The point was that Dow had released a paper claiming that, while an abnormal number of their workers were getting cancer, that this wasn't because of some chemical that they were exposed to in the workplace.
The scientist "critiqued a 2003 Dow-funded paper (published) in Texas Medicine"
In other words, he argued that the industry funded paper was a lie, but had a hard time getting his arguments published.
Personally, I wish that he had gotten the article peer reviewed and published in another paper before doing this.
I wonder if he can now claim that he was "published in JOEM." Can people cite this work? Probably not, I'm thinking.
The effects of industry on scientific communication is pretty interesting. The overproscription of Statins in the US because the FDA was effectivly bribed is just one example.
Considering the various technology transfer acts passed by congress, more and more previously government funded is becoming the province of industry. The effects on the integrity of scientific research are only slowly becoming apparent.
If he says he's not going to pay you unless you find him a replacement, don't keep working under those conditions. Simply not paying you will not be enough to satisfy his desire for revenge. If he does somthing like that to you, he'll need to justify his action to himself and others. In other words, he will be motivated to ruin your reputation. Either he takes back the threat or you walk immediatly.
Be firm, but don't be threatening. Let him know that you're committed to make the transition as easy as possible for him and to fufil your fair responsibilities, but make sure he understands that the choice and the power is his.
A driving force in plant diversification is said to be resistance of predators. Chemicals like the furanocoumarins (sp?) in wild parsnip developed because they were a natural pesticide. The mutant plant that can make them suddenly flourishes until another species develops a way to work around the defense. Slowly, more predators join in until things are back in balance. Then another mutant develops a new way of doing things and the process begins again.
The logical implication of this is that any sudden massive change in the plant world is likely to lead to a situation where fewer herbavores have a food source. The result would be a sudden drop in herbavores and a tremendous opportunity for any animal which could consume the new plants.
This could be totally off base. But since they mentioned the rise of flowering plants, this is what came to my mind.
This would suppose a sudden drop in certain types of fossils in that area.
Alternatly, I wonder if a dryer environment or temp change would force a change of diet if this creature had imperfectly developed maxillaries. Maxillaries are prerequisites for the developmnent of warm bloodedness since warm blooded animals breathe more. Without maxilaries,a rapidly breathing animal would dry out. Anyone who's actually an archeologist (I'm not) know these details?
Is 'sudden emergence of flowering plants' the only change on record? Maybe with their long necks they were the only creatures who could eat fruit from trees...... okay, I'm speculating and I'm tired and I'm going to stop now. Good night all.
>>So if you're one of those kids I hear about who images that a maths degree consists of learning how to divide 17-digit numbers, I'm afraid I have to disillusion you!
Not really. I'm familiar with cellular automata, etc. Though my knowledge of maths is, of course, far from exhaustive. Maths aren't my field.
But the point is the same. Math deals with the interrlationship of concepts (which can be expressed via numbers) without nessicarily addressing how those concepts relate back to reality.
It can be used to create a model of the natural world, which can be tested by the natural world and thus employed in the scienfitic process. But saying that "math is a science" is like saying "a handsaw is a type of lumberjack." Math is a tool employed by scientists (the word being shorthand for natural scientists, i.e. people who use the scientific method to discover the natural world.)
But we are considered omnivores because our bodies can tolerate meat as well as plant matter.
Most humans are very good at relying on fish as a protein source. If you're looking for a diet that is healthy, rather than trying to fit some ethical code, low-in-oil fish are an excellent choice. Oily fish like salmon work well too, but in modern times they tend to concentrate pesticides.
I don't know that maths should be considered as sciences. Science should relate to natural phenomenon. Math can be used to describe natural phenomenon, so it's a tool used in the sciences and logically grouped with it, but math is about the relationship that numbers have to each other, without regard to the physical universe.
if you take his statement at face value, the straightforward, unqualified way in which Gore makes it suggests that, even if he didn't believe that he actually "invented" the Internet, he seems to have genuinely believed that his own beaurocratic contribution was more important than any researcher's or network engineer's prior work!
