Yeah--- interestingly, I've found that many of the people who themselves have Science or Nature papers have this view too. If their research is genuinely high-quality and novel in their own area, they'll often publish a second journal article specifically on the underlying technical component in a journal in their field, and that's often the one they'll cite when doing a self-cite. Now if you have that: a journal article in a top journal in your field for within-field cred, plus a high-profile article in the general-science journal for external PR, you're looking good to pretty much all relevant audiences.
Not all areas have pay-to-play open-access journals. In my area, JAIR and JMLR are probably the two most prestigious journals (not just most prestigious open-access journals, but most prestigious period), and they're both entirely open access and entirely free of publication fees.
That justification seems slightly strange. They're arguing that it's "entirely untrue" that NPG is increasing its prices by large amounts, and argue that instead, NPG is simply reducing its discount by large amounts. But that ends up producing the same effect, no?
Depends on what area you're in. In machine learning / AI (my area), having a paper in Nature gives you huge cred with some audiences, but will get you extra scrutiny from other audiences, because there's a big trend of people with relatively crappy ML research gussying it up with some sexy applications (usually bio-related) and then publishing it in a general-readership science journal like Nature or Science in order to avoid the kind of scrutiny it'd get if they tried to publish in an actual ML or Statistics journal.
It's becoming increasingly anachronistic that a for-profit company should: 1) get their main product (the papers, in this case) produced for free by third parties who are not given any cut of the revenues; 2) have much of the intellectual work of reviewing and editing the papers also done for free by third parties; and then 3) lock up the result behind a paywall to maximize revenues, which go to people who had comparatively minor roles in actually producing the product being sold.
Funnily enough, my anecdotal experience is that the people most offended by not having their title used are the ones likely to actually deserve the respect it's supposed to connote.
The most brilliant PhD researchers I know generally ask people to call them by their first name, and don't even really like being called "Dr. So-and-so". The ones who sign every email "Dr. So-and-so, PhD", and parade it around, are usually status-conscious careerists who are not very good researchers.
Umm, it's simply not true that there is "no state ownership of industry" in Scandinavia. Many of the strategic industries, like power and energy, are state-owned; for example, Norway's state oil company owns almost all the oil facilities.
On the last point, dug up the original article, and apparently they chose the top 20 fields by number of graduates per year. So I guess physics and chem aren't in the top-20...
Is it? According to this data, psychology, definitely a soft science, is the least religious field of all. Business-ish fields dominate the most-religious end of the charts (accounting, finance, marketing, economics). Art seems to be the most religious of the humanities, while PoliSci, English, and History are all less religious than Electrical Engineering.
I think to a large extent this isn't a science effect so much as an academia effect, though. Scientists are much less religious than the general population, but scientists are also much more likely to holds PhDs than the general population, and PhD-holders are much less likely to be religious. There are quite few evangelical Christian physics professors, but there are also quite few evangelical Christian women's studies professors, or literature professors.
There does seem to be some imbalance, though, in that the proselytizing atheist scientists who have a huge hardon for Richard Dawkins only sometimes get ridiculed to the same extent (though it's growing, even among atheists/agnostics, as the "reddit atheist" crowd gets insufferably annoying).
That's a rather anomalous variety of "running homeless shelters" and "tackling social problems". The UNHCR runs refugee camps, mostly in war zones and former war zones; it doesn't run soup kitchens in Brazil, or generally in any way attempt to improve the lot of poor people in non-warzones.
Most of the members of the "creative class" defined as in the linked article, though, are not really generating new knowledge, nor innovative solutions to difficult problems. I think that's the claim people are objecting to--- the attempt to take a particular segment of jobs, admittedly useful and well-paying ones, and attempt to elevate them with lofty-sounding terms.
The vast majority are solving relatively standard problems in relatively standard ways, porting variations on old solutions to new platforms and technologies, or repetitively solving the same problem in relatively similar ways. In SF, for example, a large portion of what seems to count as the "creative class" are web designers. You pay them, and they make you a website. If you pay them more, a smaller proportion can also do basic webdev as well, e.g. hacking out something SQL-backed. They have skills and are useful, but I'm not sure putting together another website in more or less standard way counts as generation of knowledge or innovatively solving difficult problems. Most web designers and webdevs are making restaurant websites, or optimizing out bottlenecks in someone's db server, not making world-changing inventions.
There's various tricks you can do to decide later, if you have significant content other than the raw HTML page itself, though they do require some server processing. The initial HTML request will be based on DNS, but once the user's hit your servers, you have their IP, so you can rewrite the URLs of embedded content / AJAX requests / whatever, so that they hit a geographically nearby server.
The basic assumption is that population density (of the normal sort) is important. This college-degree density is just (population density) * (proportion of population with college degrees), and as his figures show, the first term ends up being more important in most cases.
Furthermore, even anecdotal evidence doesn't really support him, despite SF coming out at the top of his list. Although there's plenty of "knowledge economy" in SF, it's ultra-sprawl Silicon Valley that's actually where the heart of the action is.
