While I don't disagree with the conclusions, this summary equates paper "quality" with number of citations. High numbers of citations do not mean high quality, and is very field-dependent. Quality can only be assessed by people reading the paper.
The big speed increase for me was obtained using one minimisation search method which seemed to have been particularly well implemented in scipy. Since my project (https://bitbucket.org/pkwasniew/mcsas) uses an iterative procedure, this was very, very important.
When I moved from Matlab to Python three years ago, I saw a massive speed increase of my methods. Also I no longer have to decide whether or not to shell out more cash for the statistics package, it's all there!
Looking back at my old Matlab code also makes me cringe a bit about the syntax of that language.
If, by "halfway between Tokyo and Fukushima", you mean it's a hell of a lot closer to Tokyo (60km) than Fukushima (200km). And I live there too, though I was in Hyogo at the time of the quake so didn't feel anything.
One rather nice outcome, though, is the SafeCast project. This project revolves around continuous mapping of the environment through bps-logger-coupled gamma spectrometers.
Actually, I've been working with Prof. Moriarty and he's great fun. He has some "sixty symbols" and "numberphile" videos up on youtube if you are interested.
Additional links: A big discussion has taken place on PubPeer following a pre-publication arXiv release of a paper (full disclosure: I'm a co-author on the second version of this paper). The paper is well worth a read, and should be coming out soon in PLoS One.
Except that the stripy particles used here are not real. Stellacci has been claiming to make these, but there are big doubts over the evidence: http://www.timeshighereducatio...
All the government needs to do to make it worthless is to ask the NSA to mine with their resources for a while. That would quickly make the government the richest in terms of Bitcoin, and therefore gain even more power!
This is how you milk science. I won't contest that it is incredibly useful, but the decision to publish in *both* Nature and Science shows the direction science is heading in. All for papers.
This is very important, as they did not randomly pick studies but rather chose the ones they "Deemed Worthy". As they did not want to be proven bad scientists (I assume), their conscious or unconscious bias will have been towards sound or easy studies.
The solution is to give one island to North Korea, one to South Korea, One to Taiwan and one to Japan. Watch the fireworks for a while, and realise when the smoke has lifted that there are no spots left above the waterline. Everyone has had their opportunity to blow off some steam and very few citizens will get hurt.
You could consider that, but the stockholders would get personally offended. They'll then split up the companies and sell the bits for scrap to maximise their profits. Nearly happened to Philips a while back.
There was a report the other day saying that China is trying to claim enough islands around the east china sea so that it can claim the entire sea as an "inland sea". Hence the disputes over islands with everyone, from Indonesia to Japan. It seems like they are hoping to claim enough barren rocks to make this dream a reality.
It was said back then that this is necessary for fishing and mining.
"The reason it has been around so long, perhaps is an indicator it has merit." No, that's an argumentum ad antiquitatem. Just because it is old does not mean it is good. The bible and its ideas are quite old and tenacious, but that does not necessarily mean they have any merit.
Just wanted to point that out, and would like to indicate that if you google "how to win every argument", you'll end up with a PDF of a quite nice book detailing the argumentative fallacies.
Don't you mean beryllium? That has the benefit that if a few beryllium atoms leave the surface and enter the plasma, you don't immediately collapse your plasma. Also, beryllium is one of the nastier materials to machine.
Slashdot Mirror
relying on the fallacy of the middle way will still get you down the slippery slope, just at half the speed!
While I don't disagree with the conclusions, this summary equates paper "quality" with number of citations. High numbers of citations do not mean high quality, and is very field-dependent.
Quality can only be assessed by people reading the paper.
The big speed increase for me was obtained using one minimisation search method which seemed to have been particularly well implemented in scipy. Since my project (https://bitbucket.org/pkwasniew/mcsas) uses an iterative procedure, this was very, very important.
Ugh, this reads like a job ad.
When I moved from Matlab to Python three years ago, I saw a massive speed increase of my methods. Also I no longer have to decide whether or not to shell out more cash for the statistics package, it's all there!
Looking back at my old Matlab code also makes me cringe a bit about the syntax of that language.
That, and the jellyfish which are arriving in August.
though if you are MS you "squirt" it. ... damn I'm old
(should be GPS-logger-coupled but autocorrect reverted my aborted autocorrect).
If, by "halfway between Tokyo and Fukushima", you mean it's a hell of a lot closer to Tokyo (60km) than Fukushima (200km). And I live there too, though I was in Hyogo at the time of the quake so didn't feel anything.
One rather nice outcome, though, is the SafeCast project. This project revolves around continuous mapping of the environment through bps-logger-coupled gamma spectrometers.
Actually, I've been working with Prof. Moriarty and he's great fun. He has some "sixty symbols" and "numberphile" videos up on youtube if you are interested.
Additional links: A big discussion has taken place on PubPeer following a pre-publication arXiv release of a paper (full disclosure: I'm a co-author on the second version of this paper). The paper is well worth a read, and should be coming out soon in PLoS One.
ArXiv: http://arxiv.org/abs/1312.6812
Pubpeer: https://pubpeer.com/publicatio...
Except that the stripy particles used here are not real. Stellacci has been claiming to make these, but there are big doubts over the evidence:
http://www.timeshighereducatio...
This is a very well done rap video on the topic of net neutrality worth watching:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Piss off. It's the entire system that's failing here. You can't blame one party for all the faults in a two-party system.
All the government needs to do to make it worthless is to ask the NSA to mine with their resources for a while. That would quickly make the government the richest in terms of Bitcoin, and therefore gain even more power!
This is how you milk science. I won't contest that it is incredibly useful, but the decision to publish in *both* Nature and Science shows the direction science is heading in. All for papers.
indeed, it is an engineering marvel: a submersible aircraft carrier! If that's not cool, I don't know what is.
This is very important, as they did not randomly pick studies but rather chose the ones they "Deemed Worthy". As they did not want to be proven bad scientists (I assume), their conscious or unconscious bias will have been towards sound or easy studies.
The solution is to give one island to North Korea, one to South Korea, One to Taiwan and one to Japan. Watch the fireworks for a while, and realise when the smoke has lifted that there are no spots left above the waterline. Everyone has had their opportunity to blow off some steam and very few citizens will get hurt.
You could consider that, but the stockholders would get personally offended. They'll then split up the companies and sell the bits for scrap to maximise their profits. Nearly happened to Philips a while back.
" It doesn't help that China feels they have still never received a proper apology"
Which is interesting, as there have been a fair few apologies from the Japanese:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_war_apology_statements_issued_by_Japan
But somehow, even among the Dutch, there is a persistent belief that Japan never apologised.
There was a report the other day saying that China is trying to claim enough islands around the east china sea so that it can claim the entire sea as an "inland sea". Hence the disputes over islands with everyone, from Indonesia to Japan. It seems like they are hoping to claim enough barren rocks to make this dream a reality.
It was said back then that this is necessary for fishing and mining.
"The reason it has been around so long, perhaps is an indicator it has merit."
No, that's an argumentum ad antiquitatem. Just because it is old does not mean it is good. The bible and its ideas are quite old and tenacious, but that does not necessarily mean they have any merit.
Just wanted to point that out, and would like to indicate that if you google "how to win every argument", you'll end up with a PDF of a quite nice book detailing the argumentative fallacies.
Most ports do not allow nuclear-powered ships to moor, so change that first.
FYI, the EU consists of quite a few countries, not just four.
Don't you mean beryllium? That has the benefit that if a few beryllium atoms leave the surface and enter the plasma, you don't immediately collapse your plasma. Also, beryllium is one of the nastier materials to machine.
B.