This really reminds me of Pfizer- selling all the cash cows off (household products developed in-house- Listerine, etc etc) that were pure profit.
Next step, closing down all research (= new prod development).
Final step, call it toasted and done.
Of course, the Senior Management make a profit at each step- clown shoes flapping all the way to the bank.
I had a kidney transplant close to 6 years ago. I have 3 immunosuppresive meds, 2 of which are fairly targeted, one is good old prednisone. And then 3 more to counteract the effects of these meds.
I missed a pre-treatment (too complicated to get into) by about a year that would have let me (without much worry) leave off at least one medication, as I see it, for my situation. This pre-treatment has been available in Europe for quite some time (I'm USA). I have the benefit of being a life sciences researcher, working in the field of immunology (although not transplant medicine) so I get to geek out a bit more than some over published papers.
The paired-unrelated-donor exchange registries available these days are the neatest advance I have seen, statistically. A HUGE difference in real matches.
These days, blood type match is actually more important than many of the histocompatibility complex match categories, but increased antigen matches can't hurt.
RE: this summary.
OK, ATM is a thin client. Earth-shaking technologically? no. For this business, perhaps, and "why didn't this succeed earlier".
RE: Diebold and vote-tabulating machines in this regard per the summary:
Are you on something? The same Diebold PR mechanism that produced and sold ATMS that... wait for it... generated printable paper trails on each transaction stated that their solution for voting booth customers was incapable of this same paper trail.
And you expect at this point sheeple to connect the dots?
You neglect to mention that now in 2010/ 2011 Pfizer is closing down the sites to which they so "graciously" relocated a small percentage of their researchers (300 of 2200 is a crummy percentage, and that from just ONE site that closed at that time).
Small investment in 2008 for a bump in stock price in 2011 for laying off more staff: more stock profit for the suits.
Your points are great, except they don't account for the fact that people aren't going to eat right. Not these days, where all the marketing says to buy your food from a corporation (hey corporations are people too!) in a box of some sort.
fuck Pfizer, they never developed much of their own, they bought Warner-Lambert and others to acquire this drug and other drug candidates.
They followed this up by closing down their most productive R& D sites globally.
Vast personal profit for the execs, decades of experienced researchers tossed to the wind, and their "if we screened X million candidates with this robotic platform and got N useful hits, if we screen X^5 million via robotic screen we'll get N^5 final candidates and reap the rewards" strategy didn't work worth a darn. Big surprise.
That's what happens when suits (some hired from companies with a GREAT track record for drug development- like.... McDonalds) take over a scientific company.
A few more rounds of boosting stock price via layoffs and this will be a little has-been of a company.
Nice work there guys. Way to destroy a company. You could have done the same thing by just buying a pizza chain or something and selling off assets for personal gain, and not cost the real human race useful medications.
I am going to bump up an AC post here under a loginID, since AC vs user makes a difference: the students click away copyright.
As someone else said below regarding your post on the implications of this:
---
You don't understand the difference between copyright and patent. The fact that this comment could get modded +5 insightful shows why slashdot is so retarded on IP issues.
---
I don't see any questions in your post, I read it and found a what-if (and using some really interesting choices for examples) and an admonishment:
---
Never, ever underestimate the seriousness of requiring someone to surrender intellectual ownership of things written or invented on their own time as a condition of getting an education or a job or anything else.
---
I submitted real-world examples of the tool in use, and real-world examples of why the tool is needed in an educational context, and to me the thought experiment doesn't have weight.
Interesting thought you have about data being self-righteous. Maybe we should ask it how it feels: )
I posted in a reply elsewhere- instructors can configure whether they see that earlier "tries" were rejected or not. It isn't a given that they would know, not choose to care, as long as the student does the work to make unique constructs in the end.
All 4 years are undergrads, by the way. If you are taking intro classes all those years, and in my experience with this tool that is the only place its used- well power to you. Where have you seen the tool used?
Consider this a lesson to students- if you are basing your business model on word-for-word copying of copyrighted work-- you are going to suffer consequences in the business world just like you did in the classroom. E.g., you will lose. Best to learn that early. These days, incoming students have been surrendering copyright for years on everything from their posting, bloggings, tweets, and photographs- here's a time when clicking that checkbox actually lets them learn something.
I submit that this field in particular, due to its link to business, is one of the prime candidates for leaning this lesson early. We can find many examples where not learning this lesson costs you your job most certainly; your employer money at best, product or company at worst.
Heard of Oracle and SAP? We can find many industrial examples where bad habits had huge consequences. Its isn't just in the classroom kids.
I submit that the real-world data, and opportunities for lesson-learned early on, outweigh the thought experiment you submit.
