In linux all of those adjustments are accessible by the user, and they can be fine-tuned on a per-system basis using real benchmarks of the actual load. You can have the CPU spend whatever amount of time sleeping you want to, thanks to the fine engineering at the CPU outfits. The efficiency of CPU low-power states is dependent on purchasing hardware that supports the power modes you desire. I personally don't like my CPUs to spin their wheels, so I pay extra for fancy AMD chips that are extra slow. This is the future. You can have the pixels you deserve.
Most people buying an iMac get the base version, not the 5k display one.
You complain about anecdotes, then pull that out of your ass?
It makes sense, he omitted the anecdote and jumped straight ahead to an unsupported assertion.
Personally I prefer the bare assertion, it takes less time to suffer through and laugh down than the anecdote. I don't know how many times somebody has threatened to stab me for insulting their grandpappy when actually no, I just wasn't interested in weighing the anecdote about him.
Yeah, if you run linux the input impedance is too high, so the CPU runs less efficiently. You need real Monster brand OSX to get the full battery life./s
Did you imagine that the defaults would be different depending on distro, and that if you adjust everything for maximum battery life and have the same software load, that it would be exactly the same? The technology is not substantially different, there is no excuse for a wide battery life gap. But your claimed reason... it is very funny.
So, you're saying that Americans didn't know that calls to Iran would be monitored, and so having those calls monitored without them knowing somehow creates a creaping sheep-state? That is really daft in 100 ways. You can be for or against the surveillance in the story, and either way that idea is equally stupid; Americans always knew that communications that are really in fact to an overseas person, especially a person in Iran, would be monitored. That is not actually even controversial. So even if you're against it, you're against it knowing that it is popular, not a secret.
I'm assuming the Russians drink a lot because they have no power. It is a lot different to be oppressed by forces you can't control than what we do in America, which is to knowingly and intentionally elect politicians that will institute an information/surveillance state. If the Russians didn't want what they have, they'd still have it. If Americans decide we want something different, it will change in just a few years. Whoever is telling you Americans are just sheep really has you by the credulity-bone.
If you let them have access in the case of "dire" need, you'll find lots of dire needs just coincidentally popping up. That would be almost exactly the same as now. I agree with your general premise, if it was possible. I just don't see it being so.
Better would be to have it all locked in that basement, and have all the people allowed in the basement closely watched by other agencies without access, and all their non-basement activities to be published and transparent; and the activities of the watcher-watchers, too.
Unlike me? Look kid, you can claim your own history and experience, but you have on reason to know anything more than that.
Look at your damn user ID, you're a fresh green sprout not an old-timer. If you aren't smart enough to look at my ID and see I've been here since the 90s, then get off the lawn and don't come back until you're ready to stop lying and claiming to know how long others have been doing this.
Just, assume that sysadmins already know how SysV init works. You don't need to explain it. We know. And you left out all the known problems with it, conveniently.
Users don't use RH because they're forced to; they have lots of choices and they choose redhat.
Other distros are influenced by RH for their own reasons that you can't claim ownership of. You can't claim that they were forced, because they don't claim they were forced; they claim they made the best decision.
The whole "the others are just derivatives" is a pile of entitled horse shit, to put it mildly. The translation is, "gosh, none of the people who dislike the decision understand this stuff well enough to make their own distro." Well, fine, then maybe their complaints are vapid and superfluous and they're not affected by the changes. If they were sysadmins whose lives were affected, they could actually put some effort where their words are and create a new distro.
You kids these days don't realize, in the 90s we already had dozens of different distros, and a zillion people who could make a new one if they felt like it. You have to take ownership of your own decisions. Can't make anything yourself? Fine, but why would you be choosing how the things are made? Want to be part of the choice? Learn how to make something.
