Does it really matter what people do with their own money as long as they aren't hurting anyone else?
If you don't want to ride on it at least you will save $200,000.
The problem with any design hypothesis is we have found no feature that could not have evolved without a designer. If you have two hypothesis: (1) something more complex (Designer) is needed to create something less complex (us), and (2) something simple (natural selection) is needed to create something complex (us), then which do you choose? Occam's razor and common sense suggest that however unlikely the second hypothesis is it must be more likely than the first.
I agree that very pure water (Mill-Q) tastes unusual, but I wouldn't say it tastes bad. I drink it at work all the time (one of the "benefits" of being a scientist). The best way to describe how it tastes is like air- you know that you have put something wet in your mouth, but it doesn't seem heavy enough to be a liquid.
I have always thought there would be a market for it - at least would taste different to all the other bottle waters.
The basic problem with scientific journals is that they are acting as a very inefficient quality filter. The scientist wants (needs?) to publish in the most "prestigious" journal that s/he can get the work into (or else they won't have job next year). This is because the quality of the publication can't be easily assessed without reading the paper. Where a paper is published is used to determine the quality of the work and hence the scientist. From a publishers perspective once you have been able to create (or buy) a prestigious journal then you can basically charge what ever they want to publish in it.
What is needed is means to easily determine the quality of individual papers, preferably in a single number (making it easy for your promotion committee to score). If this were to happen then journals would cease to exist as scientist would just post their papers on a central server and other scientist could use the quality score to filter good from bad.
The problem is coming up with a non-corruptible means of easily scoring individual papers.
Slashdot Mirror
This is spot on. I would be surprised if anyone even at apple knows what features are going to ship.
Does it really matter what people do with their own money as long as they aren't hurting anyone else? If you don't want to ride on it at least you will save $200,000.
The problem with any design hypothesis is we have found no feature that could not have evolved without a designer. If you have two hypothesis: (1) something more complex (Designer) is needed to create something less complex (us), and (2) something simple (natural selection) is needed to create something complex (us), then which do you choose? Occam's razor and common sense suggest that however unlikely the second hypothesis is it must be more likely than the first.
I think it was the other way around- they fixed retail prices and let wholesale prices fluctuate.
I agree that very pure water (Mill-Q) tastes unusual, but I wouldn't say it tastes bad. I drink it at work all the time (one of the "benefits" of being a scientist). The best way to describe how it tastes is like air- you know that you have put something wet in your mouth, but it doesn't seem heavy enough to be a liquid.
I have always thought there would be a market for it - at least would taste different to all the other bottle waters.
I would say that this is the only functions of journals (i.e. as means to score scientisits).
The basic problem with scientific journals is that they are acting as a very inefficient quality filter. The scientist wants (needs?) to publish in the most "prestigious" journal that s/he can get the work into (or else they won't have job next year). This is because the quality of the publication can't be easily assessed without reading the paper. Where a paper is published is used to determine the quality of the work and hence the scientist. From a publishers perspective once you have been able to create (or buy) a prestigious journal then you can basically charge what ever they want to publish in it. What is needed is means to easily determine the quality of individual papers, preferably in a single number (making it easy for your promotion committee to score). If this were to happen then journals would cease to exist as scientist would just post their papers on a central server and other scientist could use the quality score to filter good from bad. The problem is coming up with a non-corruptible means of easily scoring individual papers.
I thought that photoshop had a 2GB file limit?