I am familiar with several universities that use turn_it_in_dot.com
They (faculty in the departments) have chosen to set the service up such that when an assignment is required, students submit to this service. The student can check their submission before finalization; if the service flags content as problematic the student has the choice to submit anyway, or revise and try again later.
Faculty have the option to enable a feature such that they *could* see that a students initial submissions had problem content, but that feature isn't enabled for the instructor at this time. Apparently this is a choice available to course instructors as they set the service configuration for their course. This deployment makes the mentioned pay-to-check-the-paper student-side service moot.
While I believe students do release their copyright to the work as part of this- I can't take seriously the idea anyone cares about the copyright on their intro biology lab report, if they were planning to copyright it I suspect a different type of skullduggery.
It is a muddier situation for non-entry level classes, but I don't know of any 3rd or 4th year courses that do use this type of service at the universities I have some familiarity with. Especially these days, when even at prestigious universities most college freshman can't generate written content that earlier was required for good marks at high school graduation-- I don't feel students in the early university courses are giving up much by checking that check-box re copyright.
That's just wrong. Even radio stations (usually) got that right.
I won't listen to my ipod-imported version of those albums as the jump from one mp3 to another is also just wrong for them. I ended up merging the mp3 in Audacity and building my own album.
Jarringly wrong.
I see this as one more planted article in mainstream press: "Science is there to mislead you, listen to fake news instead". The rising tide against education and critical thinking in the USA is reminiscent of the Cultural Revolution in China.
It is even more ironic that the argument "against" metrics that usefully determine validity is couched in a pseudo-analytical format itself.
At this point in the USA, most folks reading (even) the New yorker have no idea what a p-value is, why these things matter, and they will just recall the headline "science is wrong".
And then they wonder in Detroit why they can't make $100k a year anymore pushing the button on robot that was designed overseas by someone else- you know, overseas where engineering, science, etc are still held in high regard.
As if there will be a shortage of low-pay service workers anytime soon.
Here in the states that will be all we have, before long.
why use "expensive" robots when "disposable" people (to use business terms) already abound, and will only become cheaper?
Slashdot Mirror
This really reminds me of Pfizer- selling all the cash cows off (household products developed in-house- Listerine, etc etc) that were pure profit. Next step, closing down all research (= new prod development).
Final step, call it toasted and done.
Of course, the Senior Management make a profit at each step- clown shoes flapping all the way to the bank.
I had a kidney transplant close to 6 years ago. I have 3 immunosuppresive meds, 2 of which are fairly targeted, one is good old prednisone. And then 3 more to counteract the effects of these meds.
I missed a pre-treatment (too complicated to get into) by about a year that would have let me (without much worry) leave off at least one medication, as I see it, for my situation. This pre-treatment has been available in Europe for quite some time (I'm USA). I have the benefit of being a life sciences researcher, working in the field of immunology (although not transplant medicine) so I get to geek out a bit more than some over published papers.
The paired-unrelated-donor exchange registries available these days are the neatest advance I have seen, statistically. A HUGE difference in real matches.
These days, blood type match is actually more important than many of the histocompatibility complex match categories, but increased antigen matches can't hurt.
_The Face in the Frost_ by John Bellairs
1969, humorous, different, and memorable "fantasy" novel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bellairs
I have wanted a weather vane that makes a snurfling sound ever since I read this book.
People with more education than you do, apparently.
RE: this summary. OK, ATM is a thin client. Earth-shaking technologically? no. For this business, perhaps, and "why didn't this succeed earlier".
... wait for it... generated printable paper trails on each transaction stated that their solution for voting booth customers was incapable of this same paper trail.
RE: Diebold and vote-tabulating machines in this regard per the summary:
Are you on something? The same Diebold PR mechanism that produced and sold ATMS that
And you expect at this point sheeple to connect the dots?
on the plus side, there's a chance that some of that "new" Cisco gear bought from that online auction side really is new!
And lets not forget... they have the highest population count of anyplace in the USA also. Want to build a few more uni's in the Dakotas?
I like Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy also. The Alec Guinness one. Although I have hopes for the new movie given those involved.
Mod parent up.
You neglect to mention that now in 2010/ 2011 Pfizer is closing down the sites to which they so "graciously" relocated a small percentage of their researchers (300 of 2200 is a crummy percentage, and that from just ONE site that closed at that time). Small investment in 2008 for a bump in stock price in 2011 for laying off more staff: more stock profit for the suits.
Your points are great, except they don't account for the fact that people aren't going to eat right. Not these days, where all the marketing says to buy your food from a corporation (hey corporations are people too!) in a box of some sort.
Don't buy your food in a box. Cook it yourself.
They followed this up by closing down their most productive R& D sites globally.
Vast personal profit for the execs, decades of experienced researchers tossed to the wind, and their "if we screened X million candidates with this robotic platform and got N useful hits, if we screen X^5 million via robotic screen we'll get N^5 final candidates and reap the rewards" strategy didn't work worth a darn. Big surprise.
