The president has the power to veto any law congress has passed to limit his ability to deal with prisoners in Guantanamo. And he doesn't need congress' approval to move the 150+ detainees from Guantanamo to another facility - say Bagram, something he has already done to circumvent habeas - or give them due process or just *let them go*. The excuse, apparently, is that congress wont authorise special funds to deal with the prison and prisoners in the exact manner the president would like. But that is a far ways from keeping him from closing the camp. He could do so today.
I don't see how that works. When I publish some work, it's a collection of things I've done. Now maybe I discuss other peoples work in that context, and maybe draw some bad conclusions because of that, but that doesn't merit a retraction. Not at all. That is what eratta are for. Now, if a separate study is based predominantly on another's fraudulent work, wouldn't the researchers necessarily discover the original work was fraudulent as a mater of course? I just don't see how one fraudulent work would result in any other retractions - let alone one hundred. Maybe your field or the way you publish is different than mine. Clue me in.
I don't know exactly what Dooley's arrest tells us. It might tell us that black people will be arrested more quickly under similar circumstances in Florida. Or, it just may tell us that Trevor Dooley was arrested more quickly under similar circumstances. We don't - well I don't anyway - know how long it typically takes Florida law enforcement to arrest someone under these kinds of circumstances, relative to the race of the killer and killed. As far as I know no one has gone to the trouble of compiling and publishing that information. It may not even be that meaningful if they did. There have been around 40 justified killing each year in Florida for the past 4 years. The number where circumstances match the Zimmerman/Martin case and those that mirror it with race swapped can't be large.
But none of that it to say it wouldn't be informative to do the comparison, or that the comparison can't be done, or that *you* can't do it. Here is a good starting point - the dates, ages, and races for justified civilian homicides in Florida.
Two final thoughts. When I first started looking at this data I had the expectation that there would be a disproportionate number of blacks killed by whites. That doesn't really seem to be the case, for civilians anyway. And finally, the biggest difference between the two cases you compare is the amount of attention the Zimmerman/Martin case has had from the media and otherwise.
isn't really that good - in my experience anyway. I had some questions about carrying over a loss from a passive activity that I was no longer doing. I called the IRS and was put in touch with the guy who, by his account, was "in charge" of that form. After I asked my question , he read the instructions to me. I outlined the part of the instructions I thought was ambiguous, and asked for clarification. He reread the paragraph, and then suggested I call a professional. The price of professional help would be on the order of the money saved by taking the carry over. So I dropped it.
All the things you are worried about are fairly common. Too common for your tastes? Maybe. They were for mine. I was in a very good position to get a tenure track position at a good university - I have a great publication record, very good references, good network, loads of collaboration, and so on. The politics was just too much, so I left. That, and I didn't want to live in the places there were jobs.
But in any event, you are going to find out if it is for you. And if it isn't, you'll still be in a great position to earn a living outside academia. So my advice is to work toward the academic position until you find it isn't for you. That being said, here is the single most important thing you can do for your would be career. It may seem trite, but try to get on with an advisor that has political clout. They will have reliable funding for interesting work. They will be able to afford to send you to meetings to present that work. They will have collaborators with clout (and promising post-docs) that you can add to your network. They will have contacts for good post-doctoral positions. They will have pull in getting you interviews for tenure track positions. And ultimately, they will sit or know people who sit on the grant committees where you go begging for your livelihood.
"It is estimated that—at the beginning of European settlement— in 1630 the area of forest land that would become the United States was 1,045 million acres or about 46 percent of the total land area. By 1907, the area of forest land had declined to an estimated 759 million acres or 34 percent of the total land area. Forest area has been relatively stable since 1907. In 1997, 747 million acres—or 33 percent of the total land area of the United States— was in forest land. Today’s forest land area amounts to about 70 percent of the area that was forested in 1630. Since 1630, about 297 million acres of forest land have been converted to other uses—mainly agricultural. More than 75 percent of the net conversion to other uses occurred in the 19th century."
And it does go on to describe the kinds of differences - one of which you mention - between historical and contemporary forest composition.
is where you implied the research was suspect because of the funding citation - your suspicion apparently confirmed by the outlet carrying the news. If your beef was really with the reporting on the research, then you would have drawn distinctions between the research and the article. But you didn't. You clearly did have a problem with the original research being legit. Until it was pointed out it was, in fact, legit. Now your problem is just the bad reporting. Fine then.
