Im a physics staff scientist doing mixed language (c, c++ and fortran mostly) development work. While its for massively parallel implementations actually coding on HPC systems is ridiculous so I always use my macbook pro. I have tried various platforms and have so far come back to this one every time.
As your daughter is starting its probably best to find out what they use on site and get something compatible. Learning a new platform and science and code is a bit much for one starting out.
Peer review filters out the stuff that is obvious crap, stuff that doesn't even fit the form of a proper scientific article. The purpose is not to say that articles are true, but rather to get rid of articles that are obviously wrong.
If the scientists are lying about their data, it's hard for peer review to catch that. That's why reproducibility is important. If it's a result you care about, you can reproduce it.
However in this case, the reviewers at science did indeed complain about aspects of the paper that ended up being part of the faked results http://www.sciencemag.org/cont...:
For the Cell submission, there were concerns about methodology and the lack of supporting evidence for the extraordinary claims, says [stem cell scientist Hans] Schöler, who reviewed the paper and, as is standard practice at Cell, saw the comments of other reviewers for the journal. At Science, according to the 8 May RIKEN investigative committee’s report, one reviewer spotted the problem with lanes being improperly spliced into gel images. “This figure has been reconstructed,” the RIKEN report quotes from the feedback provided by a Science reviewer. The committee writes that the “lane 3” mentioned by the Science reviewer is probably the lane 3 shown in Figure 1i in the Nature article. The investigative committee report says [co-author Haruko] Obokata told the committee that she did not carefully consider the comments of the Science reviewer.
All three Nature reviewers concluded that the data presented in the submitted manuscripts were not enough to support such radical claims. “I would recommend the authors to be extremely cautious in their claims . The authors should look into the actual effect that the treatment elicits in the genome and they should assess genomic instability,” one writes. “There are several issues that I consider should be clarified beyond doubt because of the potential revolutionary nature of the observations,” writes another.
So in the end the editors seemed to just want the sensational paper published and let the community sort it out later.
Retraction watch has a nice compilation about it all
http://retractionwatch.com/cat...
The flat conformer is a simple transition state so I would imagine a catalysis kind of approach where you shift the energetics around as you stitch things would be one way. Then again I am not a bench chemist so there are probably many strategies for that which I know nothing about.
The rings themselves are perfectly reasonable (Cyclooctatetraene) non-aromatic hydrocarbons. Stitching together the mosaic the mathematicians propose is some serious work to be sure though.
So to you the perception of competency out weights actual ability? There are plenty of people who can dot every i and perform various feats of grammatical gymnastics but would be unable to perform any task requiring skill. While others who are skilled and able to perform might miss a few syntax errors.
This sounds just like the former teragrid and open science grid projects. Both of which saw reasonable useage from the scientific community.
These things worked well for two reasons, one it is easy to get time on them for small research groups. Second, they allowed cluster owners to offer up idle cpu time to the project. A net win for every one.
The problem here is not all research groups are equivalent. In theoretical physics, $1500 is allot of money, half a summer salary for a graduate student in fact in many places.
It would bring the publication count down quickly if this was indeed the norm, and bring the length of articles up as people would shoe horn two or three letters into a full article. One could argue one way or another on this fact.
That law sounds like a real waist of government resources to me. Any reasonable scientist will keep records of his data and how he analyized the data for as long as possible anyway. The point of that being, if your asked for more information or wish to further that idea in later work, then you will need it available! Also I fail to see how (a law) keeping data forever helps in the prevention of dishonest science? You have a question of an author, you send an email asking it. The making public part would perhapse be helpful when the author in question is obstinant, but think about it. Having just the raw data is not going to be that helpful if your trying to see if someone fabricated the data to start with!
It is not quite useless and not really a new concept. It has been known for a decade or so in quantum chemistry that core-valence electron interactions can give you a few % better calculation of the electron correlation.
MARTIN, J. M. L., 1995, Chem. Phys. Lett., 242, 343 and references therein.
CURTISS, L. A., REDFERN, P. C., RAGHAVACHARI, K., and POPLE, J. A., 1999, Chem. Phys. Lett., 313, 600. just to give a few references.
Why is this really news at all? High pressures are guarenteed to give you core electron interactions, just think about the density of your material and its pretty clear why you would have such a thing.
