You can get high-quality used cameras for previous-gen technologies for pretty cheap, though, which is why lots of indie films shoot on things like Super 16. There are also places that will rent equipment, including some indie-filmmaker organizations that acquire equipment for their own members' use.
One of my favorite recent films, Primer, had a $7000 total budget.
That isn't really the case in practice, though. Most people who claim they have no surname have something that functions close enough to one for computer use. For example, Icelanders use their patronymic in that box.
You can't "just use Unicode" and do no validation, though, unless you're perfectly fine with all sorts of bidi control characters showing up random places, or nonprintable characters causing two different names to look identical, etc., etc.
I doubt there's code that specifically blacklists numbers. Safe practice is to whitelist "known good", not to blacklist "known bad", so it's probably just a system with a very conservative whitelist. I agree there'd be no real harm in expanding the whitelisted character ranges somewhat, but it's still something you have to write; you can't reasonably get away with doing no validation at all.
And yes, I would say that if someone can't invent something to put in a "family name or surname" field, then too bad. They would also find themselves unable to travel to most countries, since most countries' immigration forms have such a box (and Icelanders in particular do not have a problem filling out such forms correctly).
Most Chinese emigrants to countries that use a Roman alphabet are perfectly capable of writing their name in Roman characters if they need to. If they weren't, they wouldn't have been able to get visas and get into the country in the first place.
He's essentially arguing that, because names vary a lot and are complex, your software should never do anything useful with them. Sorry, but that's a stupid answer. In a lot of systems, being able to sort by surname may well be more important than being able to handle people who claim they have no surname.
Of course, you shouldn't gratuitously do stupid things, and interfaces should aim to be relatively clear. But most people can figure out how to enter their names into relatively standardized forms, and those that don't should probably figure out how.
Well, they had a huge installed base, and while it's been declining since 2002, it's from a large peak and not all that high a slope. That's provided a ton of revenue over the years to let them survive these unsuccessful forays into other businesses.
They still have about 5 million paying subscribers. And they've actually increased the profitability per-subscriber compared to their heyday, because while in the late 90s / early 2000s they sold them dialup access (and had to maintain modems/etc.), these days they're mostly selling an add-on service on top of broadband internet access that customers get elsewhere. People for years would pay $10/mo basically to keep their email address that they'd had for years, or the software they were used to using (a lot of AOL users aren't that tech-savvy). Now you can actually get the software and email/etc. free, but you have to go click on something to request a transition to the free service (which is identical but w/o tech support), so several million people are totally voluntarily paying AOL $120/yr, for a service that also makes a good amount of money by showing them ads.
Being half-Greek, I think you'll find that Greece's bankruptcy has more to do with being Greece than with being socialist. It's not even particularly socialist in practice. There's a huge private sector that pays effectively 0% taxes, and even the officially free health care in practice operates as quasi-private--- doctors work 2nd private practices outside their official jobs, and they uh, strongly suggest that you make an appointment with that one rather than with the free one. Oh, and they don't pay taxes on those private practices, either (cash-only payments, no receipts, no reporting).
If Greece were more like Sweden, where rich people actually pay taxes, public services that are officially provided are actually provided, etc., its budget, and the country in general, would be in better shape.
The proposal to draft some rules is now official. The rules themselves will now be drafted by a committee, and then the committee will present them to the legislature, which may then in the future enact them. The proposal is indeed promising, as is the strong (unanimous) support for tasking the committee with fleshing it out, but what exactly the committee will come back with could vary quite a bit.
It also often costs more and is less upgradable, though. These days Linux's software RAID, for example, beats out hardware RAID in a lot of ways (except on the high end).
In this case it's essentially an accident of servers that it was in the US, though. It's not like with two-country wiretaps, where say a UK resident is on the phone with an American resident; here you could have two UK residents talking to each other, which now the FBI can eavesdrop on, because the pipe between them is routed through the US.
Actually, are there any laws from the phone era on transit traffic? If a UK resident is talking to a Japanese resident, and it got routed through the US somehow due to some combination of undersea cables, could the US eavesdrop on it?
That was suggested back in 1970--- that cloud seeding experiments need to consider the possibility that the plane's flight itself is doing the seeding.
