You can draw something very close to the second and still claim the defense. It was after all a common symbol in Scandinavia. Carlsberg, the Danish beer company, used it as their logo until the symbol became too tied with thoughts of a rather aggressive southern neighbour. The Finnish air force had it as their symbol, and recently, at their anniversary, you could buy swastika rings. A Swedish noble family has it as their coat of arms. Incidentally that is where the nazis got their inspiration.
The fact is that banning the use of swastikas is ignorant, prejudiced and hypocrisy. Isn't the COD series originally based on WW2, with the possibility of people impersonating nazis for their gaming enjoyment? So you can play nazis for fun, but you cannot use a 4000+ year old symbol because the nazis also used it?
But then what happens when the black hole evaporates through hawking radiation and the event horizon disappears?
That will only happen after the black hole has fully formed and matter has stopped falling into it.
What does that even mean? There is no such thing as a fully formed black hole.
The evaporation can happen while matter is still falling into the black hole. The net evaporation just have to be more than zero.
Which, in our reference frame, is never. It only ever evaporates in local time.
Of course it will disappear in our frame of reference. Otherwise the black hole would violate all the conservation laws and the laws of thermodynamics, because we would see the evaporation products, and also still see the black hole. This cannot be allowed or else the basis for Einsteins theory of relativity is wrong(the basis is that the laws of physics are the same in all frames of reference) and the very basis for believing in black holes would be gone.
Also, while sulphur is not recdommended for breathing, it is actually a reverse greenhouse gas. It is believed that if it wasn't for global shipping global warming would have been much worse at this point.
Exactly. It is, and forever will be, something that's about to become a black hole. Unless you happen to fall into it. In that case, as your watch joins the local reference frame, the black hole will actually form (from your point of view) and suck you in. Outsiders will just see you approaching the thing-that's-almost-a-black-hole, and your watch slowing to an imperceptible crawl, freezing you in time.
But then what happens when the black hole evaporates through hawking radiation and the event horizon disappears?
Seriously, someone tell this guy you're allowed to use more than one character to represent a concept or action, and that these groups of characters represent things rather well.
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa a aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa...
You are so... right!
It's much more efficient. We don't even need more than a single letter.
It's super that ASCII was made specifically for English and the number of letters therefore appears to be the ideal choice, exactly because you use it to express English. That is not the case for all languages, where the the limitation in letters seems rather artificial.
Think about what would happen if you were transported back in time to the 1600's. What could you really do with all the knowledge you have about today?
I've a reasonable fraction of my life along the northwestern coast of Denmark, which has some very tricky beaches. The most dangerous places can be those without waves, especially if it's windy. An area with no waves in strong winds is a sign of very strong undertows. The locals learn to read the waves, but tourist think "what a lovely calm piece of water, I'll swim there". They then get dragged out to sea, and even the strongest swimmers can't fight the currents. Many drown not from being overwhelmed by waves but from exhaustion fighting the currents. A flotation device would be perfect in those cases. They'll be able to keep themselves afloat and much easier to spot and retrieve by boat or helicopter, because there is no way anyone sane would be swimming out after them.
99 times out of 100 when I saw a police car in the neighbourhood I grew up in it was patrolling. But, that's probably because there were a lot of embassies and ambassador residences around. Because they had to protect against terrorist attacks and so on, they were not allowed to get tied up in enforcing small infractions, in case they were distractions. This meant that one time me and a couple of friends weren't pursued when we were racing down a small quiet road at night with speed bumps. When we approached a bump an oncoming car got out of the way so we could pass and as we hit the bump doing ~90 kph, so fast the cars were jumping, we saw it was a police car. This was around the corner from the U.S's ambassadors residence so the police had to race there, instead of pursuing us.
Um, what? I, too, live in Scandinavia, and it takes about $20 to change your tires in a repair shop - less than that if you use one of those temporary changing places that pop up at spring and fall.
Not here.
Also, the only Scandinavian country where tax rate even goes to 60% is Denmark
You Sir, have won some herring.
and even there it tops at 62.28%, which would require you to be a top earner - according to Wikipedia, even the equivalent of $138,000 wouldn't hit even 50%, much less 60%. Which means there's no way in Hell you'd have to work for two days for a net gain of $100.
Care to explain?