I'll give you a hint, making a distro is entry-level stuff. You don't need any real skills or talents. All you have to do is install a few thousand upstream packages by hand on a from-scratch system, record what you did, choose how you want to make that repeatable, and package it up. A pre-teen nerd could do this in one school holiday. An internet whiner who plays computer games but doesn't know how their computer works, not so much.
By "poison the well," you mean what? What poison? How is making a different choice than you "poison?"
The only interpretation of the metaphor that is at all topical is that you think systemd is so great that once people have tasted it, they'll refuse to go back. Except, that would be sugaring the well, not poisoning it.
You don't care how other people build their systems, or you do? Which is it. You agree that you don't care, which is obviously the correct answer if you're not trying to strip our freedoms away from us. But then you give a bunch of reasons that seems to be some sort of "but" and where you do actually oppose letting us make our own choices, on account of other people are making the same choices as us, and those people's choices have more impact in the world than your own choice.
Making your own choices doesn't guarantee you the right to be in the majority; if systemd is so bad, you'd have no trouble convincing distros not to use it. Maybe the failure is in the argument; maybe none of the people whining are actually having systemd forced on them, and maybe none of them that are using it are being harmed by it, either.
BTW dbus is the newer, higher level IPC mechanism. If you're whining about the fact that dbus support will be guaranteed to be present in modern systems, that is a losing argument. Anybody with SysV IPC experience knows what a PITA the old ways were; it was so bad that people would write custom networking protocols for process communication instead of wrestling IPC. dbus solves real problems, and if you choose it or not, it is obvious that it is a necessary part of the ecosystem.
I use skype a lot, or rather my wife does, it is the only proprietary software that I rely on. Entirely for their foreign POTS integration; it is way cheaper than international calling cards. I had been totally non-proprietary for years before signing up for their calling service. They did indeed switch directly from supporting both ALSA and OSS to PA-only. You can't blame PulseAudio for that. You just can't. Skype isn't open source, and isn't developed by Poettering. You blame him, by name, for something done by Microsoft programmers, who likely didn't consult him. That is really lame, and you owe everybody an apology for that pathetic drivel. It is rather obvious to everybody that the users would be better off if they had added PulseAudio support and continued the ALSA and OSS support. Skype is really buggy and their auto-levels system will screw up all the system audio settings; it is more reliable to set Skype to OSS support simply because that minimizes the audio capabilities that the low quality client code can try to operate on. The good news is that after turning off the auto-levels feature, the audio works fine.
I hope so, it is always nice for a big group of haters to have a mass-migration. It is a lot healthier than to stay and whine. Those that leave can enjoy their greener grass, and those that stay have them off the lawn. Everybody wins.
If you hate systemd, don't use it. Problem solved!
Nothing is being forced on anybody. The situation is that systemd is popular and well liked by people making actual decisions, and hated by a bunch of loud pundits that don't have any responsibilities and are jealous of the decisions of others.
Nobody is trying to force anybody to use systemd. We like it, we're adopting it, and haters are loudly shouting that we should somehow be stopped, that we shouldn't be allowed to use what we want, that somehow the world would be better of if some giant angry conspiracy could be formed to somehow cast us out, or something like that.
Newsflash: systemd is popular among people with the technical background to be in charge of choosing a daemon and interface manager. SysV was not the Second Coming, it was only better than what came before. We stuck with it for so long because it worked, but it has serious failings that make it unsuitable and non-optimal for a wide variety of real life use cases.
You won't take it away from us, and no, failing to oppress people doesn't make you martyrs.
Keep your silly file server inside of your own network boundaries. Nobody is trying to touch it. Nobody is telling you what to run on it. So don't tell me what to run on mine.
Being against something is needless; just choose what you want for the reasons you want. There is no natural reason to be against everything else that others choose.
Init starts a daemon that watches for the event. This is how inetd worked. Whatever happened to that?
What happened is that the FUD is so deep, the haters don't realize that they're hating a modular system and that none of their talking points are actually true! lolol
Upstart has serious, known design flaws that cannot and will not be fixed. It will not be adopted for real technical reasons. Shouting slogans doesn't change the technical issues.
