Peer review is often well established scientists shitting on competition to their method, or dissenting views. Each topic has it's fiefdoms battling to protect their own interests. Time after time I have seen good papers sunk because they are competition, and mediocre papers published after the authors simply add citations suggested by the referee – of course, those papers are the referees' and their friends'. I haven't directly been involved in the granting process, but I get the impression that the review boards operate in a similar manner. And through all of this science progresses. Bizarre.
"All in all, Google is in this mess in Germany because they didn't bother to check local laws and believed American rules apply everywhere."
Troll much? More likely they (Google's lawyers) were in what they believed to be a legal gray area and thought things would work out in their favor. Which, with a few exceptions, it apparently has. And it looks like those exceptions are going to be resolved without Google's interference. So I don't think it's reasonable to say Google is "in a mess". Google most certainly has an army of lawyers in every country it has a significant presence - including German layers, no doubt.
Assuming those taxes are actually used to mitigate the putative harm - that is, CO2 cleanup. More likely they are spent as general revenues (like social security revenues have been). And that isn't a problem with the "Libertarian argument", but your understanding of it. Many, if not most libertarians believe that a reasonable function of the government is to provide recourse when your neighbor is crapping up your stuff, ie. pollution. I'm libertarian minded, and am in favor of government regulation of activities that harm the environment. I would rather see these things in court, though. For example, LA fishermen suing BP to recoup lost fishing profits. Unfortunately, economic damage from oil spills is a prime example of regulatory failure. The federal government set a absurdly low cap on the liability of oil companies like BP (in the name of leveling the playing field for small players). The money they are currently paying LA fishermen is entirely voluntary. Sad - this is how government regulation often works. I don't expect it to be much different with respect to carbon regulation.
The money quote "This is not the first time that model reduction algorithms have been used to ameliorate the complexities of large-scale physical simulations. The advantage of the system designed by Knezevic and his colleagues is its rigorous error bounds, which tell a user the range of possible solutions, and provide a metric of whether an answer is accurate or not. The error bounds are based on mathematical theory developed in Prof. Patera's research group at MIT over a number of years. "
The research is about error bounds on coarse grained models. The smart phone is just hype.
we rode skateboards, smoked pot, and got tattooed – and it was bad. Now there are skate parks in every town, tattoos are cliche, and California is about to legalize it. Seriously, no one is going to care about that facebook picture of you passed out in vomit when you were 16. Unless that's the tone you have set for your life. In that case, we don't need the internet to suss you out. My experience is that people regularly put their characters on display. No internet needed. I'm sick of breathless predictions about how some new technology is going to screw everyone up. If anything, we are going to care less about youthful indiscretion when everybody's is filed and cataloged.
The kinds of things that employers are concerned with are listed on your free credit report. And if they are legitimately listed, you wold know without seeing it. They are the sorts of things that would require them to garnish - legal judgments, and so forth. Perhaps bankruptcy and large CC balances as well. They aren't using your score. You could have a reasonable score and still carry the sorts of things that worry an employer.
It is trivial to "build credit, or get credit without a credit history. In fact, there are droves of folks concerned that it is too easy for young people to get and use credit.
You don't come out bankrupt in the US either. There are a lot of perfectly respectable schools that are also affordable. And that is, after all, the point of the book being reviewed. I went to an inexpensive undergraduate university. In graduate school (paid for by the granting institutions funding my research) I competed with students from many good - albeit expensive - universities. They were certainly smart, but I don't think they were any better prepared than I was. After grad school I was a postdoc in labs with PhDs granted from the Ivy League. Again, smart but not better prepared.
It's true. More people would start smoking pot. I would. I don't now because of the potential legal consequences. But I honestly don't know about these other consequences you elude to. No, I don't remember the smart kids that wasted their life on pot. I smoked pot all through high school. All through college - a chemistry and a mathematics BS, minored in physics (stopped before graduate school). Most of my friends smoked as chronically as I did - that is, every day. Chemical Engineers, EE, Biologists, Mathematicians, Philosophers. All smart people, doing hard things while enjoying marijuana. I did know some smart kids that did smoke pot, and didn't make it too far. They had other problems. Broken families, alcoholic parents, and so forth. Maybe smart kids with other challenges take solace in drugs and your mistaken impression is that it's the drugs that's jamming them up. But pot doesn't make you dumb, or make you "waste your life". It wont make you a superstar either. It's just a fun thing people like.
You speak with him often? Never mind. I assume you are talking about the constitution of South Africa? There is no mention of legally required thoughts or opinions. Many charters and ruling documents talk about equality. The context is the equal treatment of people in their dealings with the state or governing body. I would be shocked to find any of the authors meant to imply that one person is or should be required by law to value another. Give it some thought.
Value is subjective. And since you think that your "rights" extend to restrictions on my thoughts, I don't think much of you at all. You degrade yourself.