None of the papers in that search show that antibiotics in animal feed contributes to resistance in humans. And exactly 4 of all the search results are new work showing a connection between antibiotics in animal feed and *changes* in animal pathogens - let alone resistance. Albeit, pathogens developing resistance from antibiotic doped feed is well known. I suppose PubMed just isn't the place to go looking. Anyway, you obviously did a quick search and didn't give more than a cursory glance at the results. So, to say it again, you are just wrong. That search doesn't turn up a whole lot of papers showing any such thing. Which is what makes the methicillin-resistant human st398 bug news.
Because a lot of those results show no such thing. They are spurious hits for that search string. I didn't read past the first half dozen, but it appears only the first two discuss the contribution of antibiotics in animal feed to antibiotic resistance. I didn't read the papers (just their abstracts) so I don't know if those pests also infect humans. But you are certainly wrong that "A quick Pubmed search [nih.gov] turns up a whole lot of papers indicating that the use of antibiotics in animal feed is a major contributor the rise of resistant strains." Not your search, anyway.
My wife - then girlfriend - had a 95(?) Cavalier. After ~50K miles we had to get rid of it. The headlights would turn off intermittently, and wouldn't come back for 20-30 sec. Dealership couldn't find the problem. There was also a leak somewhere in the fuel line they couldn't find. Or maybe it was somewhere else. The car would stink like fuel after a few minutes' idle. It was traded in just as something in the front end was going south. Horrible noise, the steering pulled, and the car shook at speed.
you simple minded twat - it's inertia. There are lots of things that are already expressed in metric units. Things with relatively quick turnover, i.e. food and whatnot. Things with a bit longer lifespan have been slower to convert. Like cars. Albeit most cars on the road today will have all metric fasteners and so forth. Take a look at your lugs? Then there are things with a very long lifetime. Like your house. Imagine you had to replace a floor and the only dimensioned subflooring you could get was metric, while your floor joists were set otherwise? You would either have seams falling between joists, or you would have to rip and waste some portion of the subflooring.
This is hasn't been my experience. I've worked in a half dozen or so labs. Physics, chemistry, engineering - in academic labs, in a national lab, and have collaborated very closely with the research labs of an industry consortium of including 3M, Corning, P&G, and so forth. In every instance the older scientists direct the broad research goals, but have very little worthwhile input into the actual science. They haven't been all that creative or helpful. And the overall research goals are usually pretty obvious targets. From my experience, the life cycle of a scientists is they work hard when young and make a mark, then move up in the organisation structure until they are doing little more than managing a group of young scientists - and take credit for their work, of course.
I second that - you are full of it. People are going to look at what a PhD did. I've personally seen brokerage houses recruiting out of computational labs at the University of Chicago. They were looking at people doing computer simulations of large biological systems, among other things. They wanted people with experience in statistical mechanics and and computer modelling. I had a former colleague with a PhD in Physical Chemistry go through the application process for a Quant position. His experience was that the prospective employers took his computational and mathematical aptitude on faith, given his schooling, and were only interested in asking question about what he had taught himself about economic and investment models.
OK, whatever. It doesn't make any difference. But I'll rephrase...
". But things definitely have changed. Asymmetric warfare being launched by an organization/movement (rather than directly by a state like, say, North Korea) doesn't fit the WWII, or Vietnam type molds"
And that's my point, and why your analogy to an American fighting for the German army doesn't work.
"Wrong. They did exactly that, in so many words, and with a large majority voting in favor."
No they didn't. Congress did not authorise force against AQ. Seriously. Show me where they did. You're are just flat wrong about that. The force they authorised was to deal with the people who brought about the 9/11 attacks. It isn't necessary to be a member of AQ to have done so, and likewise it isn't sufficient to be a member of AQ to be counted in that group.
". But things definitely have changed. Asymmetric warfare being launched by an organization/movement (rather than directly by a state like, say, North Korea) doesn't fit the WWII, or Vietnam type molds"
And that's my point, and why your analogy to an American turncoat fighting for the German army doesn't work.
That analogy doesn't work for two reasons. First, the US congress declared war against Germany. They haven't done as much against AQ or AQ affiliates. They have only authorised force against the 9/11 attack perpetrators, planners, and those providing material support to them. I think you have to go pretty far to get Awalaki into that bunch. Second, the guy who joins up with the German military would be killed in mutual battle as a course of military action. The two Americans that were killed were specifically targeted for assassination. In fact, Awalaki's lawyer was representing him in US courts in an effort to get and injunction against his pending assassination. They were on an assassination list.
I'm not arguing if or not his killing was the right thing to do. Just that your analogy doesn't work very well. For an analogy to work well, the two instances being compared have to have a lot of common points - certainly the most relevant points need to be the same. From what we know of Awalaki's actions, a number of Americans could have been likewise targeted for their residence and actions in Vietnam, and their agitation about that war here in the US. Even that would have been easier to justify. There was a typical army and a congress authorised force in Vietnam.