SysV is the weird monster that this thing is finally saving me from. You can't force me to keep using that old crap, and you can't force systemd not to replace it for me.
They're simply getting it wrong; they're falling victim to a hateful extremism that hand-feeds them selected (disputed or sectarian) teachings by later people. The basic Sunni/Shia split is similar to Catholic/Protestant in being at least largely about accepting later teachings from a claimed official line of the church and if such new teachings would count as Scripture.
It is generally a bait-and-switch; they emphasize that making images of Mohamed is offensive to God, and then they switch to telling the other humans to be personally offended. They don't continue with the same religious argument from beginning to end. After they establish that the person creating the image is [list of horribles] then they switch to talking about what punishments that would incur if done by nominal Muslims within the unified Muslim State that is assumed and ordered in scripture. Historically when such a state existed it would indeed have been punishable by death. Mainly because there was no chance that an Islamic court was going to treat a person making banned Muslim religious images as other than a heretic Muslim. If they were Christian images, that was actually okay, as long as the person making the images wasn't from a Muslim family. So they had freedom of religion, but not as a matter of personal choice. And non-Muslims who already lived in Muslim-ruled lands were allowed freedom of religion, but had to pay a tax. (Christians and Jews were excepted and didn't need to pay the tax or have a visa)
Freedom of expression isn't a natural right. It is a created right, a somewhat arbitrary luxury. Even where it exists it is not absolute. Historically, the Islamic State had a high level of freedom of expression. It did not extend to religious iconography, but there was extensive and open discussion of the philosophical and creative implications of different religious ideas. This was at the same time that scientists in Europe were being burned at the stake by the Christian Church, just for believing in the wrong physical facts, even where they had conceded they had no opinion on the religious implications. And yet later it was Christian extremists during the English Civil War that created the modern right of freedom of the press, and the separation of church and state; both were enacted so that individuals could have a personal conversation with God, without interference from the State (via an approved church) and then write about their experiences.
So Christians have rejected freedom of religion and freedom of expression in the past, too. It should be no surprise that there will be extremists that engage in these patterns of control. But it is not something that is in the nature of either religion; it is in the nature of sociopathic control freaks who sometimes manage to get power over land, or for example in France, simply can persuade some common criminals to become murderous villains.
The Koran does call for strict religious rule in a home region, but there is nothing in it about restricting freedom of expression beyond the standard anti-veneration protocols. And it could be argued that the history of the Catholic Church and freedom of expression is diametrically opposed to modern American values, and yet, it doesn't stop Catholics from loving God, or being good Americans. Like my dad (a non-Catholic) says, "if you don't want to be anything like a Catholic, just hate God and you'll have nothing in common."
We don't need to reconcile the views, the vast majority will continue to come together to oppose religious violence. There will still be radicalized nutjobs blowing stuff up, just like there are still burglars and murderers and various sorts of neer-do-wells.
That said, if I intentionally antagonize my neighbor by posting insulting pictures of what he values (and presumably, I don't) then he may eventually snap and punch me, or do whatever bad thing. Almost everybody in the community will agree punching is bad. He'll probably get fined and put on probation. But also, I'd still know when choosing to
So, be ready to see basic research shift to another country in about 15 years.
Despite the cuts, the US still spends more per capita on R&D than any other country except South Korea, and far more than any other in absolute terms. Source: List of countries by R&D spending.
This really makes me ask: Is there a real shift here that is problematic, or was there a bubble where research increased very rapidly in new fields, where older people didn't have right degrees to get the money, and so it started out with an unusually young group of people? Like in CS at the start of the modern research efforts the people had math and physics degrees. In medicine I'm assuming that wasn't done; they didn't just have veterinarians doing human studies because there weren't enough research doctors. There doesn't seem to be any closely related fields to draw people from either. So I would expect there to be research age bubbles whenever there is a major new round of medical tech.
