Your argument is essentially that science doesn't have a problem with fraud period
No it is not. You are being very simplistic and also getting things backwards. It's not a case of either close to 100% fraud or 0% fraud. Reality bites when people try to prove physical things that are not real so fraud in most sciences cannot be sustained for long since when experiments are repeated reality asserts itself.
Look, I don't know why you're worried about my "cloak and dagger" system
I'm not worried, it's just a demonstration of something in one field that makes zero sense in another. Copying other people's work is not the problem and that's the only situation where your suggestion is going to work.
Then you have issues these check and balance systems getting overwhelmed by too many papers
Sorry, you've been very poorly informed or are just guessing. Peer review is why it takes time to publish. Peer review is why it takes so long to submit a thesis.
where good scientists are having a hard time sustaining their credibility and have to work extra hard to prove that what they're saying is true
Only when there are idiots intent on discrediting entire fields of science for political purposes.
Both happen with some frequency so I'm more than a little dubious as to your position.
My position is that fraud is not ubiquitous due to the checks and balances you appear to have failed to notice (otherwise you wouldn't be pushing such a radical view). Thus your cloak and dagger fantasy would be better used in a situation where it is easier to fake things, such as in finance. There's a very wide void between the few frauds that are difficult to discover and a situation where your odd espionage ideas would make a difference if they worked at all. Your second point for instance makes zero sense since peer reviewed papers are "audited" with more rigor than you suggest as a matter of course. The first is a nice movie plot but isn't going to work in reality - people cite stuff they read whether their own research is any good or not, so your stuff that doesn't exist is never going to pop up in the "barium meal test", ever. Fraudsters are going to cite the most solid stuff they can find to try to appear legit. With respect, while you may be for instance a master fisherman this is like attempting to use fishing equipment for mountain climbing - doesn't matter how good you are at using it, it's the wrong tool for the job and there not really a problem since there is a chairlift to the top anyway. You are trying to solve a non-problem with tools that are not as good as are already in use.
What do you expect from a former football hooligan who has been up in front of a Judge twice. "I only touched her back your honour" was his defence when he forced his way into a political meeting with a bunch of thugs, ran onto the stage and groped the speaker in front of an audience. The other time, the theft of a traffic sign was seen as minor so while he was found guilty no conviction was recorded.
I think you do need a basic class in programming, to demystify the "magic black box." They need to write a few simple programs to get the concept that "oh, it only does exactly what I tell it
Which is exactly the view of people that were setting up high school maths syllabus in the 1980s. For some reason it's seen as far less important now, as if the computers have all gone away or something.
No, not unless he's had it slipped under the table to him recently. When the government he was in some years ago lost power he had to take a pay cut which he could not afford so he took a mortgage out on his house to support his lifestyle.
Also he worked as journalist and never a lawyer (or economist) despite his education along those lines when he was one of those "perpetual undergraduate student" political types that infest Universities for many years at a time stirring up trouble. You are probably thinking of Malcolm Turnbull who owns, or used to own, a large chunk of an ISP, practiced as a lawyer and who would understand why kids should know at least a little bit about coding.
Not necessarily. If you are generating DC on site, and not a huge amount of it, then it makes sense to have DC appliances since there are so many of them around these days. It only stops making sense when you need a bit of distance, a lot of current, or AC motors. So for a house, not bad, for a large building, not such a good idea since you'd need great big copper busbars to carry current.
Sorry to reply again, but it's such a brittle and unrealistic parody of western democracy where people stand around and just let things happen that it doesn't nail anything likely to happen if real human beings are around. I got dragged in to reading that poorly written manifesto of greed and 19th C. aristocrat worship after students kept going on about Rear-done metal and even that shit about a brilliant invention from a dabbler being rejected by all experts is a fucking huge insult to western capitalism and democracy. I can't see it coming close on even a very superficial level. Seriously - is there anything like the steel quota in the book or that other brittle plot devices? They wouldn't last ten seconds without getting broken in the USA that existed when she wrote the book or exists now.
What they are fighting tooth and nail is kW/h that they cannot bill you for. If that means building huge new installations that only run for a couple of hours a day then they will happily do it so long as the consumer pays for it.
Network operators and governments may have different ideas and not be so horrified by people generating their own electricity and depriving power utilities of their God given grant to gouge.