"Hello?" "Yeah it's me... I wanna give you some good frequencies.. 1710, 2.6, 2245...' "Yeah?" "... 3032, 400.. " "Four hundred?" "Yeah." "I'm coming right over!" "Do that."
"Based on a few years of observation, we noticed that there was little or no correlation between academic performance, as measured by grades & the type of college a person attended, and their real on-the-job performance. That was a genuine surprise, particularly for me, as I grew up thinking grades really mattered."
I never gave a shit about grades until I wanted to go to grad school. Pulled it out in the end, but just. High school was another matter. Did very poorly. Never responded well to the shock collar authoritarian motivation. Which makes me wonder how good an employee my type of personality really can be. If it doesn't interest me, I have a very hard time getting it done. Pretty much the fear of being unemployed is all that gets me going on the mundane bullshit. I bet he sees a drag in the less interesting tasks. Maybe not.
I don't know about seti, but I saw a presentation a few years back by a guy who was in with the folding at home folks. Each computer has a task that is independent of the current results of all others. Just a large bundle of serial jobs. This is something I am familiar with. A lot of the large clusters have queuing policies that favor jobs with large proc counts. Sometimes I need to run several small jobs. I bundle them up to look like one big n-proc job, and presto.
I've been tattooed for around 20 years now. Never had a problem getting a job. Sure, there are bound to be a few wound up pricks passing judgment. But I've meet very few. It's probably because narrow minded people do poorly with hiring - selecting employees based on stuff unrelated to job performance. I'm smart and good at what I do, and that's always been more than enough to get the positions I want. Being tattooed hasn't limited me socially, either. I'm married to an extremely attractive woman. She is a physician. And in fact, many of her colleagues are tattooed.
"Sure, eventually you can win someone over when they get to know you but many folks won't give you the chance if you look like a fad chasing lemming that permanently disfigures themselves to follow a trend. "
Look - I don't know how old you are, but kids do impulsive and capricious things. It has been my experience that these kind of people are a lot of fun. You come off as really sour. Loosen up, have some fun - you might make some friends.
"This leads to people avoiding preventive care, which drives up costs in the long run."
No, you are wrong. As it turns out, preventative care - on average - does not lower cost. So says the NEJM "Although some preventive measures do save money, the vast majority reviewed in the health economics literature do not."
"You feel like you're making more than your parents and grand-parents did, because the absolute number is higher. But in terms of purchasing power, you're making much less."
Everything I could find on the subject says that's not so. Purchasing power has increased dramatically from the time my grandparents or parents were my age. Did you just make that up to support your argument?
I graduated from a lousy public school. Just made it into college. I didn't have basic math and science type skills. None at all. My college also had remedial classes to help students like me. These classes - at least at my school, but I imagine yours as well - were zero credit and charged extra tuition to fund the program. They work. I graduated with a BS in Mathematics and Chemistry, a minor in Physics. Today I am a PhD Physical Chemist, and make a great living doing research on the worlds fastest supercomputers. I'm glad there are programs like these.
Your post is very off-putting. It drips with condescension and self importance. Bend over backwards for the dumbest among us? You are a dick. There are a lot of people who didn't have the advantages you had coming up. My parents are blue collar, just like their parents. They didn't have the experience or means to improve my education. I'm happy there are people more insightful and compassionate than yourself, in positions to create these kind of special purpose classes.
"I thought I was getting a MS degree to learn and do science well. Instead, it's become drudgery."
You were mistaken, then. You get a PhD to "do science". A masters buys you the "masters or two years experience" box on the job application. You get a masters to be a technician. No academic institution, private research lab, or funding agency is going to give you their money to "do science" if you haven't completed a PhD, and likely a Postdoctoral Fellowship - all with a strong record of (published) significant contributions. That's just they way it works. For good reason.
That's a shitty summary. The article cites the percent of basic or fundamental research (considered so by the NSF) as something entirely different. But I'm not going to quote that either. If people are interested they should RTFA - not some half assed summary.
My understanding was that private industry spent an order of magnitude more than the government on fundamental research. Am I wrong? I just finished a stint doing basic research at Sandia National Labs, funded entirely by a private industry consortium. Sandia didn't contribute a single dollar. Which isn't uncommon for fundamental research at that lab in particular. And as far as "significant", the private sector has been plowing ahead in fields like nano and biotech - while, I'll add, the government has been debating stuff like the ethics of stem cell research. I don't know if there is more money coming from private or public sources. But it seems the parent and GP are simply speculating. I'd like to see some reliable numbers.
Slashdot Mirror
Peer review is often well established scientists shitting on competition to their method, or dissenting views. Each topic has it's fiefdoms battling to protect their own interests. Time after time I have seen good papers sunk because they are competition, and mediocre papers published after the authors simply add citations suggested by the referee – of course, those papers are the referees' and their friends'. I haven't directly been involved in the granting process, but I get the impression that the review boards operate in a similar manner. And through all of this science progresses. Bizarre.