Post graduate (or post doctoral) work before getting a job is quite common in the hard sciences. Plenty of those fields have subsections that publish 10 articles a _day_ in one repository or another. I would suppose that if it can and is done for fast growing hard science fields then surely you can do it for CS as well.
Okay, this is the third thread in a row on the front page that has been
nothing more than an overblown opinion piece or random uninteresting conference
coverage.
This does not strike me as a overblown or random uninteresting conference. As
others have said, the site was slashdotted quite quickly so no actual FTFA
comments but embedded Linux systems? How is that a random uninteresting
conference. If your not interested in that kind of thing, a) you might be in
the wrong place b) don't start complaining because you clicked a link on
slashdot that happened to be uninteresting to you.
One of the biggest regressive changes was the decision to make Funny moderations
worthless, thereby turning funny posts and comments into karma sinks. This has
fundamentally shaped the tone of Slashdot comments into a much less humorous
form. Slashdot has evolved, through this one action, into a community of
sour-faced monks. Such a community makes me wonder why I want to still be a part
of it.
I personally like the fact I do not have to trudge through worthless "funny"
comments to get to some thing interesting. If there is a truly witty and
interesting comment it will get modded accordingly, but why should one get
posting karma just for being funny. We want intelligent and insightful
comments here, not brainless crap (yeah yeah, its/. why am I saying we have
intelligent and insightful comments I do not know). Any way, what is
the old adage, "vote with your feet." That might work if truly its as bad as
you say.
we understand little about it and the math formula used will be a half guess. supercomputer or not, results will be speculative at best. There is a big difference between guessing at some thing and hoping for the best, verses a systematic analysis of a problem using all the available knowledge that man has right now. Yeah, sounds like a sugar coating on exactly the same thing but come on and think about it. Science is mix a little ingenuity in with previously known facts and a healthy dose of self cynicism. It's the self defeatist attitude like this that hampers progress.
Not to mention several "PhD life spans" probably were spent on even programming this model and testing it in every way possible. No this is not speculative at best, this is a huge opportunity to actually test what we know against reality which is the point of this kind of theoretical science! Now if you please some of us have science to get back to, your welcome to continue to yell foul from as far away as possible.
Sure, I can walk over to Europe, no big deal to walk on water. Though I hear those new fangled boats work well but you know how long that takes.
Perhaps I could drive to visit family and friends, lets see... 10 day holiday time... 3 day drive one way... oh! 4 days to say hi to every one!
Jail is not even an applicable example, you loose many of the rights of a "free" person when you break the law and go to jail. Part of the whole process of being imprisoned.
No, this is plainly another push towards taking away what every privacy you might have or think you have from "big brother." We read every few days about FBI this, NSA that, TSA does this and CIA fucks up that. It can not stop unless people say enough.
Has nothing to do with Puritan influences. This is extending the invasion of privacy to a very private level. So now, to travel any where I have to do the equivalent of dragging my clothes off for some anonymous screener.
Thank you, no.
/.: A faithful cult of sidekicks who will run to the aid of any one combatant that catches their or their/. overlords copper/doped silicon eyes. Often considered poisonous to Emmessdeeann, they are the on-again-off-again slaves of Google. All confusion as to whether The Open Sourceror and The Free Initiative are subsets of/. or/. is a subset of these two should be ignored as that would require RTFA.
Benevolent Slashdot Overlords: This elusive team of overlords rule over the masses of/. by providing a forum home for any who wish to post in safety. Often thought of as ghosts they have never yet been seen by human eyes. Of note, this team is the only group who might RTFA, however small that chance may be.
There is a distinct difference in philosophy between American/Western physicists and Russian physicists, especially during the Cold War era. Namely Russians are famous for working on closed form solutions to problems or hand capable integrations, where as Americans typically were more apt to "running" to the computer. I would hazzard a guess that the Cold War era weapons built by russians were developed by alot of sweat over some ultra advanced computing resources. Besides, you have to notice that a majority of these weapons were built during prior to the fall of the wall, so think about what kind of computers were available then.