It isn't really "used all over the world", certainly not commonly. France built a big one (Rance) in 1966, which was for years the only big one. There are now a few nearing completion in South Korea. Even when they finish, you'll still be able to count the number of tidal installations producing over 50 MW on one hand.
I think that's actually the sentiment that motivates them. Some people and politicians are worried about Google Street View being used to commit crimes, and since it's not clear there's any defensible way they could go after Street View itself, they hit on the other possibility: go after the people who use it to commit crimes. But of course, that leads to the nonsensical law we have here, where committing the same crimes without Street View is somehow better.
My guess is the reasoning is: Street View makes it easier to commit crimes, which is bad, so some law should cover this. The law in question does nothing to address the root problem, but hey, gotta pass something.
To be fair, it does appear to be related: Adobe built this app in Flash for Wired, intending to use the beta CS5's iPhone compilation. Once Apple banned that, they did a fairly hasty port, which appears to still use some sort of auto-compilation from InDesign.
Though the name's confusing, a "relief well" isn't a separate well into the original reservoir that can be put into production. It's a well that's drilled at at an angle, calculated to intercept the bore of the original well somewhere in the rock above the reservoir. If it intercepts it, pressure gets diverted up through the new well, which is presumably under control, and then a bunch of heavy mud is pumped in to plug it up.
Yes, but even the GPL v2 says that other people can't attempt to add licensing terms that prevent you from redistributing GPL'd software, and Apple's app store does exactly that through its EULA. The Tivo case is okay under GPLv2 because, although it tries to stop reuse through technical means, it doesn't add any objectionable license terms.
I was in Atlanta when freezing rain was predicted once, and the city's response was to: park ambulances near the overpasses likely to freeze, so they'd be prepositioned to cart off the people injured in the accidents that would likely result. Seems salt trucks were not available in the region.
That's not that big a problem for commercial real-estate that previously housed a tech company, is it? We're not talking about buildings wired for residential use, but buildings that were previously wired for a combination of cube farms and server rooms. The power density is going up, yes, to being basically all "server room", but it's not going up from a super-low baseline. Surely the connections are either adequate or can be upgraded?
There are more total tech employees in Silicon Valley, but I haven't noticed any higher average quality as compared to Boston, Altanta, Austin, Seattle, Portland, or other such places.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah--- interestingly, I've found that many of the people who themselves have Science or Nature papers have this view too. If their research is genuinely high-quality and novel in their own area, they'll often publish a second journal article specifically on the underlying technical component in a journal in their field, and that's often the one they'll cite when doing a self-cite. Now if you have that: a journal article in a top journal in your field for within-field cred, plus a high-profile article in the general-science journal for external PR, you're looking good to pretty much all relevant audiences.
Not all areas have pay-to-play open-access journals. In my area, JAIR and JMLR are probably the two most prestigious journals (not just most prestigious open-access journals, but most prestigious period), and they're both entirely open access and entirely free of publication fees.
That justification seems slightly strange. They're arguing that it's "entirely untrue" that NPG is increasing its prices by large amounts, and argue that instead, NPG is simply reducing its discount by large amounts. But that ends up producing the same effect, no?
Depends on what area you're in. In machine learning / AI (my area), having a paper in Nature gives you huge cred with some audiences, but will get you extra scrutiny from other audiences, because there's a big trend of people with relatively crappy ML research gussying it up with some sexy applications (usually bio-related) and then publishing it in a general-readership science journal like Nature or Science in order to avoid the kind of scrutiny it'd get if they tried to publish in an actual ML or Statistics journal.
It's becoming increasingly anachronistic that a for-profit company should: 1) get their main product (the papers, in this case) produced for free by third parties who are not given any cut of the revenues; 2) have much of the intellectual work of reviewing and editing the papers also done for free by third parties; and then 3) lock up the result behind a paywall to maximize revenues, which go to people who had comparatively minor roles in actually producing the product being sold.
Perhaps if more academics did this sort of thing things would change.
Indeed, the figures don't back him up either. The median age for a car in the United States is 9.2 years.
Funnily enough, my anecdotal experience is that the people most offended by not having their title used are the ones likely to actually deserve the respect it's supposed to connote.
The most brilliant PhD researchers I know generally ask people to call them by their first name, and don't even really like being called "Dr. So-and-so". The ones who sign every email "Dr. So-and-so, PhD", and parade it around, are usually status-conscious careerists who are not very good researchers.
Umm, it's simply not true that there is "no state ownership of industry" in Scandinavia. Many of the strategic industries, like power and energy, are state-owned; for example, Norway's state oil company owns almost all the oil facilities.
On the last point, dug up the original article, and apparently they chose the top 20 fields by number of graduates per year. So I guess physics and chem aren't in the top-20...