And, how does this all relate to the much-feared, much-publicized "global warming"
Because those much maligned atmospheric scientists who are apparently not as good at their field as sudoko puzzle writers, PR folks and economists are involved with both. Otherwise it has nothing at all to do with climate change.
I must note that the hottest decade on record was the same decade in which the ozone layer was most depleted
I must note that ultraviolet is not infrared, and also that your hottest decade is a bit out of date.
Silicon is plentiful, Titanium is plentiful, Aluminium is plentiful, but they are all tied up in oxides that are very hard to reduce. Thus you need to consider more than one little bit, which is the easiest bit, of the long chain of effort between sand and CPU or the new material and CPU. As for the biodegradable rant - it's not cellulose anymore and may be no more biodegradable than many plastics.
The above assumes you are being honest and are merely mistaken.
However I suspect such an embarrassing major error was actually intentional and pretended shock jock contagious stupidity in the hope of fooling people to reject something out of hand just because "green" was in the summary and thus it needs to be put down immediately for ideological reasons. If that's the case I suggest you grow up, pull your head in, and consider it in practical terms instead of fucking stupid political games.
California is now giving solar panels to the homeless (who might, in fact, be able to use them to charge their smart phones, this being California, and all)
Reality is two steps ahead of you. In India homeless people are BUYING solar chargers for their phones. A group selling solar lights at cost in India found that people wanted phone chargers as well, so they built it into their solar light. Their phones may not fit the current definition of smartphone but they are far more so than the first iPhones.
When govt. started with the subsidies on it, it was because the tech. made NO economic sense at all
It fills in for the daytime peak so means you don't need a few more GW of conventional power that only comes on line for a few hours each weekday. That can save large lump sum capital costs, and is easier to swallow even if it costs more in total because the money for GW of power from panels is spread out over years. So it makes sense at some level of subsidy. Whether a subsidy is stupidly high or not in some areas as a vote buying exercise is a different story.
The Challenger commission (after being derailed from it's initial scheme of a whitewash after Feynman was contacted by some engineers instead of the carefully prepared evidence), had the task of finding systems or procedures at fault instead of being able to identify a person that had made a poor decision. Perhaps it had the side effect of making those who ignored advice and made poor decisions act a bit more professionally for a while. Due to NASA management going from aerospace professionals to a nice sinecure for the powerful to park those they wish to reward the political connections were too strong for it to be acceptable for a commision to find anyone at that management level to be at fault.
If you're the kind of person who sits through a PowerPoint presentation and thinks you've understood something, you really shouldn't be building spaceships
But NASA is such a cool place to park those cronies from college and a good manager can manage anything can't they?
There are plenty of non-technical managers that just think if they can pronounce some "words of power" that is enough, and they do not have to know what the system they have named actually does.
This episode of the BBC tv comedy "Yes Minister" sums up the problem of non-technical decision makers making choices based on how a word sounds instead of the meaning it actually sounds: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Greasy_Pole
Oh so now the poor little boy caught out in a lie has marked me "foe". How pathetic. The adult way to behave would simply be to not jump in with strawman attacks and lies in the first place instead of marking those who do not roll over and take it as foes.
Caught out in a lie so the guy who jumped on my post decides he's not interested any more? Convenient is it - and it would have been better all around if you'd decided you were not interested in lying about my comment in order to attack it. I suggest not dishing it out unless you are willing to be responsible for your own actions and can cope with at least very mild rebukes.
Then why did you jump in with your strawman attack game? I'm sorry I didn't just roll over and feed you ego, but I'm not playing some silly game here like you are with your offtopic "ivory tower" insults. WTF is it with this childish shit, don't you have video games to play instead of putting words in the mouths of others?
I find it interesting how quickly you descend into the language of the antagonists of the story.
Considering it was about how much she hated Democracy and Capitalism and the way mere serfs in the west had a say in running the State why is that "interesting"? We are all either equivalent to her antagonists or just useless sheep waiting for the "great men" to stop being on strike and then come back to rule us.
obsessive focus on nobility despite obvious problems with the assertion.
Since I had read about Russian nobility decades before I had the misfortune of reading "I'll just avoid responsibility AKA Atlas Shrugged" I have picked up a wide enough worldview to see where Rand was coming from so those "obvious problems" vanished. The "obvious problems" only occur if you consider it in only a very narrow American contest and completely ignore her background and her view of the anti-fascist backlash of the 40's and 50's as "socialism", instead of it being the USA as usual.