Are they looking for someone to implement highly computational intensive core libraries - then maybe a programmer with Matlab experience or someone with a mathematics background would be more suitable. Matlab experience is not going to give some one the ability to program in a computationally optimized way (which is the whole point of computational intensive libraries), in fact Matlab has a tendency to make people lazy because it takes care of too much for you. If you want computational programmers then you will definitely want some one with mathematics or physics (I will lump in the quantum chemists and molecular biologists in there too) in their background. These kind of guys are typically the ones who started off in their respective fields first and were found to be at least competent in programming.
Slashdot Mirror
Im a physics staff scientist doing mixed language (c, c++ and fortran mostly) development work. While its for massively parallel implementations actually coding on HPC systems is ridiculous so I always use my macbook pro. I have tried various platforms and have so far come back to this one every time. As your daughter is starting its probably best to find out what they use on site and get something compatible. Learning a new platform and science and code is a bit much for one starting out.
Peer review filters out the stuff that is obvious crap, stuff that doesn't even fit the form of a proper scientific article. The purpose is not to say that articles are true, but rather to get rid of articles that are obviously wrong. If the scientists are lying about their data, it's hard for peer review to catch that. That's why reproducibility is important. If it's a result you care about, you can reproduce it.
However in this case, the reviewers at science did indeed complain about aspects of the paper that ended up being part of the faked results http://www.sciencemag.org/cont...:
For the Cell submission, there were concerns about methodology and the lack of supporting evidence for the extraordinary claims, says [stem cell scientist Hans] Schöler, who reviewed the paper and, as is standard practice at Cell, saw the comments of other reviewers for the journal. At Science, according to the 8 May RIKEN investigative committee’s report, one reviewer spotted the problem with lanes being improperly spliced into gel images. “This figure has been reconstructed,” the RIKEN report quotes from the feedback provided by a Science reviewer. The committee writes that the “lane 3” mentioned by the Science reviewer is probably the lane 3 shown in Figure 1i in the Nature article. The investigative committee report says [co-author Haruko] Obokata told the committee that she did not carefully consider the comments of the Science reviewer.
and even the nature reviewers complained http://news.sciencemag.org/sit...
All three Nature reviewers concluded that the data presented in the submitted manuscripts were not enough to support such radical claims. “I would recommend the authors to be extremely cautious in their claims . The authors should look into the actual effect that the treatment elicits in the genome and they should assess genomic instability,” one writes. “There are several issues that I consider should be clarified beyond doubt because of the potential revolutionary nature of the observations,” writes another.
So in the end the editors seemed to just want the sensational paper published and let the community sort it out later. Retraction watch has a nice compilation about it all http://retractionwatch.com/cat...
The flat conformer is a simple transition state so I would imagine a catalysis kind of approach where you shift the energetics around as you stitch things would be one way. Then again I am not a bench chemist so there are probably many strategies for that which I know nothing about.
The rings themselves are perfectly reasonable (Cyclooctatetraene) non-aromatic hydrocarbons. Stitching together the mosaic the mathematicians propose is some serious work to be sure though.
Less morality and more ethics, and a pretty unimportant ethic in the grand scheme of things.
Don't forget disperson dominated van der Waals bonding.
The application to quantum computing is probably there to attract attention from slashdotters.
So to you the perception of competency out weights actual ability? There are plenty of people who can dot every i and perform various feats of grammatical gymnastics but would be unable to perform any task requiring skill. While others who are skilled and able to perform might miss a few syntax errors.
This sounds just like the former teragrid and open science grid projects. Both of which saw reasonable useage from the scientific community. These things worked well for two reasons, one it is easy to get time on them for small research groups. Second, they allowed cluster owners to offer up idle cpu time to the project. A net win for every one.
The problem here is not all research groups are equivalent. In theoretical physics, $1500 is allot of money, half a summer salary for a graduate student in fact in many places. It would bring the publication count down quickly if this was indeed the norm, and bring the length of articles up as people would shoe horn two or three letters into a full article. One could argue one way or another on this fact.
That law sounds like a real waist of government resources to me. Any reasonable scientist will keep records of his data and how he analyized the data for as long as possible anyway. The point of that being, if your asked for more information or wish to further that idea in later work, then you will need it available! Also I fail to see how (a law) keeping data forever helps in the prevention of dishonest science? You have a question of an author, you send an email asking it. The making public part would perhapse be helpful when the author in question is obstinant, but think about it. Having just the raw data is not going to be that helpful if your trying to see if someone fabricated the data to start with!
