somewhere, he says that whenever you demo prototype software to higherups, have an obvious problem, like a mis spelt word, so they have something to point to and feel important about same thing about the it dept: every week, something that is easy to fix only if you are an admin but looks hard and is clearly the users responsibility should break
If I read bin laden correctly, his main goal is to replace the corrupt, dictatorial, apostate regimes in the islamic world with a single religious state, the caliphate. He hates us cause we support those govt; he doesnt really care about our western freedom and life style all that much Bush say that bin laden hates us cause of our freedom. what is amusing is that bin laden is loosing the war he started - we are more involved, with more corrupt regimes then before 9/11; at the same time bush is loosing his war, as we have less freedom. I finally understand the curse part of the (supposed) chinese saying, may you live in interesting times.
on a strict grammatical basis, you have a point. In terms of how scientists actually use the words "clonable" and "unclonable": clonable means you can get copies of the original DNA molecule to replicate inside a new cell, either from the same organism or a different organism. In many cases, DNA that is quite happy in one cell type is not happy in another; this was a big problem in the human genome project, as most of the work was done with human dna cloned into E coli, and there is a lot of human dna that is very unhappy in E coli ie, uncloanble. another part of clonable is that in vivo, most DNA exists as long (> 1e6 bases long) molecules, and most clone (pace BACs, Pacs, YACs, etc) is much shorter. If you chop up DNA, you can remove control sequences, and make the dna unclonable, eg if you had the gene for cell death, which is normally OFF becuase next to the gene is an OFF signal, and you try to clone a piece that lacks the OFF signal, you might kill every cell the dna gets into - functanally, the dna is unclonable.
for several years, i have been saying that google is the new evil empire, and you all laughed at me credit where credit is due why is google the new borg? because by definition, for profits with near monopoly power become abusive - it is in their dna
almost every new apple product has serious hardware problems - ipod battery anyone ? defective power cord plug on laptop anyone ? i'm not old enough to rmember earlier stuff, but would bet dollars to donuts there were problems in earlier stuff goign back to the lisa
TAKE HOME: new apple stuff often has serious hardware/software problems (which makes u wonder, the peopel who talk about apples obsession with detail)
This is sort of darwinism in action - u stupid enuf buy new apple hardware, get what u disserve
one advantage of my ancient laptop is that it does not have wireless - i need an add on like a usb port this is actually a feature as the malware or spyware can't do anything if the wireless point is unplugged is it possible to physically break the wireless and go with a pluggable point ?
sort of sophmoronic fun wd be serious discussion of user comments re/. - eg, i have written to/. about dislike changes last year. surely a lot of good stuff in that sort of email
Like the JFK murder, or the downing of flight KAL007, rumors are starting to change into facts, and we are arguing about what someone said about what someone said about... Can we get some data and squelch the silly rumors that waste time ? were the spores weaponized or not ? I see a lot of people with strong statements, but no evidence or data. Can we get an answer at this point, and move on ?
were the envelopes used really only available in the Va area ?
What are the 8 other labs that the FBI says had the supposed strain of anthrax
how good was record keeping at ivens lab - was it really so good that they can say no one else had access to the "flask" ?
good point. As someone else who grows bacteria (but not anthrax) i agree that the use of the term "flask" is wierd - it is basic microbiology 101 that bacteria are not stable in flasks; you keep them as either frozen stocks in a special freezer (-80oC !) or, sometimes, as dried filter papers or on sealed agar slants - The ATCC is a good authority here.
maybe as suggested by another poster, "flask" is just a word that they used to keep from confusing people iwth a tech term like "cryovial" or "agar slant"
The science, as described in the original article, has a hole: the spores with the "4 mutations" seem to be a minority of the spores in the sample. Depending on some esoteric science things (differential growth rate, differential pcr, etc) these spores might be present at low, undetectable levels in most samples of anthrax (I know, pcr snp typing is sensitive, but untill they show some sort of spike and recovery, adding x genomes of 4mutant DNA to y genomes of regular, you don't really know....)
soon, google will finally be recognized as the evil empire it is When will goo$le bashing overtake M$ bashing ? my bet, August 12, 2010 anybody else wanna get in on the betting pool ?
not to mention all the side products that are produced, msot of which i am willing to bet havenot even been identified, much less studied
J Environ Qual. 2008 Feb 11;37(2):291-5. Print 2008 Mar-Apr.Click here to read Links
When does nitrate become a risk for humans?