Is it? According to this data, psychology, definitely a soft science, is the least religious field of all. Business-ish fields dominate the most-religious end of the charts (accounting, finance, marketing, economics). Art seems to be the most religious of the humanities, while PoliSci, English, and History are all less religious than Electrical Engineering.
I think to a large extent this isn't a science effect so much as an academia effect, though. Scientists are much less religious than the general population, but scientists are also much more likely to holds PhDs than the general population, and PhD-holders are much less likely to be religious. There are quite few evangelical Christian physics professors, but there are also quite few evangelical Christian women's studies professors, or literature professors.
There does seem to be some imbalance, though, in that the proselytizing atheist scientists who have a huge hardon for Richard Dawkins only sometimes get ridiculed to the same extent (though it's growing, even among atheists/agnostics, as the "reddit atheist" crowd gets insufferably annoying).
That's a rather anomalous variety of "running homeless shelters" and "tackling social problems". The UNHCR runs refugee camps, mostly in war zones and former war zones; it doesn't run soup kitchens in Brazil, or generally in any way attempt to improve the lot of poor people in non-warzones.
Most of the members of the "creative class" defined as in the linked article, though, are not really generating new knowledge, nor innovative solutions to difficult problems. I think that's the claim people are objecting to--- the attempt to take a particular segment of jobs, admittedly useful and well-paying ones, and attempt to elevate them with lofty-sounding terms.
The vast majority are solving relatively standard problems in relatively standard ways, porting variations on old solutions to new platforms and technologies, or repetitively solving the same problem in relatively similar ways. In SF, for example, a large portion of what seems to count as the "creative class" are web designers. You pay them, and they make you a website. If you pay them more, a smaller proportion can also do basic webdev as well, e.g. hacking out something SQL-backed. They have skills and are useful, but I'm not sure putting together another website in more or less standard way counts as generation of knowledge or innovatively solving difficult problems. Most web designers and webdevs are making restaurant websites, or optimizing out bottlenecks in someone's db server, not making world-changing inventions.
There's various tricks you can do to decide later, if you have significant content other than the raw HTML page itself, though they do require some server processing. The initial HTML request will be based on DNS, but once the user's hit your servers, you have their IP, so you can rewrite the URLs of embedded content / AJAX requests / whatever, so that they hit a geographically nearby server.
The basic assumption is that population density (of the normal sort) is important. This college-degree density is just (population density) * (proportion of population with college degrees), and as his figures show, the first term ends up being more important in most cases.
Furthermore, even anecdotal evidence doesn't really support him, despite SF coming out at the top of his list. Although there's plenty of "knowledge economy" in SF, it's ultra-sprawl Silicon Valley that's actually where the heart of the action is.
It isn't really "used all over the world", certainly not commonly. France built a big one (Rance) in 1966, which was for years the only big one. There are now a few nearing completion in South Korea. Even when they finish, you'll still be able to count the number of tidal installations producing over 50 MW on one hand.
I think that's actually the sentiment that motivates them. Some people and politicians are worried about Google Street View being used to commit crimes, and since it's not clear there's any defensible way they could go after Street View itself, they hit on the other possibility: go after the people who use it to commit crimes. But of course, that leads to the nonsensical law we have here, where committing the same crimes without Street View is somehow better.
My guess is the reasoning is: Street View makes it easier to commit crimes, which is bad, so some law should cover this. The law in question does nothing to address the root problem, but hey, gotta pass something.
To be fair, it does appear to be related: Adobe built this app in Flash for Wired, intending to use the beta CS5's iPhone compilation. Once Apple banned that, they did a fairly hasty port, which appears to still use some sort of auto-compilation from InDesign.
Though the name's confusing, a "relief well" isn't a separate well into the original reservoir that can be put into production. It's a well that's drilled at at an angle, calculated to intercept the bore of the original well somewhere in the rock above the reservoir. If it intercepts it, pressure gets diverted up through the new well, which is presumably under control, and then a bunch of heavy mud is pumped in to plug it up.
Yes, but even the GPL v2 says that other people can't attempt to add licensing terms that prevent you from redistributing GPL'd software, and Apple's app store does exactly that through its EULA. The Tivo case is okay under GPLv2 because, although it tries to stop reuse through technical means, it doesn't add any objectionable license terms.
Yeah, like anyone's going to believe your retroactive pawning it off on the Brits, you goddamn Belgian.
I was in Atlanta when freezing rain was predicted once, and the city's response was to: park ambulances near the overpasses likely to freeze, so they'd be prepositioned to cart off the people injured in the accidents that would likely result. Seems salt trucks were not available in the region.
That's not that big a problem for commercial real-estate that previously housed a tech company, is it? We're not talking about buildings wired for residential use, but buildings that were previously wired for a combination of cube farms and server rooms. The power density is going up, yes, to being basically all "server room", but it's not going up from a super-low baseline. Surely the connections are either adequate or can be upgraded?
There are more total tech employees in Silicon Valley, but I haven't noticed any higher average quality as compared to Boston, Altanta, Austin, Seattle, Portland, or other such places.