Gore wasn't comparing himself to engineers and researchers. Anyone making an honest effort to understand what he was saying, notably the Democrats to whom he addressed his answer, knew that he was acting as a polititian and not as an engineer. Do you honestly believe that there were folks out there who believed that Gore singlehandedly created the internet? He was proactive in helping create it, whereas government is usually reactive (taking the initiative). Gore was comparing himself to Bill Bradley and, conceivably, other government officials as the content of your own post makes clear.
For whatever reason, there seemed to have been an effort in the media to malign Gore through misquotes and make him seem like someone who exaggerated his accomplishments. The 'invented the internet' lie was part of a larger pattern of media deception and deliberate misquotation. Check out the story behind Gore's "Love canal" quote.
Perhaps you had some examples of simple "slips of the tongue" that Democrats used to railroad public sentiment with that you'd like to share?
I generally agree with you Re: Democrats being more straightforward for the past few decades in terms of deliberate presentation of the truth. And I agree with you on this matter in particular.
Reagan negotiated with terrorists in secret and gave them arms, Bush Sr. and Reagan both promised they wouldn't raise taxes and did, "W" promised to give more power back to the states and has done the opposite, even with regards to "no child left behind" which can't possibly be blamed on 9-11 Bush has further centralized power in direct contradiction of his campaign promises.
All the same, I would like to take the time to reply to your challenge;
"Perhaps you had some examples of simple "slips of the tongue" that Democrats used to railroad public sentiment with that you'd like to share?"
Consider Kerry's repeated accusation that Bush had enacted a "Ban on stem cell research." Bush didn't ban research. He vastly restricted federal funding for stem cell research, but that just doesn't have the same euphonic ring to it. So Kerry deliberatly reworded things.
I wonder, if somthing like this happened if an offshore company could cut a quick deal with an American company to steer some traffic to an American server to get the FBI involved. I don't know what the legal rammifications would be since it's an offshore gambling site and all.... damn, their server is running slow. Maybe it's being DDOSed. Not enough posts yet to be slashdotted.
There have been a lot of innovative startups that have jumped in the toilet.
I think microsoft has several advantages. First, they have the ad budget to make their commercials into news via press releases, etc.
Second, Even if what they do is crap, if they put enough money behind it it will still be significant enough to be news. What the US does internationally is international news, whether it's a good idea or blindingly stupid.
Personally, I agree with you though. Gates is sortof the Japanese auto manufacturer of software. Not an originator but very good at adopting other technologies. If MS had bought a company dedicated to doing this kind of thing and then teamed up with Ford, I'd be more impressed.
But in sports, you have to make a decision - do you want to see competition based on the hard work of the athlete or the hard work of his doctors and technicians?
It should never be wrong to artificially bring an athelete to a level of ability that others exist at naturally.
At the very least, there should be an all-drug\modification olympics to see just what people are capable of.
And once in a while, I'd love to see competitions where engineering skill and medical ability were secondary to natural ability and athletic performance.
Megan's law was horrible. But that was back when there were anti-sodomy laws. You had people getting gunned down for being 'sex offenders' when they hadn't done anything violent.
If info is reported to the public, it needs to include some details or people go vigilante.
Slashdot Mirror
...but I regularly use the turtle to draw pictures on my computer.
This guy wasn't rejected after peer review, though. He didn't choose to skip peer review. He was rejected because his research "wasn't interesting."
This is what he was protesting, I think.
If he had been rejected after peer review, it would have been a different story.
The point was that Dow had released a paper claiming that, while an abnormal number of their workers were getting cancer, that this wasn't because of some chemical that they were exposed to in the workplace.
The scientist "critiqued a 2003 Dow-funded paper (published) in Texas Medicine"
In other words, he argued that the industry funded paper was a lie, but had a hard time getting his arguments published.
Personally, I wish that he had gotten the article peer reviewed and published in another paper before doing this.