I most certainly would care. You are confounding average tax and marginal tax. Once I have hit an income of 59000 dollars(I'm just about there) a year I pay 60% tax on everything earned beyond that. So if I have to have a net gain of 100$ I would have to earn 250$. I earn about 160$ a day. So I would have to work ~1.6 days more, not taking travel costs and extra expenses into account. Not so far from two days I would say.
Bonus info: about 1/3 of all working Danes are earning enough to hit the top percentage.
3. There are no "czars" in this government. Some people are more senior, and have more authority; other people are less senior and have less authority. Are you in favor of everyone having the same authority? Or do you object to the word "czar"? Heaven knows it's an objectionable word, but it's one that the media uses to describe otherwise boring titles.
Yes, yes I object to the word "Czar", it's a bastardisation of the root word, Ceasar.
Realistically we should have more accurate names, right now in Australia there is certain politician who's title is "Minister of Communications, Broadband and the Digital Economy" when he really needs to be called the "Fürer of the Internet".
Wouldn't that just be a bastardisation of the root word, Führer?:-P
Because I live in Scandinavia and changing tires(summer/winter) is most certainly relevant to safe driving?
Plus, Scandinavia is one of them ebul sociamolist places without poor people, so getting your tires changed is ~$100 (cost of labour only), and I'm paying 60% tax. It makes no sense
for me to work two days more to afford something I could do myself in 30 minutes.
We certainly should see the full horrors and then we can discuss who it was that unleashed the scourge of islamic fundementalism on Iraq.
Women had it markedly better in Iraq under Hussein, than other Arabic countries. He had abolished Sharia law. He ran a, for the middle east, largely secular state.
Do not delude yourself. This was not a crusade for justice and peace. It was, as the middle-age crusades, for political expediency and economic reasons. If it really was for making the world a better place, then why are we not heavily engaged in Somalia or North Korea?
I don't mind condemning soldiers who step across the line. But I have a real problem with the hypocricy of forgiving everyone else in the world for their sins and being the first to step up onto the soap box to condemn our own.
We are condemning them and more importantly their leaders for, exactly, hypocrisy. They were supposedly there to stop this kind of abuse. Instead they have perpetrated the very acts they were supposed to stop. Furthermore violence, ethnic/religious conflicts and fundamentalism has spread, again directly against the stated goal.
It's probably relatively cheap to build such a probe, and probably also relatively easy to get the funding for a short project like that, but the problem comes when we have to listen to the probe. That's probably expensive and a very long-term project, which are very difficult to get funded(plus they are the prime victims of budget cuts, because such long-term projects are often funded directly outside the normal proposal calls.)
I'm sorry you've been so thoroughly indoctrinated that you do not believe it necessary to examine or argue for your country's form of government.
A constitutional monarchy is also based on the consent of the governed while making mob rule deliberately difficult.
Having a hereditary head of state gives the possibility of training and educating the head of state specifically for that job. It also places a much larger burden on the person to do a good job. His/her livelihood and that of his entire family hinges on the continued support of the public.
The head of state is a politically neutral figure, and the daily powers are vested in the elected prime minister who has to base his political decision on broad consensus in a multi party system fostering cooperation across all parties and preventing unilateral behaviour benefiting just one party in a winner takes all system.
There are monarchies around the world that have existed for more than a 1000 years
Sure, because in most cases the elected representatives in those countries have chosen to retain those monarchies as celebrity pets. In cases where the monarchies actually have any real power or authority, it's maintained by force - not by the happy support of a given family's subjects. Of course you know that, and you're just thrashing around trying to find a way in which a constitution-based representative republic can be made to look bad, since you'd prefer a pure Nanny State.
I think you don't know the difference between Absolutism and Constitutional Monarchy. Hint: the first is a relatively recent form of government. Or maybe you do now the difference, and you're just thrashing around trying to find a way in which a constitution-based representative monarchy can be made to look bad?
You even have to resort to name calling instead of actually showing through reasoned argument why a republic is the pinnacle of government.
Well, the US does have the longest standing Constitution of any nation. I think that says a whole lot about the effectiveness of our chosen form of government.
Sorry but you're wrong. There are constitutions twice as old as the US's still in use today, and nations have existed that had the same constitution for much longer. Part of my country had the same constitution from mid 13th century to the beginning of the 20th i.e. more than 650 years.
I wouldn't be so proud of your constitution it has after all allowed slavery, segregation, torture camps, and the suspension of habeas corpus.
When you think about it, our system is really only one of two that could contain itself long enough to achieve so-called "Superpower Status". The other (apparently, looking at history) was Communism (speaking of the former Soviet Union).