A big question I don't know the answer to: What percent of NIH grants go to that sort of degree-restricted field, compared to degree-portable fields like CS? My initial guess is that most of the NIH grants would be degree-restricted and require a medical degree.
Just having 1983 and 2010 as data points, without anything farther back, seems dubious, even with the other data point in TFA using 1980 instead of `83.
If you were 36 in 1980 you were born in `44. So it may even just be as simple as, "baby boomer generation had a baby boom, news at 11." If the percent of young researchers had remained level, that would actually mean that researchers were getting younger, because there are a higher percent of older people with medical degrees now.
you forgot the most important point that the OP made however
I didn't say there was none, I said there was no major outcry.
so to me, thats showing that he is aware of the truths that there are some out there standing up. but he is correct when he says there is no major outcry
Nope. You don't consume media that would contain that information, that is why you're unaware of it. It is a lie, because you know that you don't know. You know that being unaware of what regular Muslims, and Muslim-focused media, are saying, is not the same as them not saying anything. You're not a low-IQ schoolchild who never confronted the difference between what you know, and what you know you don't know. Hate can blind anybody, even people who would otherwise be intelligent.
I saw headlines in some media giving an analysis of actual media coverage in the middle east, and there was extreme outrage, and religious offense. You'd rather hate people based on what other people with the same religious label than to understand what is actually going on in the world and what the majority views of that religion are.
they don't drive, they have drivers - and escorts. and not just the escorts of the call girl variety, but like, 3 G mercs. because, you know, it's Russia. Plenty of the Russian elite emigrate just to feel safe.
Most of the elites have been under forced foreign divestiture rules the past couple years, in anticipation of sanctions, so those still there are mostly stuck now.
Slashdot Mirror
In linux all of those adjustments are accessible by the user, and they can be fine-tuned on a per-system basis using real benchmarks of the actual load. You can have the CPU spend whatever amount of time sleeping you want to, thanks to the fine engineering at the CPU outfits. The efficiency of CPU low-power states is dependent on purchasing hardware that supports the power modes you desire. I personally don't like my CPUs to spin their wheels, so I pay extra for fancy AMD chips that are extra slow. This is the future. You can have the pixels you deserve.
Right. They used to use more expensive parts... back when they were competing with IBM. ;)
Most people buying an iMac get the base version, not the 5k display one.
You complain about anecdotes, then pull that out of your ass?
It makes sense, he omitted the anecdote and jumped straight ahead to an unsupported assertion.
Personally I prefer the bare assertion, it takes less time to suffer through and laugh down than the anecdote. I don't know how many times somebody has threatened to stab me for insulting their grandpappy when actually no, I just wasn't interested in weighing the anecdote about him.
Blender is unusable as a NLE unless you already completely understand the crazy kooky Blender interface.
Software you did learn how to use is easier than software you didn't learn how to use. More at 11.
Yeah, if you run linux the input impedance is too high, so the CPU runs less efficiently. You need real Monster brand OSX to get the full battery life. /s
Did you imagine that the defaults would be different depending on distro, and that if you adjust everything for maximum battery life and have the same software load, that it would be exactly the same? The technology is not substantially different, there is no excuse for a wide battery life gap. But your claimed reason... it is very funny.
So, you're saying that Americans didn't know that calls to Iran would be monitored, and so having those calls monitored without them knowing somehow creates a creaping sheep-state? That is really daft in 100 ways. You can be for or against the surveillance in the story, and either way that idea is equally stupid; Americans always knew that communications that are really in fact to an overseas person, especially a person in Iran, would be monitored. That is not actually even controversial. So even if you're against it, you're against it knowing that it is popular, not a secret.