That's what happens when suits (some hired from companies with a GREAT track record for drug development- like.... McDonalds) take over a scientific company.
A few more rounds of boosting stock price via layoffs and this will be a little has-been of a company.
Nice work there guys. Way to destroy a company. You could have done the same thing by just buying a pizza chain or something and selling off assets for personal gain, and not cost the real human race useful medications.
I am going to bump up an AC post here under a loginID, since AC vs user makes a difference: the students click away copyright.
As someone else said below regarding your post on the implications of this:
---
You don't understand the difference between copyright and patent. The fact that this comment could get modded +5 insightful shows why slashdot is so retarded on IP issues.
---
I missed that detail, and its a large one.
I don't see any questions in your post, I read it and found a what-if (and using some really interesting choices for examples) and an admonishment: --- Never, ever underestimate the seriousness of requiring someone to surrender intellectual ownership of things written or invented on their own time as a condition of getting an education or a job or anything else. --- I submitted real-world examples of the tool in use, and real-world examples of why the tool is needed in an educational context, and to me the thought experiment doesn't have weight. Interesting thought you have about data being self-righteous. Maybe we should ask it how it feels: )
I don't think he will get this one.
Actually, an interesting factoid: Mr King did plagiarize from his students papers and use pieces of those papers verbatim in his speeches.
You and I are out of place, posting content about how the system is actually implemented : )
I posted in a reply elsewhere- instructors can configure whether they see that earlier "tries" were rejected or not. It isn't a given that they would know, not choose to care, as long as the student does the work to make unique constructs in the end.
All 4 years are undergrads, by the way. If you are taking intro classes all those years, and in my experience with this tool that is the only place its used- well power to you. Where have you seen the tool used?
Consider this a lesson to students- if you are basing your business model on word-for-word copying of copyrighted work-- you are going to suffer consequences in the business world just like you did in the classroom. E.g., you will lose. Best to learn that early. These days, incoming students have been surrendering copyright for years on everything from their posting, bloggings, tweets, and photographs- here's a time when clicking that checkbox actually lets them learn something.
Since up to 60% of all cheating cases at premier universities have been shown to involve CS courses:
http://bayarea.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/11/heading-off-the-temptation-to-cheat-in-computer-science-classes-at-stanford/
I submit that this field in particular, due to its link to business, is one of the prime candidates for leaning this lesson early. We can find many examples where not learning this lesson costs you your job most certainly; your employer money at best, product or company at worst.
Heard of Oracle and SAP? We can find many industrial examples where bad habits had huge consequences. Its isn't just in the classroom kids.
I submit that the real-world data, and opportunities for lesson-learned early on, outweigh the thought experiment you submit.
They (faculty in the departments) have chosen to set the service up such that when an assignment is required, students submit to this service. The student can check their submission before finalization; if the service flags content as problematic the student has the choice to submit anyway, or revise and try again later.
Faculty have the option to enable a feature such that they *could* see that a students initial submissions had problem content, but that feature isn't enabled for the instructor at this time. Apparently this is a choice available to course instructors as they set the service configuration for their course. This deployment makes the mentioned pay-to-check-the-paper student-side service moot.
While I believe students do release their copyright to the work as part of this- I can't take seriously the idea anyone cares about the copyright on their intro biology lab report, if they were planning to copyright it I suspect a different type of skullduggery.
It is a muddier situation for non-entry level classes, but I don't know of any 3rd or 4th year courses that do use this type of service at the universities I have some familiarity with. Especially these days, when even at prestigious universities most college freshman can't generate written content that earlier was required for good marks at high school graduation-- I don't feel students in the early university courses are giving up much by checking that check-box re copyright.
That's just wrong. Even radio stations (usually) got that right. I won't listen to my ipod-imported version of those albums as the jump from one mp3 to another is also just wrong for them. I ended up merging the mp3 in Audacity and building my own album. Jarringly wrong.
I see this as one more planted article in mainstream press: "Science is there to mislead you, listen to fake news instead". The rising tide against education and critical thinking in the USA is reminiscent of the Cultural Revolution in China. It is even more ironic that the argument "against" metrics that usefully determine validity is couched in a pseudo-analytical format itself. At this point in the USA, most folks reading (even) the New yorker have no idea what a p-value is, why these things matter, and they will just recall the headline "science is wrong". And then they wonder in Detroit why they can't make $100k a year anymore pushing the button on robot that was designed overseas by someone else- you know, overseas where engineering, science, etc are still held in high regard.
here in the MidWest, EECS grads are working in cable TV call centers.
As if there will be a shortage of low-pay service workers anytime soon. Here in the states that will be all we have, before long. why use "expensive" robots when "disposable" people (to use business terms) already abound, and will only become cheaper?