So you've taken the two powers that has been called superpowers recently, but many nations have had the same level of power throughout history. A few examples:
The roman empire - republic/dictatorship
Mongolian empire - meritocratic despotism
British empire - monarchy
However, seeing as the United States is still here and still retains it's Superpower status, I believe we've proven that only the mixture of Democracy and Authoritarianism that is the "Representative Republic" form of Government can withstand the long haul of time.
I don't think you've proven anything.
Is the US really a superpower still? It's definitely declining. Looking at history I think it's delusional arrogance to believe the US has found the "perfect" government. Especially when you consider the US being such a young construct, which definitely has yet to stand the test of time.
There are monarchies around the world that have existed for more than a 1000 years.
Regardless of all that, the monetary value of a potential sale is exactly $0.00.
I'm sorry but that is demonstrably untrue. Otherwise advertising would be worthless, which is clearly not the case. People are willing
to pay for a potential to sell. Now it's obviously a lot less worth than the price of the song, and definitely not 500 billion dollars or however
much the laws are charging at the moment in the US.
BUT WHERE? I can't argue that it is research time.
Yes you can. It *is* research time. Keeping your data organized and usable IS PART OF RESEARCH.
No it isn't unless it is specifically stipulated in the contract I have signed with the funding agency.
Why? If that was not stipulated in the grant?
Because you are doing science, asshole. Thats right.. the gloves are off, because you are also doing it on public money. You are doing FUCKING SCIENCE. THE DATA IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING yet you seem to think that you get to treat the data like shit, being completely careless with it, not even having any of it organized,..
Its this fucking simple:
YOU ARE NOT THE RESEARCH. THE DATA IS. IT SHOULD ALWAYS BE ORGANIZED, EVEN IF YOU ARE A SLOPPY INCONSIDERATE FUCK THAT WASTES PUBLIC MONEY.
Ah, so because I'm in research I should work for free and pay the cost of publishing all intermediate data? And might I add on something completely useless because some random person on the internet believes he knows better how the public is served on a project he knows nothing about than the people giving out the grant and the independent reviewers (often "competing" scientists with intimate knowledge of the field) hired by the grant giver to insure the public interest is served?
You don't seem to be able to get through your head that spending time and money on publishing intermediate data would be wasting public money. But, if you feel so strongly about it why don't you contact the politicians who have decided the framework for publicly funded research? Or, maybe you could try to become a reviewer on these projects.
But until you change scientific funding to a massive waste fest, I'll keep to the contract I have signed with the funding agency.
Where do I account for the time spent on giving out data because some random person wants it?
Everywhere. You account for all of your time.
BUT WHERE?
I can't argue that it is research time. I can't argue that it is a support action. Unless it is directly covered in the description of work(600 page legal document). So where do I account for it? Remember, I will have to argue against the EU commission that I decided that the agreement we had was stupid because some random person wanted some intermediate data, or I will have to pay out of my own pocket for the time spent. If I don't account for my full time I won't get my paycheck reimbursed fully.
If the data is somehow in some random inexplicable state right this second, and your excuse is that you didnt have enough money allocated for "community outreach", then I believe that you should have your grant money pulled immediately.
Why? If that was not stipulated in the grant?
In the private sector, YOU GET FIRED if your data never makes it to a usable state.
Exactly. The operative word being "makes".
What data that must be published and what results
that are required are stated in the funding contract. That will be published. That is the contract I have agreed to.
That community outreach time you need.. if you dont have enough to take that ALREADY carefully documented and tracked data that you ARE SUPPOSED TO HAVE and stick it on an FTP site, then you need more than 15 minutes of time. Is that what you have? Less than 15 minutes of "outreach" time? Really?
I have no "outreach" time accountable on the two EU projects I'm going to be in in FP7(the current research funding framework programme in the EU).
Stop making excuses. Put the data up. Click click click. Done
And if I have access to code and data developed in the US, that could be used for nuclear weapons simulation? If I were to release that to the public I would get a quick visit from representatives of the United States Government in dark suits, who would like to have a "little talk".
Before I'm putting anything up that isn't covered by my contract, I'll need lawyers and an OK from the US partners and government. That's a little more than 3 clicks and 15 minutes. And I'm not paying the lawyers!