Powlson DS, Addiscott TM, Benjamin N, Cassman KG, de Kok TM, van Grinsven H, L'Hirondel JL, Avery AA, van Kessel C.
Is nitrate harmful to humans? Are the current limits for nitrate concentration in drinking water justified by science? There is substantial disagreement among scientists over the interpretation of evidence on the issue. There are two main health issues: the linkage between nitrate and (i) infant methaemoglobinaemia, also known as blue baby syndrome, and (ii) cancers of the digestive tract. The evidence for nitrate as a cause of these serious diseases remains controversial. On one hand there is evidence that shows there is no clear association between nitrate in drinking water and the two main health issues with which it has been linked, and there is even evidence emerging of a possible benefit of nitrate in cardiovascular health. There is also evidence of nitrate intake giving protection against infections such as gastroenteritis. Some scientists suggest that there is sufficient evidence for increasing the permitted concentration of nitrate in drinking water without increasing risks to human health. However, subgroups within a population may be more susceptible than others to the adverse health effects of nitrate. Moreover, individuals with increased rates of endogenous formation of carcinogenic N-nitroso compounds are likely to be susceptible to the development of cancers in the digestive system. Given the lack of consensus, there is an urgent need for a comprehensive, independent study to determine whether the current nitrate limit for drinking water is scientifically justified or whether it could safely
There are a lot of bad things about science education - like thermodynamics (see below) but the problems are mainly not in the classroom. problem #1: people in marketing make more money for less work. Which is the same thing in computers and engineering. So the problem is not science education, but our screwed up values. while my wife and i were getting our phds, and making around 15K a year for 70 hour weeks, our siblings were making 3 and 4X that; if you go thru the compound interest math it is really hard if you loose 5 or 6 or even 8 years (including postdoc) at the start of your career. It might be worth it if congress made a committment to ensure careeer stability, but that is not there: not only do you not get paid, but you could be out on the street at any time; anyone with the ability to be a scientist is gonna look at this and say, no way jose There are also not a lot of people who are going to be good at science; we don't expect every kid in K12 to be a star basketball athlete, why on earth do we expect more then a small fraction of students to be interested in and good at calculus or Genomics or condensed matter physics ? There is no career path in science - I have a phd and a lot of experience with companies who hire interns and the interns see that the career path in science is , to use a technical term, crappy. Other countrys do better cause there are fewer career options; or, to put it another way, doing a PhD in china is , on average, higher up in lifetime income probability - in the US a PhD in physcis might put you, on average, in the top 20% of income; in china it might be the top 5% (substituting for income some measure that also takes into account prestige, and other factors that people value)
(in one of the books about Feynman, someone asks a female MIT grad student why she lets Feynman treat her like a servant, and she replies that he is the only person who has ever been able to explain thermodynamics; one assumes that an mit grad student, in physics, is not to stupid) Most of the people I know who got through college thermo got through it - they had enough math to get the answer, and were happy never to think about it ever again. if the science establishment can't teach thermo, it definetly has a problem.
we "all" "know" how to use wikipedia, knol and others that start with a different gui have a problem ? I know i spent a lot of time learning wikipedia, and am reluctant to switch; also, in the medical field that the current knol home page highlights, wikipedia is remarkably good
I'm not an expert on injection molding, but I don't think it is as hard as some other posters claim. the simple blocks are not tht deep, (recall that there is a metal mold that the liquid plastic fits into, the shape of the metal is the outside of the block; the deeper the part, the harder it is to get it to come off of the metal, that is why things like nalgene water bottles are made by blow molding] so you don't need side action or deep drafts to get them off the mold, and lego has a lot of volume to amortize multicavity molds. Molded plastic is BIG business; there are a lot of guys who know how to make molds and know how to hit 0.05 mm tolerance or better on a small part.when/. posters think that some special magic is need to make parts that fit, they just show that they don't know a lot. I odn't know how lego hides the knit lines perhaps a real expert could speak up, but I really don't think it is that hard, and i bet the cost for a simple block is less then a penney - maybe a little more with the runup in plastic prices. I assume they are using some commodity resin like polycarb or polystyrene ( i dont think you can get the polyolefins like pp and pe hard enough )
previously on/., alot of fun has been made of stereo equipment, like 600 dollar wooden knobs or 20,000 dollar cables (yes, that is not a type - 20K for wires). I take silly things like liquid cooling as a sign that the pc industry is mature and now a consumer industyr, and most of the engineering is focused on either (a) silly things that give marginal improvement in specs that don't matter (cooling) or cost cutting like the auto industry
In all seriousness, I infer that most of the replies are from highly skilled technical people. I am a PhD in biochemistry who works in biotech, which is sort of a similar job to a network sysadmin: a highly trained who is suspicious of managers without technical skills. If i may say so, I think all of the replies have the wrong mindset: it can't be done, to difficult, all these problems,etc. Well, it can be done if people are interested. Suppose all the sysadmins got 25% of pay/bonus/raise based how simple and plug and play things were. In that world, some sysadmins would found a professional group, and that group would start issuing standards, like any serious group of professionals, and sysadmins would start buying stuff that adhered to stanadards, and voila, you would have highly complex networks with 1,000s of items ranging from kilocore supercompters to thermostats, all plug and play.