Well, there's a feeling (perhaps wrong?) that the U.S. is declining in science, and not enough people are going into it. People seem to mainly blame education for failing to motivate kids to go into science, or failing to teach science well enough. But I think the article's right that it's the demand side that's the problem: kids aren't going into science because the career options don't look appealing, not because K-12 education isn't pushing science hard enough.
If you don't think we need more scientists, that's a legitimate opinion too. The article is mainly addressing people who think we do need more scientists, though. And for those people, I think the point is correct: if you want more scientists, you have to create more science jobs that people actually want.
I guess I'd like to see some sort of data on it, at least. Do companies that pay their salesmen more get better sales outcomes? The studies I've seen for executives point to "no": CEO pay has basically no correlation with company performance. Sales could well be different, but I'm not sure I'd believe it is without some convincing!
"Arbitrarily far" means that there isn't a bound on how far it can be. Simply saying that two things are not always identical isn't the same as saying that they can differ by an unbounded ("arbitrarily large") amount; the 2nd is an additional, stronger claim.
In nominal terms, it's rare for there to be an absolute bound, yes. But it's not always the case that anything that can diverge can diverge arbitrarily far in relative terms.
I was looking at subsection (d): "...a copy, made from the collection of a library or archives where the user makes his or her request or from that of another library or archives, of no more than one article or other contribution to a copyrighted collection or periodical issue...".
I've looked into that (I'm a PhD student just about finishing up), but they don't actually seem to offer that level of job security and research freedom. The ones I've looked into mainly are working on large pre-existing projects, and you're expected to work on one of those projects, not pursue your own independent research agenda. Often the funding and requirements come from outside the lab itself, e.g. a big DARPA or DoD project that the lab is getting $10m/yr to work on. Many of the research positions currently being advertised are "soft money" positions as well, meaning you're expected to bring in enough of those kinds of grants to fund your own salary.
It doesn't just "receive support from the State of Georgia", but is literally part of the State of Georgia's government. Its employees are State of Georgia employees, its land and buildings are owned by the State, and its policies are overseen by the Georgia Board of Regents, a body of the state government whose members are appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the state Senate.
In this case, the subsequent section adds another potential defense. It explicitly authorizes libraries to make single copies of copyrighted works and give them to users who request them, subject to some requirements like plastering prominent copyright notices on the copies. I've used it before to get a copy of a journal article through inter-library loan: my library didn't subscribe to the journal I needed, but through ILL, they asked a library who did to scan it, and then forwarded me the PDF.
The practice in this case arguably falls afoul of that by fulfilling the request for multiple students at the same time, though. One wonders if it'd be okay if each of the students separately asked for a PDF of the relevant articles, and the library fulfilled each request individually.
I actually think availability of jobs and working conditions have more to do with it than levels of pay. Most good scientists I know are not the sort of people who would jump jobs for cash, at least past some decent level of "living comfortably" pay. They're much more interested in: can I get a job which will let me pursue my research agenda with a minimum of bullshit, while also paying enough that I don't have to take side jobs to support my family?
I think if there were a bunch of scientific research jobs that paid $80-$100k but came with good job security and gave you research independence (i.e. unlike a post-doc or research scientist, who typically has relatively little independence from the P.I. they're working for), there would be a steady stream of people interested in them. Something like the old Bell Lab jobs, say: they paid good but not amazing salaries, but had good job security and a high degree of research freedom.
Re:One of the most un-American things I've ever re
on
The Real Science Gap
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I don't read the article as focusing on any individual's entitlement to a "science job", but on the more general societal issue. A lot of people, rightly or wrongly, feel that the U.S. is falling behind in scientific research, and that this should be fixed. Many people with such views point to education as the root of the problem: they argue that the U.S. is falling behind in scientific research because our schools are not keeping up, either in quality of science education, or in their ability to motivate kids to be excited about science, or both.
The article is arguing that the diagnosis is incorrect: people are not going into science because there aren't good jobs in science, not because of a failing on the part of schools. Of course, if you think the number of scientists and level of scientific research we currently have is fine, then it isn't a problem to begin with. But the article's arguing that if you're one of the people who thinks U.S. science is declining and should be fixed, then you should look at lack of appealing careers, not at problems with schools, as the root cause.
Slashdot Mirror
You can get high-quality used cameras for previous-gen technologies for pretty cheap, though, which is why lots of indie films shoot on things like Super 16. There are also places that will rent equipment, including some indie-filmmaker organizations that acquire equipment for their own members' use.
