17,500/year. My lab bumped that up to $20k. I've heard raw stipends in the US are frequently worse.
On the other hand, if you're good and get top level scholarships, you can more than triple that. It's competitive though.
Slashdot Mirror
Funny, my class was never encouraged to copy texts. And in elementary school we were specifically taken to the library and taught how to do research, then close all the books and write in our own words.
There are cultures where plagiarism isn't necessarily bad. I've come across some people who genuinely don't understand plagiarism, even in grad school. I didn't think the US was one of those places though.
Many countries extradite to the US all the time, under the condition that the death penalty isn't used.
I doubt the US wants to execute Assange. I also doubt they want him to actually reach US soil.
"Other then the crazy comments our Representatives and Senators spew out every once in a while"
You mean those guys who are in charge of your country?
It seems odd that the UK would put that much effort into hunting down a bail jumper. Particularly a bail jumper who isn't wanted on UK charges. And why is Sweden so adamant that he be returned, sending demands to the UK, if he's only wanted for a minor crime and is likely to not even be charged?
Assange seems to be a bit of a jerk, but there also seems to be something fishy going on. A lot of resources are being spent to get Assange into a position where he can be extradited to the US. And the US doesn't have a particularly good track record at the moment for fair trials, due process and human rights where foreigners they don't like are concerned.
Severe West Nile is treated with supportive care. It makes a tremendous difference to survival rates and, since you're hospitalized, potentially for quite a while, it's probably fairly expensive in the US.
I used to do that, on my regularly listed land line. Once my roommate was practicing cello when I set down the phone. A little while later it rang. It was the same telemarketer who had hung up and called back. He opened with complimenting the cellist. I said thank you, I'll tell her, and hung up.
"Some of that money is used to offset the cost of maintaining your line. Without that revenue stream they need to add a fee in order for you to be a profitable customer."
I agreed with you up to there. I strongly suspect that selling your information makes you a more profitable customer. An easy experiment would be for a Verizon subscriber to call up, ask to have his number unlisted, refuse to pay the fee, and go through the process of disconnecting his line. If customer retention decides to "do him a special favour" before he's actually disconnected, Verizon is profiting even without selling his number.
Actually, the suspected source is their detector.
But supposing it IS the sun and it does affect carbon, the output of the sun is pretty stable on the timescale that carbon dating is used, and carbon dating is already calibrated to other dating standards because the ratio of carbon isotopes in the air changes.
Also, one of their explanations for why nobody else seems to be able to measure these changes in decay rate are that it only affects certain atoms... the ones they happen to be measuring.
PS - the arxiv equivalent of a rickroll:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0707.1618.pdf
One of the references from that preprint is particularly enlightening:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0969804397100823
They measured radon decay (which dispenses with the explanation that not all isotopes are the same) over twenty years. They saw a seasonal variation, just like Jenkins does. But when they measured the ratio of radon decay with europium decay, the variation went away. It turned out their detector also had a seasonal variation.
The paper cited in the summary shows they do have a seasonal variation in line voltage to their experimental apparatus. They hand wave that away, but if there's that much variation in something as simple as the power supply to their instruments, what else might they not be controlling?
He doesn't have evidence, or at least he hasn't presented it. His papers don't have any stats, or even error bars.
The paper has zero statistics, and zero error bars. I'm not sure how it got published in a peer reviewed journal.
You haven't been following it very well then. There are other datasets that don't show the variation Jenkins et al see. Plus their habit of writing papers that don't include any statistics OR error bars means their hypothesis (it's definitely not a theory - they don't offer any explanatory or predictive ability at all) is poorly supported in the first place.
The overall conclusion is "extraordinary claims, particularly those in opposition to both theory AND many other experiments, require extraordinary evidence. Or at least ordinary evidence."
Not to mention that reliably detecting seasonal variation requires several years.
IF the rate of radioactive decay changes with flare activity, which seems unlikely, then the rate we use for carbon dating is the average, which will work just fine over any reasonable timespan. Plus the effect is extremely small.
Cleaning water to drinking standard, then cleaning sewage to dumping-in-the-river standard require time, land, energy and chemicals, even if the water does go back where it came from (mostly) eventually. I many places in the world they simply don't have the water or infrastructure to distribute it, so there isn't any flushing anyway.
One of the references attached to that article is hilarious: http://www.asecular.com/~scott/misc/toilet.htm
It seems to me the right people are currently paying for replication. If a drug company wants to use some results, they replicate them first. The drug company SHOULD pay for that study. If someone else in academia is interested in using a result, they replicate it first.
The problem seems to be that people, including most researchers, put entirely too much faith in individual studies.
I've never run into that. What usually happens is that researchers don't produce contradictory results, they produce inconclusive ones. As it is, lots of inconclusive studies get published with discussions and conclusions that imply they are negative findings.
They paid for it. Perhaps the confirmers will also get their names on the paper.
http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/
They don't have a row of permanent icons along the bottom and a four by four grid of icons above that though. Nor do they meet any of the several other claims. Nor are they easily confused with the iPhone or iPad, which is what the trade dress part of the suit requires.
Why? Because he scored an exclusive on a platform that everybody has known is dying for years? Because his efforts to secure that exclusive hastened the death of Flash by making it run only on some phones and a tablet that very few people own?
I've yet to see a flash player that works nearly as fast as a native video player too.
Nuh uh.
A postdoc is a holding pattern. It's a place to sit and do research which MAY get you into a professor spot. The pay is crap ($50-60k? Try 35-45k unless you're very, very lucky). Most postdocs last longer than two years. You might spend two years at one institution then move on to another, and another, and another, but ten year postdocs are not unusual.
The exception is if you're doing a postdoc and looking for an industry job. In that case, the postdoc is a way to eat while you're job hunting.
It depends where you are. A thesis based masters in Canada is generally treated as a mini PhD. Technically it doesn't have the same requirement (advance the state of human knowledge) but generally that's expected anyway.
As a masters student I did five courses (split over two semesters to leave lots of time for research) then spent the rest of the time doing research, before transferring into a PhD, where I had to take two more courses. My supervisor required that his masters students have at least one paper that was at least reasonable to submit for publication before they were ready to defend.
In Canada my old university required graduate students be paid $17,500/year. My lab bumped that up to $20k. I've heard raw stipends in the US are frequently worse.
On the other hand, if you're good and get top level scholarships, you can more than triple that. It's competitive though.