I don't know enough about history, but I'm sure if you go back through technology you have this argument again and again and again.
You have to simply put aside all your technical knowledge and skills, and simply say, it can be better....
One example in my own field is DNA sequencing. 30 years ago, it took highly trained people several years to obtain 20 bp of sequence. 20 years ago, 1 highly trained person could do 4,000/year; 10 years ago one trained person could do >1e6/year; today, HS grads can easily do >>1e6/year, and in a few years, it will be easier. Another example is glucose testing for diabetics: today, you can go to CVS or riteaid, and for a hundred bucks get a home glucose test unit that is pretty easy to use. I'm sure if you go back to the 50s, it took highly trained sysadmin equivalents to get a reading. And if you said to these highly trained people, who had to spend hours to get ONE reading, some day a random person without any training or even a HS diploma can get a reading in 10 seconds, they would have said what you all said to me Have some imagination - be insanely great
whenever you read stuff like this, about how hard it was for childs to setup the fiberwan network, and the complexity of the router details etc etc... all you can, poorly designed equipment/software in this day and age, why on earth can't you just plug the routers into the wall and they configure ? the obvious answer is that the people who buy them [like childs] have a vested interest - they would loose their well paid jobs if it became simple, so they never buy simple stuff...
agree that current pgp programs way to techie and hard to use. I finally got a program from MIT or someplace to run, but it was a real pain (for/.nerds: one click installation program, and a button that says encrypt email, anything more is to complicated) on top of pgp, how about an email track me not - you can program thunderbird or firefox, to work with your friends family etc, to create dozens of fake temporary email accounts and just send out stuff all day long..
newby question here: can'tyou put together some specialized hardware, like cell processors or something that are a 1e6 faster then a "modern" computer (which i assume is a random wintel desktop)
While i am no fan of citatin analysis, I think something like half of all articles never get a single citation - they have no importance whatsoever. So why are they published ? So what if there is peer review - noone cares. Most working scientist that I know bother to read a few top journals (in molecular biology, CELL, under the editorship of Ben Lewin, was top) because they know that quality control makes it worth their while; the other 99% of journals are looked at only when a specific need arises Profit motive While there are a few "nonprofit" journals run by learned societys, the vast majority of journals are for profit. the publishers know that there are a small number of librarys that will subscribe to almost anything, so its like money for old rope: you start the journal of computational studies in ancient amerindian languages, and a small number of librarys will get a sub; you then just price it right.
Tenure - even if the article is a waste of paper, the promotion process demands articles - I have had senior people, in charge of tenure rev, say many people on those committes simply weigh the supplicants output
history - we have not yet moved from the ancient, typeset ways to the future
Alfred North Whitehead once remarked that progress let us forget. And if you think of what computers do, it is that they allow us to forget to do something: they make us smarter cause they take the load off, just as FEDEX lets us forget to do something - surely not one person in 100 really *needs* FEDEX, but it lets you forget to plan.
It is not about technology or OS vs apps: it is marketing and perception. In the companies where I work,no one in charge cares about linux. I don't know why,but none of the arguments offered by linux people are getting any traction. If you keep doing the same thing, you get the same results. This is not about technology, it is about psychology and advertising and stuff like that.
to my understanding, resolution refers to a mapping of the object on to the image - resolution is a ration of 1 cm in object/x cm in image it has nothing to do with pixels per image, although you can have more of the object , at the same resolution, with more pixels
everytime one of these stories comes out, we have the predictable gov't is a bunch of people who don't care about our money comments. but is gov't really worse then priv sector ? don't forget, priv sector isn't under the openess rules of gov't a corp looses a 1,000 laptops, they don't talk about it. What i have seen in industry, there is just as much waste, if not more.