Slashdot Mirror
You can draw something very close to the second and still claim the defense. It was after all a common symbol in Scandinavia. Carlsberg, the Danish beer company, used it as their logo until the symbol became too tied with thoughts of a rather aggressive southern neighbour. The Finnish air force had it as their symbol, and recently, at their anniversary, you could buy swastika rings. A Swedish noble family has it as their coat of arms. Incidentally that is where the nazis got their inspiration.
The fact is that banning the use of swastikas is ignorant, prejudiced and hypocrisy. Isn't the COD series originally based on WW2, with the possibility of people impersonating nazis for their gaming enjoyment? So you can play nazis for fun, but you cannot use a 4000+ year old symbol because the nazis also used it?
But then what happens when the black hole evaporates through hawking radiation and the event horizon disappears?
That will only happen after the black hole has fully formed and matter has stopped falling into it.
What does that even mean? There is no such thing as a fully formed black hole. The evaporation can happen while matter is still falling into the black hole. The net evaporation just have to be more than zero.
Which, in our reference frame, is never. It only ever evaporates in local time.
Of course it will disappear in our frame of reference. Otherwise the black hole would violate all the conservation laws and the laws of thermodynamics, because we would see the evaporation products, and also still see the black hole. This cannot be allowed or else the basis for Einsteins theory of relativity is wrong(the basis is that the laws of physics are the same in all frames of reference) and the very basis for believing in black holes would be gone.
Also, while sulphur is not recdommended for breathing, it is actually a reverse greenhouse gas. It is believed that if it wasn't for global shipping global warming would have been much worse at this point.
Exactly. It is, and forever will be, something that's about to become a black hole. Unless you happen to fall into it. In that case, as your watch joins the local reference frame, the black hole will actually form (from your point of view) and suck you in. Outsiders will just see you approaching the thing-that's-almost-a-black-hole, and your watch slowing to an imperceptible crawl, freezing you in time.
But then what happens when the black hole evaporates through hawking radiation and the event horizon disappears?
Seriously, someone tell this guy you're allowed to use more than one character to represent a concept or action, and that these groups of characters represent things rather well.
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa a aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa ...
You are so ... right!
It's much more efficient. We don't even need more than a single letter.
It's super that ASCII was made specifically for English and the number of letters therefore appears to be the ideal choice, exactly because you use it to express English. That is not the case for all languages, where the the limitation in letters seems rather artificial.
Think about what would happen if you were transported back in time to the 1600's. What could you really do with all the knowledge you have about today?
I could get burned at the stake.
I've a reasonable fraction of my life along the northwestern coast of Denmark, which has some very tricky beaches. The most dangerous places can be those without waves, especially if it's windy. An area with no waves in strong winds is a sign of very strong undertows. The locals learn to read the waves, but tourist think "what a lovely calm piece of water, I'll swim there". They then get dragged out to sea, and even the strongest swimmers can't fight the currents. Many drown not from being overwhelmed by waves but from exhaustion fighting the currents. A flotation device would be perfect in those cases. They'll be able to keep themselves afloat and much easier to spot and retrieve by boat or helicopter, because there is no way anyone sane would be swimming out after them.
99 times out of 100 when I saw a police car in the neighbourhood I grew up in it was patrolling. But, that's probably because there were a lot of embassies and ambassador residences around. Because they had to protect against terrorist attacks and so on, they were not allowed to get tied up in enforcing small infractions, in case they were distractions. This meant that one time me and a couple of friends weren't pursued when we were racing down a small quiet road at night with speed bumps. When we approached a bump an oncoming car got out of the way so we could pass and as we hit the bump doing ~90 kph, so fast the cars were jumping, we saw it was a police car. This was around the corner from the U.S's ambassadors residence so the police had to race there, instead of pursuing us.
A man lies and dreams of bit fields and torrents, but awakes to a morning with no reason to waking
Um, what? I, too, live in Scandinavia, and it takes about $20 to change your tires in a repair shop - less than that if you use one of those temporary changing places that pop up at spring and fall.
Not here.
Also, the only Scandinavian country where tax rate even goes to 60% is Denmark
You Sir, have won some herring.
and even there it tops at 62.28%, which would require you to be a top earner - according to Wikipedia, even the equivalent of $138,000 wouldn't hit even 50%, much less 60%. Which means there's no way in Hell you'd have to work for two days for a net gain of $100.
Care to explain?
I most certainly would care. You are confounding average tax and marginal tax. Once I have hit an income of 59000 dollars(I'm just about there) a year I pay 60% tax on everything earned beyond that. So if I have to have a net gain of 100$ I would have to earn 250$. I earn about 160$ a day. So I would have to work ~1.6 days more, not taking travel costs and extra expenses into account. Not so far from two days I would say.