I wonder if he can now claim that he was "published in JOEM." Can people cite this work? Probably not, I'm thinking.
The effects of industry on scientific communication is pretty interesting. The overproscription of Statins in the US because the FDA was effectivly bribed is just one example.
Considering the various technology transfer acts passed by congress, more and more previously government funded is becoming the province of industry. The effects on the integrity of scientific research are only slowly becoming apparent.
Is "innocuous" better?
If he says he's not going to pay you unless you find him a replacement, don't keep working under those conditions. Simply not paying you will not be enough to satisfy his desire for revenge. If he does somthing like that to you, he'll need to justify his action to himself and others. In other words, he will be motivated to ruin your reputation. Either he takes back the threat or you walk immediatly.
Be firm, but don't be threatening. Let him know that you're committed to make the transition as easy as possible for him and to fufil your fair responsibilities, but make sure he understands that the choice and the power is his.
India is sometimes considered Asia, no? Why not ancient? I'll agree with the "not science" part.
A driving force in plant diversification is said to be resistance of predators. Chemicals like the furanocoumarins (sp?) in wild parsnip developed because they were a natural pesticide. The mutant plant that can make them suddenly flourishes until another species develops a way to work around the defense. Slowly, more predators join in until things are back in balance. Then another mutant develops a new way of doing things and the process begins again.
... okay, I'm speculating and I'm tired and I'm going to stop now. Good night all.
The logical implication of this is that any sudden massive change in the plant world is likely to lead to a situation where fewer herbavores have a food source. The result would be a sudden drop in herbavores and a tremendous opportunity for any animal which could consume the new plants.
This could be totally off base. But since they mentioned the rise of flowering plants, this is what came to my mind.
This would suppose a sudden drop in certain types of fossils in that area.
Alternatly, I wonder if a dryer environment or temp change would force a change of diet if this creature had imperfectly developed maxillaries. Maxillaries are prerequisites for the developmnent of warm bloodedness since warm blooded animals breathe more. Without maxilaries,a rapidly breathing animal would dry out. Anyone who's actually an archeologist (I'm not) know these details?
Is 'sudden emergence of flowering plants' the only change on record? Maybe with their long necks they were the only creatures who could eat fruit from trees...
What makes you think the poster is a 'he' ?
Chauvanism.
>>So if you're one of those kids I hear about who images that a maths degree consists of learning how to divide 17-digit numbers, I'm afraid I have to disillusion you!
Not really. I'm familiar with cellular automata, etc. Though my knowledge of maths is, of course, far from exhaustive. Maths aren't my field.
But the point is the same. Math deals with the interrlationship of concepts (which can be expressed via numbers) without nessicarily addressing how those concepts relate back to reality.
It can be used to create a model of the natural world, which can be tested by the natural world and thus employed in the scienfitic process. But saying that "math is a science" is like saying "a handsaw is a type of lumberjack." Math is a tool employed by scientists (the word being shorthand for natural scientists, i.e. people who use the scientific method to discover the natural world.)
Why not just get your B vitamins from eating yeast products like whole grain bread?
But we are considered omnivores because our bodies can tolerate meat as well as plant matter.
Most humans are very good at relying on fish as a protein source. If you're looking for a diet that is healthy, rather than trying to fit some ethical code, low-in-oil fish are an excellent choice. Oily fish like salmon work well too, but in modern times they tend to concentrate pesticides.
Your girlfriend is inert?
He doesn't actually have a girlfriend. This is theoretical physics.
I don't know that maths should be considered as sciences. Science should relate to natural phenomenon. Math can be used to describe natural phenomenon, so it's a tool used in the sciences and logically grouped with it, but math is about the relationship that numbers have to each other, without regard to the physical universe.
I prefer "phucking phuckers" myself...
if you take his statement at face value, the straightforward, unqualified way in which Gore makes it suggests that, even if he didn't believe that he actually "invented" the Internet, he seems to have genuinely believed that his own beaurocratic contribution was more important than any researcher's or network engineer's prior work!