Slashdot Mirror
somewhere, he says that whenever you demo prototype software to higherups, have an obvious problem, like a mis spelt word, so they have something to point to and feel important about
same thing about the it dept: every week, something that is easy to fix only if you are an admin but looks hard and is clearly the users responsibility should break
If I read bin laden correctly, his main goal is to replace the corrupt, dictatorial, apostate regimes in the islamic world with a single religious state, the caliphate. He hates us cause we support those govt; he doesnt really care about our western freedom and life style all that much
Bush say that bin laden hates us cause of our freedom.
what is amusing is that bin laden is loosing the war he started - we are more involved, with more corrupt regimes then before 9/11; at the same time bush is loosing his war, as we have less freedom.
I finally understand the curse part of the (supposed) chinese saying, may you live in interesting times.
on a strict grammatical basis, you have a point.
In terms of how scientists actually use the words "clonable" and "unclonable": clonable means you can get copies of the original DNA molecule to replicate inside a new cell, either from the same organism or a different organism.
In many cases, DNA that is quite happy in one cell type is not happy in another; this was a big problem in the human genome project, as most of the work was done with human dna cloned into E coli, and there is a lot of human dna that is very unhappy in E coli ie, uncloanble.
another part of clonable is that in vivo, most DNA exists as long (> 1e6 bases long) molecules, and most clone (pace BACs, Pacs, YACs, etc) is much shorter. If you chop up DNA, you can remove control sequences, and make the dna unclonable, eg if you had the gene for cell death, which is normally OFF becuase next to the gene is an OFF signal, and you try to clone a piece that lacks the OFF signal, you might kill every cell the dna gets into - functanally, the dna is unclonable.
for several years, i have been saying that google is the new evil empire, and you all laughed at me
credit where credit is due
why is google the new borg? because by definition, for profits with near monopoly power become abusive - it is in their dna
almost every new apple product has serious hardware problems - ipod battery anyone ? defective power cord plug on laptop anyone ? i'm not old enough to rmember earlier stuff, but would bet dollars to donuts there were problems in earlier stuff goign back to the lisa
TAKE HOME: new apple stuff often has serious hardware/software problems (which makes u wonder, the peopel who talk about apples obsession with detail)
This is sort of darwinism in action - u stupid enuf buy new apple hardware, get what u disserve
one advantage of my ancient laptop is that it does not have wireless - i need an add on like a usb port
this is actually a feature as the malware or spyware can't do anything if the wireless point is unplugged
is it possible to physically break the wireless and go with a pluggable point ?
sort of sophmoronic fun wd be serious discussion of user comments re /. - eg, i have written to /. about dislike changes last year. surely a lot of good stuff in that sort of email
Like the JFK murder, or the downing of flight KAL007, rumors are starting to change into facts, and we are arguing about what someone said about what someone said about...
Can we get some data and squelch the silly rumors that waste time ?
were the spores weaponized or not ? I see a lot of people with strong statements, but no evidence or data.
Can we get an answer at this point, and move on ?
were the envelopes used really only available in the Va area ?
What are the 8 other labs that the FBI says had the supposed strain of anthrax
how good was record keeping at ivens lab - was it really so good that they can say no one else had access to the "flask" ?
etc
good point. As someone else who grows bacteria (but not anthrax) i agree that the use of the term "flask" is wierd - it is basic microbiology 101 that bacteria are not stable in flasks; you keep them as either frozen stocks in a special freezer (-80oC !) or, sometimes, as dried filter papers or on sealed agar slants - The ATCC is a good authority here.
maybe as suggested by another poster, "flask" is just a word that they used to keep from confusing people iwth a tech term like "cryovial" or "agar slant"
The science, as described in the original article, has a hole: the spores with the "4 mutations" seem to be a minority of the spores in the sample. Depending on some esoteric science things (differential growth rate, differential pcr, etc) these spores might be present at low, undetectable levels in most samples of anthrax (I know, pcr snp typing is sensitive, but untill they show some sort of spike and recovery, adding x genomes of 4mutant DNA to y genomes of regular, you don't really know....)
soon, google will finally be recognized as the evil empire it is
When will goo$le bashing overtake M$ bashing ?
my bet, August 12, 2010
anybody else wanna get in on the betting pool ?
not to mention all the side products that are produced, msot of which i am willing to bet havenot even been identified, much less studied
J Environ Qual. 2008 Feb 11;37(2):291-5. Print 2008 Mar-Apr.Click here to read Links
When does nitrate become a risk for humans?
Powlson DS, Addiscott TM, Benjamin N, Cassman KG, de Kok TM, van Grinsven H, L'Hirondel JL, Avery AA, van Kessel C.