If your beliefs are so immature, silly, and ancient that a hack writer like Rand can accurately portray them 50 years ago
My entire point is Rand is pushing a view that the USA finally rejected in 1777 - so both ancient and silly.
Quote where I wrote about "academic labs performing undirected research" and not the strawman in your head stating it. If Bell labs was "academic" you can eat MY lunch, delivered by a supermodel if you desire.
Slashdot Mirror
No it is not.
You are being very simplistic and also getting things backwards. It's not a case of either close to 100% fraud or 0% fraud. Reality bites when people try to prove physical things that are not real so fraud in most sciences cannot be sustained for long since when experiments are repeated reality asserts itself.
I'm not worried, it's just a demonstration of something in one field that makes zero sense in another. Copying other people's work is not the problem and that's the only situation where your suggestion is going to work.
Sorry, you've been very poorly informed or are just guessing. Peer review is why it takes time to publish. Peer review is why it takes so long to submit a thesis.
Only when there are idiots intent on discrediting entire fields of science for political purposes.
My position is that fraud is not ubiquitous due to the checks and balances you appear to have failed to notice (otherwise you wouldn't be pushing such a radical view). Thus your cloak and dagger fantasy would be better used in a situation where it is easier to fake things, such as in finance.
There's a very wide void between the few frauds that are difficult to discover and a situation where your odd espionage ideas would make a difference if they worked at all. Your second point for instance makes zero sense since peer reviewed papers are "audited" with more rigor than you suggest as a matter of course. The first is a nice movie plot but isn't going to work in reality - people cite stuff they read whether their own research is any good or not, so your stuff that doesn't exist is never going to pop up in the "barium meal test", ever. Fraudsters are going to cite the most solid stuff they can find to try to appear legit.
With respect, while you may be for instance a master fisherman this is like attempting to use fishing equipment for mountain climbing - doesn't matter how good you are at using it, it's the wrong tool for the job and there not really a problem since there is a chairlift to the top anyway. You are trying to solve a non-problem with tools that are not as good as are already in use.
It's a good idea to use muons. Especially after that article about a proton failure.
P.S. Where is the JOKE tag when you need one?
You need to work on your reactions in such situations instead of an instant desire to shoot the messenger in such an insulting way.
What do you expect from a former football hooligan who has been up in front of a Judge twice.
"I only touched her back your honour" was his defence when he forced his way into a political meeting with a bunch of thugs, ran onto the stage and groped the speaker in front of an audience. The other time, the theft of a traffic sign was seen as minor so while he was found guilty no conviction was recorded.
Which is exactly the view of people that were setting up high school maths syllabus in the 1980s. For some reason it's seen as far less important now, as if the computers have all gone away or something.
No, not unless he's had it slipped under the table to him recently.
When the government he was in some years ago lost power he had to take a pay cut which he could not afford so he took a mortgage out on his house to support his lifestyle.
Also he worked as journalist and never a lawyer (or economist) despite his education along those lines when he was one of those "perpetual undergraduate student" political types that infest Universities for many years at a time stirring up trouble.
You are probably thinking of Malcolm Turnbull who owns, or used to own, a large chunk of an ISP, practiced as a lawyer and who would understand why kids should know at least a little bit about coding.
Not necessarily. If you are generating DC on site, and not a huge amount of it, then it makes sense to have DC appliances since there are so many of them around these days. It only stops making sense when you need a bit of distance, a lot of current, or AC motors.
So for a house, not bad, for a large building, not such a good idea since you'd need great big copper busbars to carry current.
Sorry to reply again, but it's such a brittle and unrealistic parody of western democracy where people stand around and just let things happen that it doesn't nail anything likely to happen if real human beings are around. I got dragged in to reading that poorly written manifesto of greed and 19th C. aristocrat worship after students kept going on about Rear-done metal and even that shit about a brilliant invention from a dabbler being rejected by all experts is a fucking huge insult to western capitalism and democracy. I can't see it coming close on even a very superficial level.
Seriously - is there anything like the steel quota in the book or that other brittle plot devices? They wouldn't last ten seconds without getting broken in the USA that existed when she wrote the book or exists now.
Yes - because the idiots pushing her view of selfishness as an ideology haven't considered the implications of it.
Only if you assign an agenda I have not expressed to a strawman you've built in my name. What is it with petty shit like that?