"All in all, Google is in this mess in Germany because they didn't bother to check local laws and believed American rules apply everywhere."
Troll much? More likely they (Google's lawyers) were in what they believed to be a legal gray area and thought things would work out in their favor. Which, with a few exceptions, it apparently has. And it looks like those exceptions are going to be resolved without Google's interference. So I don't think it's reasonable to say Google is "in a mess". Google most certainly has an army of lawyers in every country it has a significant presence - including German layers, no doubt.
Assuming those taxes are actually used to mitigate the putative harm - that is, CO2 cleanup. More likely they are spent as general revenues (like social security revenues have been). And that isn't a problem with the "Libertarian argument", but your understanding of it. Many, if not most libertarians believe that a reasonable function of the government is to provide recourse when your neighbor is crapping up your stuff, ie. pollution. I'm libertarian minded, and am in favor of government regulation of activities that harm the environment. I would rather see these things in court, though. For example, LA fishermen suing BP to recoup lost fishing profits. Unfortunately, economic damage from oil spills is a prime example of regulatory failure. The federal government set a absurdly low cap on the liability of oil companies like BP (in the name of leveling the playing field for small players). The money they are currently paying LA fishermen is entirely voluntary. Sad - this is how government regulation often works. I don't expect it to be much different with respect to carbon regulation.
The money quote "This is not the first time that model reduction algorithms have been used to ameliorate the complexities of large-scale physical simulations. The advantage of the system designed by Knezevic and his colleagues is its rigorous error bounds, which tell a user the range of possible solutions, and provide a metric of whether an answer is accurate or not. The error bounds are based on mathematical theory developed in Prof. Patera's research group at MIT over a number of years. "
The research is about error bounds on coarse grained models. The smart phone is just hype.
we rode skateboards, smoked pot, and got tattooed – and it was bad. Now there are skate parks in every town, tattoos are cliche, and California is about to legalize it. Seriously, no one is going to care about that facebook picture of you passed out in vomit when you were 16. Unless that's the tone you have set for your life. In that case, we don't need the internet to suss you out. My experience is that people regularly put their characters on display. No internet needed. I'm sick of breathless predictions about how some new technology is going to screw everyone up. If anything, we are going to care less about youthful indiscretion when everybody's is filed and cataloged.
http://www.boozallen.com/media/file/151786.pdf
Quite a few spend more, quite a few spend less. The average is ~5%. Given the ambiguous return it's not altogether surprising some skimp.
The kinds of things that employers are concerned with are listed on your free credit report. And if they are legitimately listed, you wold know without seeing it. They are the sorts of things that would require them to garnish - legal judgments, and so forth. Perhaps bankruptcy and large CC balances as well. They aren't using your score. You could have a reasonable score and still carry the sorts of things that worry an employer.
It is trivial to "build credit, or get credit without a credit history. In fact, there are droves of folks concerned that it is too easy for young people to get and use credit.
You don't come out bankrupt in the US either. There are a lot of perfectly respectable schools that are also affordable. And that is, after all, the point of the book being reviewed. I went to an inexpensive undergraduate university. In graduate school (paid for by the granting institutions funding my research) I competed with students from many good - albeit expensive - universities. They were certainly smart, but I don't think they were any better prepared than I was. After grad school I was a postdoc in labs with PhDs granted from the Ivy League. Again, smart but not better prepared.
It's true. More people would start smoking pot. I would. I don't now because of the potential legal consequences. But I honestly don't know about these other consequences you elude to. No, I don't remember the smart kids that wasted their life on pot. I smoked pot all through high school. All through college - a chemistry and a mathematics BS, minored in physics (stopped before graduate school). Most of my friends smoked as chronically as I did - that is, every day. Chemical Engineers, EE, Biologists, Mathematicians, Philosophers. All smart people, doing hard things while enjoying marijuana. I did know some smart kids that did smoke pot, and didn't make it too far. They had other problems. Broken families, alcoholic parents, and so forth. Maybe smart kids with other challenges take solace in drugs and your mistaken impression is that it's the drugs that's jamming them up. But pot doesn't make you dumb, or make you "waste your life". It wont make you a superstar either. It's just a fun thing people like.
Jesus. You don't even know the difference between the preamble and the legal bits. You are an idiot. I'm done.
"Nelson Mandela agrees with me "
You speak with him often? Never mind. I assume you are talking about the constitution of South Africa? There is no mention of legally required thoughts or opinions. Many charters and ruling documents talk about equality. The context is the equal treatment of people in their dealings with the state or governing body. I would be shocked to find any of the authors meant to imply that one person is or should be required by law to value another. Give it some thought.