Soil Science Dep, Rothamsted Research, Harpenden, Herts, UK.
Is nitrate harmful to humans? Are the current limits for nitrate concentration in drinking water justified by science? There is substantial disagreement among scientists over the interpretation of evidence on the issue. There are two main health issues: the linkage between nitrate and (i) infant methaemoglobinaemia, also known as blue baby syndrome, and (ii) cancers of the digestive tract. The evidence for nitrate as a cause of these serious diseases remains controversial. On one hand there is evidence that shows there is no clear association between nitrate in drinking water and the two main health issues with which it has been linked, and there is even evidence emerging of a possible benefit of nitrate in cardiovascular health. There is also evidence of nitrate intake giving protection against infections such as gastroenteritis. Some scientists suggest that there is sufficient evidence for increasing the permitted concentration of nitrate in drinking water without increasing risks to human health. However, subgroups within a population may be more susceptible than others to the adverse health effects of nitrate. Moreover, individuals with increased rates of endogenous formation of carcinogenic N-nitroso compounds are likely to be susceptible to the development of cancers in the digestive system. Given the lack of consensus, there is an urgent need for a comprehensive, independent study to determine whether the current nitrate limit for drinking water is scientifically justified or whether it could safely
There are a lot of bad things about science education - like thermodynamics (see below) but the problems are mainly not in the classroom.
problem #1: people in marketing make more money for less work. Which is the same thing in computers and engineering. So the problem is not science education, but our screwed up values. while my wife and i were getting our phds, and making around 15K a year for 70 hour weeks, our siblings were making 3 and 4X that; if you go thru the compound interest math it is really hard if you loose 5 or 6 or even 8 years (including postdoc) at the start of your career.
It might be worth it if congress made a committment to ensure careeer stability, but that is not there: not only do you not get paid, but you could be out on the street at any time; anyone with the ability to be a scientist is gonna look at this and say, no way jose
There are also not a lot of people who are going to be good at science; we don't expect every kid in K12 to be a star basketball athlete, why on earth do we expect more then a small fraction of students to be interested in and good at calculus or Genomics or condensed matter physics ?
There is no career path in science - I have a phd and a lot of experience with companies who hire interns and the interns see that the career path in science is , to use a technical term, crappy.
Other countrys do better cause there are fewer career options; or, to put it another way, doing a PhD in china is , on average, higher up in lifetime income probability - in the US a PhD in physcis might put you, on average, in the top 20% of income; in china it might be the top 5% (substituting for income some measure that also takes into account prestige, and other factors that people value)
(in one of the books about Feynman, someone asks a female MIT grad student why she lets Feynman treat her like a servant, and she replies that he is the only person who has ever been able to explain thermodynamics; one assumes that an mit grad student, in physics, is not to stupid)
Most of the people I know who got through college thermo got through it - they had enough math to get the answer, and were happy never to think about it ever again. if the science establishment can't teach thermo, it definetly has a problem.
we "all" "know" how to use wikipedia, knol and others that start with a different gui have a problem ?
I know i spent a lot of time learning wikipedia, and am reluctant to switch; also, in the medical field that the current knol home page highlights, wikipedia is remarkably good
I'm not an expert on injection molding, but I don't think it is as hard as some other posters claim. the simple blocks are not tht deep, /. posters think that some special magic is need to make parts that fit, they just show that they don't know a lot. I odn't know how lego hides the knit lines
(recall that there is a metal mold that the liquid plastic fits into, the shape of the metal is the outside of the block; the deeper the part, the harder it is to get it to come off of the metal, that is why things like nalgene water bottles are made by blow molding] so you don't need side action or deep drafts to get them off the mold, and lego has a lot of volume to amortize multicavity molds.
Molded plastic is BIG business; there are a lot of guys who know how to make molds and know how to hit 0.05 mm tolerance or better on a small part.when
perhaps a real expert could speak up, but I really don't think it is that hard, and i bet the cost for a simple block is less then a penney - maybe a little more with the runup in plastic prices. I assume they are using some commodity resin like polycarb or polystyrene ( i dont think you can get the polyolefins like pp and pe hard enough )
previously on /., alot of fun has been made of stereo equipment, like 600 dollar wooden knobs or 20,000 dollar cables (yes, that is not a type - 20K for wires). I take silly things like liquid cooling as a sign that the pc industry is mature and now a consumer industyr, and most of the engineering is focused on either (a) silly things that give marginal improvement in specs that don't matter (cooling) or cost cutting like the auto industry
In all seriousness, I infer that most of the replies are from highly skilled technical people.