Actually, what the parent said is true. I watched sesame street as a child, and now watch it regularly with mine - as well as owning (and having watched in its entirety) a box set chronicling 40 years of episodes. The old cookie monster was a one dimensional cookie fanatic. The new cookie monster character is a lot more refined. When they do include him eating cookies there is always a caveat about what is and isn't healthy food, and how often to eat them. Which I like as a parent.
And that link is pretty weak. I could easily pick the same number of instances over the same time period and show exactly the opposite. And each bit on its own is thin. An ambiguous quote to the New Zealand Herald about dieting? Lame.
Buy a small chunk of something that looks like the big machines she will be using. As others have said, with that little money you aren't going to get legitimate computational resources. But she will certainly qualify - or already has - on some of the larger public machines. In my experience, it is really nice to have a small, i.e two or three nodes, cluster to test and benchmark code. You can look at things like parallel performance on a single node versus across nodes. If the code plays well with shared memory. Can the code reasonably mix shared and non-shared parallelization schemes. And so forth.
The low impact is because that argument is dumb. It is inconsequential that this group may have found a planet made of diamond. It received a lot of attention because people place a certain significance on diamond, and a diamond that large is particularly interesting. No other reason. Seriously, imagine if they had found a crystalline planet made of silicon or germanium.
Most people - including scientists, sadly - assume a scientific conclusion implies some public policy. That's the hang up. In its entirety.
Which shows me that you don't read CVs. Why would anyone mention what they were paid for any particular job or contract? That's something that comes in after you've been made an offer and are negotiating compensation. People put down where they have worked and the things they did/learned.
This isn't a solution, it's a kludge. All the codes I've worked with have the ability to checkpoint, but in practice it's done infrequently because of the overhead. Increasing the checkpointing commensurate with number of nodes results in diminishing returns - which is antithetical to "massively parallel".
Slashdot Mirror
The president has the power to veto any law congress has passed to limit his ability to deal with prisoners in Guantanamo. And he doesn't need congress' approval to move the 150+ detainees from Guantanamo to another facility - say Bagram, something he has already done to circumvent habeas - or give them due process or just *let them go*. The excuse, apparently, is that congress wont authorise special funds to deal with the prison and prisoners in the exact manner the president would like. But that is a far ways from keeping him from closing the camp. He could do so today.
I don't see how that works. When I publish some work, it's a collection of things I've done. Now maybe I discuss other peoples work in that context, and maybe draw some bad conclusions because of that, but that doesn't merit a retraction. Not at all. That is what eratta are for. Now, if a separate study is based predominantly on another's fraudulent work, wouldn't the researchers necessarily discover the original work was fraudulent as a mater of course? I just don't see how one fraudulent work would result in any other retractions - let alone one hundred. Maybe your field or the way you publish is different than mine. Clue me in.
I don't know exactly what Dooley's arrest tells us. It might tell us that black people will be arrested more quickly under similar circumstances in Florida. Or, it just may tell us that Trevor Dooley was arrested more quickly under similar circumstances. We don't - well I don't anyway - know how long it typically takes Florida law enforcement to arrest someone under these kinds of circumstances, relative to the race of the killer and killed. As far as I know no one has gone to the trouble of compiling and publishing that information. It may not even be that meaningful if they did. There have been around 40 justified killing each year in Florida for the past 4 years. The number where circumstances match the Zimmerman/Martin case and those that mirror it with race swapped can't be large.
But none of that it to say it wouldn't be informative to do the comparison, or that the comparison can't be done, or that *you* can't do it. Here is a good starting point - the dates, ages, and races for justified civilian homicides in Florida.
http://databases.sun-sentinel.com/news/broward/ftlaudjustified/ftlaudjustifiable_list.php
Two final thoughts. When I first started looking at this data I had the expectation that there would be a disproportionate number of blacks killed by whites. That doesn't really seem to be the case, for civilians anyway. And finally, the biggest difference between the two cases you compare is the amount of attention the Zimmerman/Martin case has had from the media and otherwise.
isn't really that good - in my experience anyway. I had some questions about carrying over a loss from a passive activity that I was no longer doing. I called the IRS and was put in touch with the guy who, by his account, was "in charge" of that form. After I asked my question , he read the instructions to me. I outlined the part of the instructions I thought was ambiguous, and asked for clarification. He reread the paragraph, and then suggested I call a professional. The price of professional help would be on the order of the money saved by taking the carry over. So I dropped it.