One of my favorite recent films, Primer , had a $7000 total budget.
That isn't really the case in practice, though. Most people who claim they have no surname have something that functions close enough to one for computer use. For example, Icelanders use their patronymic in that box.
You can't "just use Unicode" and do no validation, though, unless you're perfectly fine with all sorts of bidi control characters showing up random places, or nonprintable characters causing two different names to look identical, etc., etc.
I doubt there's code that specifically blacklists numbers. Safe practice is to whitelist "known good", not to blacklist "known bad", so it's probably just a system with a very conservative whitelist. I agree there'd be no real harm in expanding the whitelisted character ranges somewhat, but it's still something you have to write; you can't reasonably get away with doing no validation at all.
And yes, I would say that if someone can't invent something to put in a "family name or surname" field, then too bad. They would also find themselves unable to travel to most countries, since most countries' immigration forms have such a box (and Icelanders in particular do not have a problem filling out such forms correctly).
Most Chinese emigrants to countries that use a Roman alphabet are perfectly capable of writing their name in Roman characters if they need to. If they weren't, they wouldn't have been able to get visas and get into the country in the first place.
He's essentially arguing that, because names vary a lot and are complex, your software should never do anything useful with them. Sorry, but that's a stupid answer. In a lot of systems, being able to sort by surname may well be more important than being able to handle people who claim they have no surname.
Of course, you shouldn't gratuitously do stupid things, and interfaces should aim to be relatively clear. But most people can figure out how to enter their names into relatively standardized forms, and those that don't should probably figure out how.
Fortunately for programmers, she doesn't exist.
What I want to know is: if you flooded the moon with as many great lakes as there are books in the LoC, to what depth would the flood waters rise?
Well, they had a huge installed base, and while it's been declining since 2002, it's from a large peak and not all that high a slope. That's provided a ton of revenue over the years to let them survive these unsuccessful forays into other businesses.
They still have about 5 million paying subscribers. And they've actually increased the profitability per-subscriber compared to their heyday, because while in the late 90s / early 2000s they sold them dialup access (and had to maintain modems/etc.), these days they're mostly selling an add-on service on top of broadband internet access that customers get elsewhere. People for years would pay $10/mo basically to keep their email address that they'd had for years, or the software they were used to using (a lot of AOL users aren't that tech-savvy). Now you can actually get the software and email/etc. free, but you have to go click on something to request a transition to the free service (which is identical but w/o tech support), so several million people are totally voluntarily paying AOL $120/yr, for a service that also makes a good amount of money by showing them ads.
The first place I ran across a mention of Bebo was in this song, which probably isn't a good sign...
Being half-Greek, I think you'll find that Greece's bankruptcy has more to do with being Greece than with being socialist. It's not even particularly socialist in practice. There's a huge private sector that pays effectively 0% taxes, and even the officially free health care in practice operates as quasi-private--- doctors work 2nd private practices outside their official jobs, and they uh, strongly suggest that you make an appointment with that one rather than with the free one. Oh, and they don't pay taxes on those private practices, either (cash-only payments, no receipts, no reporting).
If Greece were more like Sweden, where rich people actually pay taxes, public services that are officially provided are actually provided, etc., its budget, and the country in general, would be in better shape.
The proposal to draft some rules is now official. The rules themselves will now be drafted by a committee, and then the committee will present them to the legislature, which may then in the future enact them. The proposal is indeed promising, as is the strong (unanimous) support for tasking the committee with fleshing it out, but what exactly the committee will come back with could vary quite a bit.
Next up I suppose you're going to complain about how Legos don't force you to learn proper civil engineering before building things?
It also often costs more and is less upgradable, though. These days Linux's software RAID, for example, beats out hardware RAID in a lot of ways (except on the high end).
In this case it's essentially an accident of servers that it was in the US, though. It's not like with two-country wiretaps, where say a UK resident is on the phone with an American resident; here you could have two UK residents talking to each other, which now the FBI can eavesdrop on, because the pipe between them is routed through the US.
Actually, are there any laws from the phone era on transit traffic? If a UK resident is talking to a Japanese resident, and it got routed through the US somehow due to some combination of undersea cables, could the US eavesdrop on it?