Value is subjective. And since you think that your "rights" extend to restrictions on my thoughts, I don't think much of you at all. You degrade yourself.
"Hello?" ... I wanna give you some good frequencies .. 1710, 2.6, 2245...' .. "
"Yeah it's me
"Yeah?"
"... 3032, 400
"Four hundred?"
"Yeah."
"I'm coming right over!"
"Do that."
"Based on a few years of observation, we noticed that there was little or no correlation between academic performance, as measured by grades & the type of college a person attended, and their real on-the-job performance. That was a genuine surprise, particularly for me, as I grew up thinking grades really mattered."
I never gave a shit about grades until I wanted to go to grad school. Pulled it out in the end, but just. High school was another matter. Did very poorly. Never responded well to the shock collar authoritarian motivation. Which makes me wonder how good an employee my type of personality really can be. If it doesn't interest me, I have a very hard time getting it done. Pretty much the fear of being unemployed is all that gets me going on the mundane bullshit. I bet he sees a drag in the less interesting tasks. Maybe not.
So the job is "parallel" - still not on board, though - but the internet is not a parallel computer (at least one that scales in any meaningful way).
I don't know about seti, but I saw a presentation a few years back by a guy who was in with the folding at home folks. Each computer has a task that is independent of the current results of all others. Just a large bundle of serial jobs. This is something I am familiar with. A lot of the large clusters have queuing policies that favor jobs with large proc counts. Sometimes I need to run several small jobs. I bundle them up to look like one big n-proc job, and presto.
I've been tattooed for around 20 years now. Never had a problem getting a job. Sure, there are bound to be a few wound up pricks passing judgment. But I've meet very few. It's probably because narrow minded people do poorly with hiring - selecting employees based on stuff unrelated to job performance. I'm smart and good at what I do, and that's always been more than enough to get the positions I want. Being tattooed hasn't limited me socially, either. I'm married to an extremely attractive woman. She is a physician. And in fact, many of her colleagues are tattooed.
"Sure, eventually you can win someone over when they get to know you but many folks won't give you the chance if you look like a fad chasing lemming that permanently disfigures themselves to follow a trend. "
Look - I don't know how old you are, but kids do impulsive and capricious things. It has been my experience that these kind of people are a lot of fun. You come off as really sour. Loosen up, have some fun - you might make some friends.
"This leads to people avoiding preventive care, which drives up costs in the long run."
No, you are wrong. As it turns out, preventative care - on average - does not lower cost. So says the NEJM "Although some preventive measures do save money, the vast majority reviewed in the health economics literature do not."
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/358/7/661
"You feel like you're making more than your parents and grand-parents did, because the absolute number is higher. But in terms of purchasing power, you're making much less."
Everything I could find on the subject says that's not so. Purchasing power has increased dramatically from the time my grandparents or parents were my age. Did you just make that up to support your argument?
I graduated from a lousy public school. Just made it into college. I didn't have basic math and science type skills. None at all. My college also had remedial classes to help students like me. These classes - at least at my school, but I imagine yours as well - were zero credit and charged extra tuition to fund the program. They work. I graduated with a BS in Mathematics and Chemistry, a minor in Physics. Today I am a PhD Physical Chemist, and make a great living doing research on the worlds fastest supercomputers. I'm glad there are programs like these.
Your post is very off-putting. It drips with condescension and self importance. Bend over backwards for the dumbest among us? You are a dick. There are a lot of people who didn't have the advantages you had coming up. My parents are blue collar, just like their parents. They didn't have the experience or means to improve my education. I'm happy there are people more insightful and compassionate than yourself, in positions to create these kind of special purpose classes.
"I thought I was getting a MS degree to learn and do science well. Instead, it's become drudgery."
You were mistaken, then. You get a PhD to "do science". A masters buys you the "masters or two years experience" box on the job application. You get a masters to be a technician. No academic institution, private research lab, or funding agency is going to give you their money to "do science" if you haven't completed a PhD, and likely a Postdoctoral Fellowship - all with a strong record of (published) significant contributions. That's just they way it works. For good reason.
That's a shitty summary. The article cites the percent of basic or fundamental research (considered so by the NSF) as something entirely different. But I'm not going to quote that either. If people are interested they should RTFA - not some half assed summary.
http://www.pnas.org/content/93/23/12658.long
to answer my own question
My understanding was that private industry spent an order of magnitude more than the government on fundamental research. Am I wrong? I just finished a stint doing basic research at Sandia National Labs, funded entirely by a private industry consortium. Sandia didn't contribute a single dollar. Which isn't uncommon for fundamental research at that lab in particular. And as far as "significant", the private sector has been plowing ahead in fields like nano and biotech - while, I'll add, the government has been debating stuff like the ethics of stem cell research. I don't know if there is more money coming from private or public sources. But it seems the parent and GP are simply speculating. I'd like to see some reliable numbers.