What they are fighting tooth and nail is kW/h that they cannot bill you for. If that means building huge new installations that only run for a couple of hours a day then they will happily do it so long as the consumer pays for it.
Network operators and governments may have different ideas and not be so horrified by people generating their own electricity and depriving power utilities of their God given grant to gouge.
Because those much maligned atmospheric scientists who are apparently not as good at their field as sudoko puzzle writers, PR folks and economists are involved with both.
Otherwise it has nothing at all to do with climate change.
I must note that ultraviolet is not infrared, and also that your hottest decade is a bit out of date.
Thus you need to consider more than one little bit, which is the easiest bit, of the long chain of effort between sand and CPU or the new material and CPU.
As for the biodegradable rant - it's not cellulose anymore and may be no more biodegradable than many plastics.
The above assumes you are being honest and are merely mistaken.
However I suspect such an embarrassing major error was actually intentional and pretended shock jock contagious stupidity in the hope of fooling people to reject something out of hand just because "green" was in the summary and thus it needs to be put down immediately for ideological reasons. If that's the case I suggest you grow up, pull your head in, and consider it in practical terms instead of fucking stupid political games.
Reality is two steps ahead of you. In India homeless people are BUYING solar chargers for their phones. A group selling solar lights at cost in India found that people wanted phone chargers as well, so they built it into their solar light. Their phones may not fit the current definition of smartphone but they are far more so than the first iPhones.
It fills in for the daytime peak so means you don't need a few more GW of conventional power that only comes on line for a few hours each weekday. That can save large lump sum capital costs, and is easier to swallow even if it costs more in total because the money for GW of power from panels is spread out over years.
So it makes sense at some level of subsidy. Whether a subsidy is stupidly high or not in some areas as a vote buying exercise is a different story.
The Challenger commission (after being derailed from it's initial scheme of a whitewash after Feynman was contacted by some engineers instead of the carefully prepared evidence), had the task of finding systems or procedures at fault instead of being able to identify a person that had made a poor decision. Perhaps it had the side effect of making those who ignored advice and made poor decisions act a bit more professionally for a while. Due to NASA management going from aerospace professionals to a nice sinecure for the powerful to park those they wish to reward the political connections were too strong for it to be acceptable for a commision to find anyone at that management level to be at fault.
But NASA is such a cool place to park those cronies from college and a good manager can manage anything can't they?
There are plenty of non-technical managers that just think if they can pronounce some "words of power" that is enough, and they do not have to know what the system they have named actually does.
This episode of the BBC tv comedy "Yes Minister" sums up the problem of non-technical decision makers making choices based on how a word sounds instead of the meaning it actually sounds:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Greasy_Pole
Oh so now the poor little boy caught out in a lie has marked me "foe". How pathetic.
The adult way to behave would simply be to not jump in with strawman attacks and lies in the first place instead of marking those who do not roll over and take it as foes.
Caught out in a lie so the guy who jumped on my post decides he's not interested any more? Convenient is it - and it would have been better all around if you'd decided you were not interested in lying about my comment in order to attack it.
I suggest not dishing it out unless you are willing to be responsible for your own actions and can cope with at least very mild rebukes.
Then why did you jump in with your strawman attack game?
I'm sorry I didn't just roll over and feed you ego, but I'm not playing some silly game here like you are with your offtopic "ivory tower" insults.
WTF is it with this childish shit, don't you have video games to play instead of putting words in the mouths of others?
I'm more concerned about the people who use Atlas Shrugged as an instruction manual.
That is what I've been ranting about all this time.
Considering it was about how much she hated Democracy and Capitalism and the way mere serfs in the west had a say in running the State why is that "interesting"?
We are all either equivalent to her antagonists or just useless sheep waiting for the "great men" to stop being on strike and then come back to rule us.
Since I had read about Russian nobility decades before I had the misfortune of reading "I'll just avoid responsibility AKA Atlas Shrugged" I have picked up a wide enough worldview to see where Rand was coming from so those "obvious problems" vanished. The "obvious problems" only occur if you consider it in only a very narrow American contest and completely ignore her background and her view of the anti-fascist backlash of the 40's and 50's as "socialism", instead of it being the USA as usual.
My entire point is Rand is pushing a view that the USA finally rejected in 1777 - so both ancient and silly.
Quote where I wrote about "academic labs performing undirected research" and not the strawman in your head stating it.
If Bell labs was "academic" you can eat MY lunch, delivered by a supermodel if you desire.