The detection mechanism for planets relies on the planet's gravity shifting the star's spectrum as it orbits. Therefore, we can only see the big ones, so the factor for the percentage of solar systems that have "Earth-like" planets still isn't determinable.
In general, I'm all for a bidding process for IPOs like this. It beats the hell out of giving out 20% of the stock to the investment bankers' budies and have them just flip it for huge profits the first day the stock is traded.
The essential problem with using a moderation system instead of peer review is that for the vast majority of articles (even ones of general scientific interest that would be published in Science or Nature, for example), there are very, very people who can give a quality review of the work in question. In general, the editors are able to correctly guide the papers to those individuals during the review process.
While increasing the total GDP of the European Union, the addition of these countries (Estonia, Latvia, Poland, etc.) undoubtedly decreases their per capita GDP, which is the relevant comparison.
This sounds more like an indication of the user's interest level. I never found Oregon Trail, Carmen Sandiego, etc. inherently more boring than the best of the math games of the same time period.
Slashdot Mirror
Given the barriers to propulsion technology, it seems as though it would be extremely more likely to be found than to find intelligent life elsewhere.
The detection mechanism for planets relies on the planet's gravity shifting the star's spectrum as it orbits. Therefore, we can only see the big ones, so the factor for the percentage of solar systems that have "Earth-like" planets still isn't determinable.
In general, I'm all for a bidding process for IPOs like this. It beats the hell out of giving out 20% of the stock to the investment bankers' budies and have them just flip it for huge profits the first day the stock is traded.
This is very true. Ventriloquist dummies are the worst.
The essential problem with using a moderation system instead of peer review is that for the vast majority of articles (even ones of general scientific interest that would be published in Science or Nature, for example), there are very, very people who can give a quality review of the work in question. In general, the editors are able to correctly guide the papers to those individuals during the review process.
While increasing the total GDP of the European Union, the addition of these countries (Estonia, Latvia, Poland, etc.) undoubtedly decreases their per capita GDP, which is the relevant comparison.
Based on your link, Europe has 1/3 the per capita GDP of the United States. This qualifies as "severely lagging."
All handouts tend to increase laziness. This is the reason why the economies of continental Europe severely lag behind that of the US.
Without incentive to work, people work less. Simple economics there.
It is very different from an undergraduate degree: If you're simply going to work as a tradesman, a PhD is not for you.
Search and games.
This sounds more like an indication of the user's interest level. I never found Oregon Trail, Carmen Sandiego, etc. inherently more boring than the best of the math games of the same time period.
They got him on conspiracy, but they never said who with.
--Sentence number 0004 ends in a preposition. This is a situation up with which we should not put.
Still... more stock... to unload...
Amazing how they can try to put a good spin on this based on what HP actually said in the article.