Bonus info: about 1/3 of all working Danes are earning enough to hit the top percentage.
Yes, yes I object to the word "Czar", it's a bastardisation of the root word, Ceasar. Realistically we should have more accurate names, right now in Australia there is certain politician who's title is "Minister of Communications, Broadband and the Digital Economy" when he really needs to be called the "Fürer of the Internet".
Wouldn't that just be a bastardisation of the root word, Führer? :-P
Because I live in Scandinavia and changing tires(summer/winter) is most certainly relevant to safe driving?
Plus, Scandinavia is one of them ebul sociamolist places without poor people, so getting your tires changed is ~$100 (cost of labour only), and I'm paying 60% tax. It makes no sense for me to work two days more to afford something I could do myself in 30 minutes.
Read GPs post again.
He said that Iraq was the only area in the middle east where women had anything resembling equal rights.
We certainly should see the full horrors and then we can discuss who it was that unleashed the scourge of islamic fundementalism on Iraq.
Women had it markedly better in Iraq under Hussein, than other Arabic countries. He had abolished Sharia law. He ran a, for the middle east, largely secular state.
Do not delude yourself. This was not a crusade for justice and peace. It was, as the middle-age crusades, for political expediency and economic reasons. If it really was for making the world a better place, then why are we not heavily engaged in Somalia or North Korea?
I don't mind condemning soldiers who step across the line. But I have a real problem with the hypocricy of forgiving everyone else in the world for their sins and being the first to step up onto the soap box to condemn our own.
We are condemning them and more importantly their leaders for, exactly, hypocrisy. They were supposedly there to stop this kind of abuse. Instead they have perpetrated the very acts they were supposed to stop. Furthermore violence, ethnic/religious conflicts and fundamentalism has spread, again directly against the stated goal.
... then if you decide to shoot yourself with the pistol in the safe in the living room.
quibbleman to the rescue: Just make sure your safe is too small for you to fit inside and you'll be alright.
It's probably relatively cheap to build such a probe, and probably also relatively easy to get the funding for a short project like that, but the problem comes when we have to listen to the probe. That's probably expensive and a very long-term project, which are very difficult to get funded(plus they are the prime victims of budget cuts, because such long-term projects are often funded directly outside the normal proposal calls.)
The constitution of San Marino is from 1600
I'm sorry you've been so thoroughly indoctrinated that you do not believe it necessary to examine or argue for your country's form of government.
A constitutional monarchy is also based on the consent of the governed while making mob rule deliberately difficult.
Having a hereditary head of state gives the possibility of training and educating the head of state specifically for that job. It also places a much larger burden on the person to do a good job. His/her livelihood and that of his entire family hinges on the continued support of the public.
The head of state is a politically neutral figure, and the daily powers are vested in the elected prime minister who has to base his political decision on broad consensus in a multi party system fostering cooperation across all parties and preventing unilateral behaviour benefiting just one party in a winner takes all system.
There are monarchies around the world that have existed for more than a 1000 years Sure, because in most cases the elected representatives in those countries have chosen to retain those monarchies as celebrity pets. In cases where the monarchies actually have any real power or authority, it's maintained by force - not by the happy support of a given family's subjects. Of course you know that, and you're just thrashing around trying to find a way in which a constitution-based representative republic can be made to look bad, since you'd prefer a pure Nanny State.
I think you don't know the difference between Absolutism and Constitutional Monarchy. Hint: the first is a relatively recent form of government. Or maybe you do now the difference, and you're just thrashing around trying to find a way in which a constitution-based representative monarchy can be made to look bad?
You even have to resort to name calling instead of actually showing through reasoned argument why a republic is the pinnacle of government.
Well, the US does have the longest standing Constitution of any nation. I think that says a whole lot about the effectiveness of our chosen form of government.
Sorry but you're wrong. There are constitutions twice as old as the US's still in use today, and nations have existed that had the same constitution for much longer. Part of my country had the same constitution from mid 13th century to the beginning of the 20th i.e. more than 650 years.
I wouldn't be so proud of your constitution it has after all allowed slavery, segregation, torture camps, and the suspension of habeas corpus.
When you think about it, our system is really only one of two that could contain itself long enough to achieve so-called "Superpower Status". The other (apparently, looking at history) was Communism (speaking of the former Soviet Union).