Gore wasn't comparing himself to engineers and researchers. Anyone making an honest effort to understand what he was saying, notably the Democrats to whom he addressed his answer, knew that he was acting as a polititian and not as an engineer. Do you honestly believe that there were folks out there who believed that Gore singlehandedly created the internet? He was proactive in helping create it, whereas government is usually reactive (taking the initiative). Gore was comparing himself to Bill Bradley and, conceivably, other government officials as the content of your own post makes clear.
For whatever reason, there seemed to have been an effort in the media to malign Gore through misquotes and make him seem like someone who exaggerated his accomplishments. The 'invented the internet' lie was part of a larger pattern of media deception and deliberate misquotation. Check out the story behind Gore's "Love canal" quote.
Perhaps you had some examples of simple "slips of the tongue" that Democrats used to railroad public sentiment with that you'd like to share?
I generally agree with you Re: Democrats being more straightforward for the past few decades in terms of deliberate presentation of the truth. And I agree with you on this matter in particular.
Reagan negotiated with terrorists in secret and gave them arms, Bush Sr. and Reagan both promised they wouldn't raise taxes and did, "W" promised to give more power back to the states and has done the opposite, even with regards to "no child left behind" which can't possibly be blamed on 9-11 Bush has further centralized power in direct contradiction of his campaign promises.
All the same, I would like to take the time to reply to your challenge;
"Perhaps you had some examples of simple "slips of the tongue" that Democrats used to railroad public sentiment with that you'd like to share?"
Consider Kerry's repeated accusation that Bush had enacted a "Ban on stem cell research." Bush didn't ban research. He vastly restricted federal funding for stem cell research, but that just doesn't have the same euphonic ring to it. So Kerry deliberatly reworded things.
I wonder, if somthing like this happened if an offshore company could cut a quick deal with an American company to steer some traffic to an American server to get the FBI involved. I don't know what the legal rammifications would be since it's an offshore gambling site and all. ... damn, their server is running slow. Maybe it's being DDOSed. Not enough posts yet to be slashdotted.
(We also discover that, at least according to Soong, Data is NOT "less perfect" than Lore.)
. htm
http://www.starfleetlibrary.com/tng/tng4/brothers
There have been a lot of innovative startups that have jumped in the toilet.
I think microsoft has several advantages. First, they have the ad budget to make their commercials into news via press releases, etc.
Second, Even if what they do is crap, if they put enough money behind it it will still be significant enough to be news. What the US does internationally is international news, whether it's a good idea or blindingly stupid.
Personally, I agree with you though. Gates is sortof the Japanese auto manufacturer of software. Not an originator but very good at adopting other technologies. If MS had bought a company dedicated to doing this kind of thing and then teamed up with Ford, I'd be more impressed.
But in sports, you have to make a decision - do you want to see competition based on the hard work of the athlete or the hard work of his doctors and technicians?
It should never be wrong to artificially bring an athelete to a level of ability that others exist at naturally.
At the very least, there should be an all-drug\modification olympics to see just what people are capable of.
And once in a while, I'd love to see competitions where engineering skill and medical ability were secondary to natural ability and athletic performance.
Megan's law was horrible. But that was back when there were anti-sodomy laws. You had people getting gunned down for being 'sex offenders' when they hadn't done anything violent.
If info is reported to the public, it needs to include some details or people go vigilante.
Depending on the state, the age of consent is anywhere from 14 (WTF?) to 18.
... uh... terrible.
Dude! Where is it 14?
I mean... um... that's
To paraphrase: What if someone plotted to committ a crime while simultaneously planning for someone else to take the fall for it?
I think he's saying "what if this makes it easier for someone to do a frameup."
I don't know if it does or not.
Ask Mark Firmand. Better yet, ask O.J.
What constitutes sex offense? In Georgia, isn't adultery included? I know the supreme court has struck down anti-sodomy laws.
I assume statutory rape is included with rape and sexual assault. But what about sexual harrassment? What about prostitution?