All the things you are worried about are fairly common. Too common for your tastes? Maybe. They were for mine. I was in a very good position to get a tenure track position at a good university - I have a great publication record, very good references, good network, loads of collaboration, and so on. The politics was just too much, so I left. That, and I didn't want to live in the places there were jobs.
But in any event, you are going to find out if it is for you. And if it isn't, you'll still be in a great position to earn a living outside academia. So my advice is to work toward the academic position until you find it isn't for you. That being said, here is the single most important thing you can do for your would be career. It may seem trite, but try to get on with an advisor that has political clout. They will have reliable funding for interesting work. They will be able to afford to send you to meetings to present that work. They will have collaborators with clout (and promising post-docs) that you can add to your network. They will have contacts for good post-doctoral positions. They will have pull in getting you interviews for tenure track positions. And ultimately, they will sit or know people who sit on the grant committees where you go begging for your livelihood.
and slashdot says you are a troll. I think right on both counts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_activism#Origins_of_the_term
http://www.fia.fs.fed.us/library/briefings-summaries-overviews/docs/ForestFacts.pdf
"It is estimated that—at the beginning of European settlement—
in 1630 the area of forest land that would become
the United States was 1,045 million acres or about 46
percent of the total land area. By 1907, the area of forest
land had declined to an estimated 759 million acres or
34 percent of the total land area. Forest area has been relatively
stable since 1907. In 1997, 747 million acres—or
33 percent of the total land area of the United States—
was in forest land. Today’s forest land area amounts to
about 70 percent of the area that was forested in 1630.
Since 1630, about 297 million acres of forest land have
been converted to other uses—mainly agricultural. More
than 75 percent of the net conversion to other uses
occurred in the 19th century."
And it does go on to describe the kinds of differences - one of which you mention - between historical and contemporary forest composition.
is where you implied the research was suspect because of the funding citation - your suspicion apparently confirmed by the outlet carrying the news. If your beef was really with the reporting on the research, then you would have drawn distinctions between the research and the article. But you didn't. You clearly did have a problem with the original research being legit. Until it was pointed out it was, in fact, legit. Now your problem is just the bad reporting. Fine then.
The president introduced me to that one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTVjab2cHgk
it's actual, real life, scientific research - published in a well read and respected peer reviewed medical journal. But if it's just the messenger that has you all wee weed up, try PBS
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/health/jan-june12/aspirin_03-21.html
None of the papers in that search show that antibiotics in animal feed contributes to resistance in humans. And exactly 4 of all the search results are new work showing a connection between antibiotics in animal feed and *changes* in animal pathogens - let alone resistance. Albeit, pathogens developing resistance from antibiotic doped feed is well known. I suppose PubMed just isn't the place to go looking. Anyway, you obviously did a quick search and didn't give more than a cursory glance at the results. So, to say it again, you are just wrong. That search doesn't turn up a whole lot of papers showing any such thing. Which is what makes the methicillin-resistant human st398 bug news.
Because a lot of those results show no such thing. They are spurious hits for that search string. I didn't read past the first half dozen, but it appears only the first two discuss the contribution of antibiotics in animal feed to antibiotic resistance. I didn't read the papers (just their abstracts) so I don't know if those pests also infect humans. But you are certainly wrong that "A quick Pubmed search [nih.gov] turns up a whole lot of papers indicating that the use of antibiotics in animal feed is a major contributor the rise of resistant strains." Not your search, anyway.
My wife - then girlfriend - had a 95(?) Cavalier. After ~50K miles we had to get rid of it. The headlights would turn off intermittently, and wouldn't come back for 20-30 sec. Dealership couldn't find the problem. There was also a leak somewhere in the fuel line they couldn't find. Or maybe it was somewhere else. The car would stink like fuel after a few minutes' idle. It was traded in just as something in the front end was going south. Horrible noise, the steering pulled, and the car shook at speed.
you simple minded twat - it's inertia. There are lots of things that are already expressed in metric units. Things with relatively quick turnover, i.e. food and whatnot. Things with a bit longer lifespan have been slower to convert. Like cars. Albeit most cars on the road today will have all metric fasteners and so forth. Take a look at your lugs? Then there are things with a very long lifetime. Like your house. Imagine you had to replace a floor and the only dimensioned subflooring you could get was metric, while your floor joists were set otherwise? You would either have seams falling between joists, or you would have to rip and waste some portion of the subflooring.