I am a PhD in biochemistry who works in biotech, which is sort of a similar job to a network sysadmin: a highly trained who is suspicious of managers without technical skills.
If i may say so, I think all of the replies have the wrong mindset: it can't be done, to difficult, all these problems,etc.
Well, it can be done if people are interested.
Suppose all the sysadmins got 25% of pay/bonus/raise based how simple and plug and play things were. In that world, some sysadmins would found a professional group, and that group would start issuing standards, like any serious group of professionals, and sysadmins would start buying stuff that adhered to stanadards, and voila, you would have highly complex networks with 1,000s of items ranging from kilocore supercompters to thermostats, all plug and play.
I don't know enough about history, but I'm sure if you go back through technology you have this argument again and again and again.
You have to simply put aside all your technical knowledge and skills, and simply say, it can be better....
One example in my own field is DNA sequencing. 30 years ago, it took highly trained people several years to obtain 20 bp of sequence. 20 years ago, 1 highly trained person could do 4,000/year; 10 years ago one trained person could do >1e6/year; today, HS grads can easily do >>1e6/year, and in a few years, it will be easier.
Another example is glucose testing for diabetics: today, you can go to CVS or riteaid, and for a hundred bucks get a home glucose test unit that is pretty easy to use. I'm sure if you go back to the 50s, it took highly trained sysadmin equivalents to get a reading. And if you said to these highly trained people, who had to spend hours to get ONE reading, some day a random person without any training or even a HS diploma can get a reading in 10 seconds, they would have said what you all said to me
Have some imagination - be insanely great
whenever you read stuff like this, about how hard it was for childs to setup the fiberwan network, and the complexity of the router details etc etc...
all you can, poorly designed equipment/software
in this day and age, why on earth can't you just plug the routers into the wall and they configure ?
the obvious answer is that the people who buy them [like childs] have a vested interest - they would loose their well paid jobs if it became simple, so they never buy simple stuff...
agree that current pgp programs way to techie and hard to use. I finally got a program from MIT or someplace to run, but it was a real pain (for /.nerds: one click installation program, and a button that says encrypt email, anything more is to complicated)
on top of pgp, how about an email track me not - you can program thunderbird or firefox, to work with your friends family etc, to create dozens of fake temporary email accounts and just send out stuff all day long..
newby question here: can'tyou put together some specialized hardware, like cell processors or something that are a 1e6 faster then a "modern" computer (which i assume is a random wintel desktop)
While i am no fan of citatin analysis, I think something like half of all articles never get a single citation - they have no importance whatsoever. So why are they published ? So what if there is peer review - noone cares.
Most working scientist that I know bother to read a few top journals (in molecular biology, CELL, under the editorship of Ben Lewin, was top) because they know that quality control makes it worth their while; the other 99% of journals are looked at only when a specific need arises
Profit motive While there are a few "nonprofit" journals run by learned societys, the vast majority of journals are for profit. the publishers know that there are a small number of librarys that will subscribe to almost anything, so its like money for old rope: you start the journal of computational studies in ancient amerindian languages, and a small number of librarys will get a sub; you then just price it right.
Tenure - even if the article is a waste of paper, the promotion process demands articles - I have had senior people, in charge of tenure rev, say many people on those committes simply weigh the supplicants output
history - we have not yet moved from the ancient, typeset ways to the future
Alfred North Whitehead once remarked that progress let us forget. And if you think of what computers do, it is that they allow us to forget to do something: they make us smarter cause they take the load off, just as FEDEX lets us forget to do something - surely not one person in 100 really *needs* FEDEX, but it lets you forget to plan.
It is not about technology or OS vs apps: it is marketing and perception. In the companies where I work,no one in charge cares about linux. I don't know why,but none of the arguments offered by linux people are getting any traction.
If you keep doing the same thing, you get the same results.
This is not about technology, it is about psychology and advertising and stuff like that.
to my understanding, resolution refers to a mapping of the object on to the image - resolution is a ration of 1 cm in object/x cm in image
it has nothing to do with pixels per image, although you can have more of the object , at the same resolution, with more pixels
mod down for use of this horrid neologism
everytime one of these stories comes out, we have the predictable gov't is a bunch of people who don't care about our money comments.
but is gov't really worse then priv sector ? don't forget, priv sector isn't under the openess rules of gov't a corp looses a 1,000 laptops, they don't talk about it.
What i have seen in industry, there is just as much waste, if not more.