That was suggested back in 1970--- that cloud seeding experiments need to consider the possibility that the plane's flight itself is doing the seeding.
Well, there's a feeling (perhaps wrong?) that the U.S. is declining in science, and not enough people are going into it. People seem to mainly blame education for failing to motivate kids to go into science, or failing to teach science well enough. But I think the article's right that it's the demand side that's the problem: kids aren't going into science because the career options don't look appealing, not because K-12 education isn't pushing science hard enough.
If you don't think we need more scientists, that's a legitimate opinion too. The article is mainly addressing people who think we do need more scientists, though. And for those people, I think the point is correct: if you want more scientists, you have to create more science jobs that people actually want.
I guess I'd like to see some sort of data on it, at least. Do companies that pay their salesmen more get better sales outcomes? The studies I've seen for executives point to "no": CEO pay has basically no correlation with company performance. Sales could well be different, but I'm not sure I'd believe it is without some convincing!
"Arbitrarily far" means that there isn't a bound on how far it can be. Simply saying that two things are not always identical isn't the same as saying that they can differ by an unbounded ("arbitrarily large") amount; the 2nd is an additional, stronger claim.
In nominal terms, it's rare for there to be an absolute bound, yes. But it's not always the case that anything that can diverge can diverge arbitrarily far in relative terms.
I was looking at subsection (d): "...a copy, made from the collection of a library or archives where the user makes his or her request or from that of another library or archives, of no more than one article or other contribution to a copyrighted collection or periodical issue...".
I've looked into that (I'm a PhD student just about finishing up), but they don't actually seem to offer that level of job security and research freedom. The ones I've looked into mainly are working on large pre-existing projects, and you're expected to work on one of those projects, not pursue your own independent research agenda. Often the funding and requirements come from outside the lab itself, e.g. a big DARPA or DoD project that the lab is getting $10m/yr to work on. Many of the research positions currently being advertised are "soft money" positions as well, meaning you're expected to bring in enough of those kinds of grants to fund your own salary.
It doesn't just "receive support from the State of Georgia", but is literally part of the State of Georgia's government. Its employees are State of Georgia employees, its land and buildings are owned by the State, and its policies are overseen by the Georgia Board of Regents, a body of the state government whose members are appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the state Senate.
In this case, the subsequent section adds another potential defense. It explicitly authorizes libraries to make single copies of copyrighted works and give them to users who request them, subject to some requirements like plastering prominent copyright notices on the copies. I've used it before to get a copy of a journal article through inter-library loan: my library didn't subscribe to the journal I needed, but through ILL, they asked a library who did to scan it, and then forwarded me the PDF.
The practice in this case arguably falls afoul of that by fulfilling the request for multiple students at the same time, though. One wonders if it'd be okay if each of the students separately asked for a PDF of the relevant articles, and the library fulfilled each request individually.
I actually think availability of jobs and working conditions have more to do with it than levels of pay. Most good scientists I know are not the sort of people who would jump jobs for cash, at least past some decent level of "living comfortably" pay. They're much more interested in: can I get a job which will let me pursue my research agenda with a minimum of bullshit, while also paying enough that I don't have to take side jobs to support my family?
I think if there were a bunch of scientific research jobs that paid $80-$100k but came with good job security and gave you research independence (i.e. unlike a post-doc or research scientist, who typically has relatively little independence from the P.I. they're working for), there would be a steady stream of people interested in them. Something like the old Bell Lab jobs, say: they paid good but not amazing salaries, but had good job security and a high degree of research freedom.
I don't read the article as focusing on any individual's entitlement to a "science job", but on the more general societal issue. A lot of people, rightly or wrongly, feel that the U.S. is falling behind in scientific research, and that this should be fixed. Many people with such views point to education as the root of the problem: they argue that the U.S. is falling behind in scientific research because our schools are not keeping up, either in quality of science education, or in their ability to motivate kids to be excited about science, or both.
The article is arguing that the diagnosis is incorrect: people are not going into science because there aren't good jobs in science, not because of a failing on the part of schools. Of course, if you think the number of scientists and level of scientific research we currently have is fine, then it isn't a problem to begin with. But the article's arguing that if you're one of the people who thinks U.S. science is declining and should be fixed, then you should look at lack of appealing careers, not at problems with schools, as the root cause.