Actualy by /. language standards physicists are hackers. By the rest of the worlds standards, not really. Just read their code and its obvious :)
It is not quite useless and not really a new concept. It has been known for a decade or so in quantum chemistry that core-valence electron interactions can give you a few % better calculation of the electron correlation.
MARTIN, J. M. L., 1995, Chem. Phys. Lett., 242, 343 and references therein.
CURTISS, L. A., REDFERN, P. C., RAGHAVACHARI, K., and POPLE, J. A., 1999, Chem. Phys. Lett., 313, 600.
just to give a few references.
Why is this really news at all? High pressures are guarenteed to give you core electron interactions, just think about the density of your material and its pretty clear why you would have such a thing.
Post graduate (or post doctoral) work before getting a job is quite common in the hard sciences. Plenty of those fields have subsections that publish 10 articles a _day_ in one repository or another. I would suppose that if it can and is done for fast growing hard science fields then surely you can do it for CS as well.
This does not strike me as a overblown or random uninteresting conference. As others have said, the site was slashdotted quite quickly so no actual FTFA comments but embedded Linux systems? How is that a random uninteresting conference. If your not interested in that kind of thing, a) you might be in the wrong place b) don't start complaining because you clicked a link on slashdot that happened to be uninteresting to you.
One of the biggest regressive changes was the decision to make Funny moderations worthless, thereby turning funny posts and comments into karma sinks. This has fundamentally shaped the tone of Slashdot comments into a much less humorous form. Slashdot has evolved, through this one action, into a community of sour-faced monks. Such a community makes me wonder why I want to still be a part of it.
I personally like the fact I do not have to trudge through worthless "funny" comments to get to some thing interesting. If there is a truly witty and interesting comment it will get modded accordingly, but why should one get posting karma just for being funny. We want intelligent and insightful comments here, not brainless crap (yeah yeah, its
Not to mention several "PhD life spans" probably were spent on even programming this model and testing it in every way possible. No this is not speculative at best, this is a huge opportunity to actually test what we know against reality which is the point of this kind of theoretical science! Now if you please some of us have science to get back to, your welcome to continue to yell foul from as far away as possible.
How many times did you have to write that sentence asking us not to ask you how long it took you to write?
Sure, I can walk over to Europe, no big deal to walk on water. Though I hear those new fangled boats work well but you know how long that takes. Perhaps I could drive to visit family and friends, lets see... 10 day holiday time... 3 day drive one way... oh! 4 days to say hi to every one! Jail is not even an applicable example, you loose many of the rights of a "free" person when you break the law and go to jail. Part of the whole process of being imprisoned. No, this is plainly another push towards taking away what every privacy you might have or think you have from "big brother." We read every few days about FBI this, NSA that, TSA does this and CIA fucks up that. It can not stop unless people say enough.
Has nothing to do with Puritan influences. This is extending the invasion of privacy to a very private level. So now, to travel any where I have to do the equivalent of dragging my clothes off for some anonymous screener. Thank you, no.
I believe you are missing some here.
/.: A faithful cult of sidekicks who will run to the aid of any one combatant that catches their or their /. overlords copper/doped silicon eyes. Often considered poisonous to Emmessdeeann, they are the on-again-off-again slaves of Google. All confusion as to whether The Open Sourceror and The Free Initiative are subsets of /. or /. is a subset of these two should be ignored as that would require RTFA.
/. by providing a forum home for any who wish to post in safety. Often thought of as ghosts they have never yet been seen by human eyes. Of note, this team is the only group who might RTFA, however small that chance may be.
Benevolent Slashdot Overlords: This elusive team of overlords rule over the masses of
There is a distinct difference in philosophy between American/Western physicists and Russian physicists, especially during the Cold War era. Namely Russians are famous for working on closed form solutions to problems or hand capable integrations, where as Americans typically were more apt to "running" to the computer. I would hazzard a guess that the Cold War era weapons built by russians were developed by alot of sweat over some ultra advanced computing resources. Besides, you have to notice that a majority of these weapons were built during prior to the fall of the wall, so think about what kind of computers were available then.
That is true, but every time the teather enters the atmosphere, it will be hitting alot of resistance.