So you've taken the two powers that has been called superpowers recently, but many nations have had the same level of power throughout history. A few examples:
The roman empire - republic/dictatorship
Mongolian empire - meritocratic despotism
British empire - monarchy
However, seeing as the United States is still here and still retains it's Superpower status, I believe we've proven that only the mixture of Democracy and Authoritarianism that is the "Representative Republic" form of Government can withstand the long haul of time.
I don't think you've proven anything.
Is the US really a superpower still? It's definitely declining. Looking at history I think it's delusional arrogance to believe the US has found the "perfect" government. Especially when you consider the US being such a young construct, which definitely has yet to stand the test of time.
There are monarchies around the world that have existed for more than a 1000 years.
Regardless of all that, the monetary value of a potential sale is exactly $0.00.
I'm sorry but that is demonstrably untrue. Otherwise advertising would be worthless, which is clearly not the case. People are willing to pay for a potential to sell. Now it's obviously a lot less worth than the price of the song, and definitely not 500 billion dollars or however much the laws are charging at the moment in the US.
Not sure what they used, but 1970's era rechargeable batteries tend to suck period.
So they can also be marketed as a feminine hygiene product?
Badabum Tsching. I'll be here all week folks. Remember to tip you waitress.
BUT WHERE? I can't argue that it is research time.
Yes you can. It *is* research time. Keeping your data organized and usable IS PART OF RESEARCH.
No it isn't unless it is specifically stipulated in the contract I have signed with the funding agency.
Why? If that was not stipulated in the grant?
Because you are doing science, asshole. Thats right.. the gloves are off, because you are also doing it on public money. You are doing FUCKING SCIENCE. THE DATA IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING yet you seem to think that you get to treat the data like shit, being completely careless with it, not even having any of it organized, ..
Its this fucking simple:
YOU ARE NOT THE RESEARCH. THE DATA IS. IT SHOULD ALWAYS BE ORGANIZED, EVEN IF YOU ARE A SLOPPY INCONSIDERATE FUCK THAT WASTES PUBLIC MONEY.
Ah, so because I'm in research I should work for free and pay the cost of publishing all intermediate data? And might I add on something completely useless because some random person on the internet believes he knows better how the public is served on a project he knows nothing about than the people giving out the grant and the independent reviewers (often "competing" scientists with intimate knowledge of the field) hired by the grant giver to insure the public interest is served?
You don't seem to be able to get through your head that spending time and money on publishing intermediate data would be wasting public money. But, if you feel so strongly about it why don't you contact the politicians who have decided the framework for publicly funded research? Or, maybe you could try to become a reviewer on these projects.
But until you change scientific funding to a massive waste fest, I'll keep to the contract I have signed with the funding agency.
Where do I account for the time spent on giving out data because some random person wants it?
Everywhere. You account for all of your time.
BUT WHERE? I can't argue that it is research time. I can't argue that it is a support action. Unless it is directly covered in the description of work(600 page legal document). So where do I account for it? Remember, I will have to argue against the EU commission that I decided that the agreement we had was stupid because some random person wanted some intermediate data, or I will have to pay out of my own pocket for the time spent. If I don't account for my full time I won't get my paycheck reimbursed fully.
If the data is somehow in some random inexplicable state right this second, and your excuse is that you didnt have enough money allocated for "community outreach", then I believe that you should have your grant money pulled immediately.
Why? If that was not stipulated in the grant?
In the private sector, YOU GET FIRED if your data never makes it to a usable state.
Exactly. The operative word being "makes". What data that must be published and what results that are required are stated in the funding contract. That will be published. That is the contract I have agreed to.
That community outreach time you need.. if you dont have enough to take that ALREADY carefully documented and tracked data that you ARE SUPPOSED TO HAVE and stick it on an FTP site, then you need more than 15 minutes of time. Is that what you have? Less than 15 minutes of "outreach" time? Really?
I have no "outreach" time accountable on the two EU projects I'm going to be in in FP7(the current research funding framework programme in the EU).
Stop making excuses. Put the data up. Click click click. Done
And if I have access to code and data developed in the US, that could be used for nuclear weapons simulation? If I were to release that to the public I would get a quick visit from representatives of the United States Government in dark suits, who would like to have a "little talk".
Before I'm putting anything up that isn't covered by my contract, I'll need lawyers and an OK from the US partners and government. That's a little more than 3 clicks and 15 minutes. And I'm not paying the lawyers!