This is hasn't been my experience. I've worked in a half dozen or so labs. Physics, chemistry, engineering - in academic labs, in a national lab, and have collaborated very closely with the research labs of an industry consortium of including 3M, Corning, P&G, and so forth. In every instance the older scientists direct the broad research goals, but have very little worthwhile input into the actual science. They haven't been all that creative or helpful. And the overall research goals are usually pretty obvious targets. From my experience, the life cycle of a scientists is they work hard when young and make a mark, then move up in the organisation structure until they are doing little more than managing a group of young scientists - and take credit for their work, of course.
I second that - you are full of it. People are going to look at what a PhD did. I've personally seen brokerage houses recruiting out of computational labs at the University of Chicago. They were looking at people doing computer simulations of large biological systems, among other things. They wanted people with experience in statistical mechanics and and computer modelling. I had a former colleague with a PhD in Physical Chemistry go through the application process for a Quant position. His experience was that the prospective employers took his computational and mathematical aptitude on faith, given his schooling, and were only interested in asking question about what he had taught himself about economic and investment models.
OK, whatever. It doesn't make any difference. But I'll rephrase ...
". But things definitely have changed. Asymmetric warfare being launched by an organization/movement (rather than directly by a state like, say, North Korea) doesn't fit the WWII, or Vietnam type molds"
And that's my point, and why your analogy to an American fighting for the German army doesn't work.
"Wrong. They did exactly that, in so many words, and with a large majority voting in favor."
No they didn't. Congress did not authorise force against AQ. Seriously. Show me where they did. You're are just flat wrong about that. The force they authorised was to deal with the people who brought about the 9/11 attacks. It isn't necessary to be a member of AQ to have done so, and likewise it isn't sufficient to be a member of AQ to be counted in that group.
". But things definitely have changed. Asymmetric warfare being launched by an organization/movement (rather than directly by a state like, say, North Korea) doesn't fit the WWII, or Vietnam type molds"
And that's my point, and why your analogy to an American turncoat fighting for the German army doesn't work.
That analogy doesn't work for two reasons. First, the US congress declared war against Germany. They haven't done as much against AQ or AQ affiliates. They have only authorised force against the 9/11 attack perpetrators, planners, and those providing material support to them. I think you have to go pretty far to get Awalaki into that bunch. Second, the guy who joins up with the German military would be killed in mutual battle as a course of military action. The two Americans that were killed were specifically targeted for assassination. In fact, Awalaki's lawyer was representing him in US courts in an effort to get and injunction against his pending assassination. They were on an assassination list.
I'm not arguing if or not his killing was the right thing to do. Just that your analogy doesn't work very well. For an analogy to work well, the two instances being compared have to have a lot of common points - certainly the most relevant points need to be the same. From what we know of Awalaki's actions, a number of Americans could have been likewise targeted for their residence and actions in Vietnam, and their agitation about that war here in the US. Even that would have been easier to justify. There was a typical army and a congress authorised force in Vietnam.
Actually, what the parent said is true. I watched sesame street as a child, and now watch it regularly with mine - as well as owning (and having watched in its entirety) a box set chronicling 40 years of episodes. The old cookie monster was a one dimensional cookie fanatic. The new cookie monster character is a lot more refined. When they do include him eating cookies there is always a caveat about what is and isn't healthy food, and how often to eat them. Which I like as a parent.
And that link is pretty weak. I could easily pick the same number of instances over the same time period and show exactly the opposite. And each bit on its own is thin. An ambiguous quote to the New Zealand Herald about dieting? Lame.
Buy a small chunk of something that looks like the big machines she will be using. As others have said, with that little money you aren't going to get legitimate computational resources. But she will certainly qualify - or already has - on some of the larger public machines. In my experience, it is really nice to have a small, i.e two or three nodes, cluster to test and benchmark code. You can look at things like parallel performance on a single node versus across nodes. If the code plays well with shared memory. Can the code reasonably mix shared and non-shared parallelization schemes. And so forth.
The low impact is because that argument is dumb. It is inconsequential that this group may have found a planet made of diamond. It received a lot of attention because people place a certain significance on diamond, and a diamond that large is particularly interesting. No other reason. Seriously, imagine if they had found a crystalline planet made of silicon or germanium.
Most people - including scientists, sadly - assume a scientific conclusion implies some public policy. That's the hang up. In its entirety.
"if I read unpaid internship, I read 'MUG'."
Which shows me that you don't read CVs. Why would anyone mention what they were paid for any particular job or contract? That's something that comes in after you've been made an offer and are negotiating compensation. People put down where they have worked and the things they did/learned.
This isn't a solution, it's a kludge. All the codes I've worked with have the ability to checkpoint, but in practice it's done infrequently because of the overhead. Increasing the checkpointing commensurate with number of nodes results in diminishing returns - which is antithetical to "massively parallel".
Frequent checkpoints would be onerous for billion atom systems.