I'm assuming the Russians drink a lot because they have no power. It is a lot different to be oppressed by forces you can't control than what we do in America, which is to knowingly and intentionally elect politicians that will institute an information/surveillance state. If the Russians didn't want what they have, they'd still have it. If Americans decide we want something different, it will change in just a few years. Whoever is telling you Americans are just sheep really has you by the credulity-bone.
If you let them have access in the case of "dire" need, you'll find lots of dire needs just coincidentally popping up. That would be almost exactly the same as now. I agree with your general premise, if it was possible. I just don't see it being so.
Better would be to have it all locked in that basement, and have all the people allowed in the basement closely watched by other agencies without access, and all their non-basement activities to be published and transparent; and the activities of the watcher-watchers, too.
At this rate we'll need a metadata database metadatabase.
We have that, it is called an "information sharing system."
It's the Department of Racial Justice, after all.
Gee, and here I thought it was the department that manages the government lawyers.
So, where do the lawyers get managed in your universe?
Unlike me? Look kid, you can claim your own history and experience, but you have on reason to know anything more than that.
Look at your damn user ID, you're a fresh green sprout not an old-timer. If you aren't smart enough to look at my ID and see I've been here since the 90s, then get off the lawn and don't come back until you're ready to stop lying and claiming to know how long others have been doing this.
Just, assume that sysadmins already know how SysV init works. You don't need to explain it. We know. And you left out all the known problems with it, conveniently.
Users don't use RH because they're forced to; they have lots of choices and they choose redhat.
Other distros are influenced by RH for their own reasons that you can't claim ownership of. You can't claim that they were forced, because they don't claim they were forced; they claim they made the best decision.
The whole "the others are just derivatives" is a pile of entitled horse shit, to put it mildly. The translation is, "gosh, none of the people who dislike the decision understand this stuff well enough to make their own distro." Well, fine, then maybe their complaints are vapid and superfluous and they're not affected by the changes. If they were sysadmins whose lives were affected, they could actually put some effort where their words are and create a new distro.
You kids these days don't realize, in the 90s we already had dozens of different distros, and a zillion people who could make a new one if they felt like it. You have to take ownership of your own decisions. Can't make anything yourself? Fine, but why would you be choosing how the things are made? Want to be part of the choice? Learn how to make something.
I'll give you a hint, making a distro is entry-level stuff. You don't need any real skills or talents. All you have to do is install a few thousand upstream packages by hand on a from-scratch system, record what you did, choose how you want to make that repeatable, and package it up. A pre-teen nerd could do this in one school holiday. An internet whiner who plays computer games but doesn't know how their computer works, not so much.
By "poison the well," you mean what? What poison? How is making a different choice than you "poison?"
The only interpretation of the metaphor that is at all topical is that you think systemd is so great that once people have tasted it, they'll refuse to go back. Except, that would be sugaring the well, not poisoning it.
You don't care how other people build their systems, or you do? Which is it. You agree that you don't care, which is obviously the correct answer if you're not trying to strip our freedoms away from us. But then you give a bunch of reasons that seems to be some sort of "but" and where you do actually oppose letting us make our own choices, on account of other people are making the same choices as us, and those people's choices have more impact in the world than your own choice.
Making your own choices doesn't guarantee you the right to be in the majority; if systemd is so bad, you'd have no trouble convincing distros not to use it. Maybe the failure is in the argument; maybe none of the people whining are actually having systemd forced on them, and maybe none of them that are using it are being harmed by it, either.
BTW dbus is the newer, higher level IPC mechanism. If you're whining about the fact that dbus support will be guaranteed to be present in modern systems, that is a losing argument. Anybody with SysV IPC experience knows what a PITA the old ways were; it was so bad that people would write custom networking protocols for process communication instead of wrestling IPC. dbus solves real problems, and if you choose it or not, it is obvious that it is a necessary part of the ecosystem.
I use skype a lot, or rather my wife does, it is the only proprietary software that I rely on. Entirely for their foreign POTS integration; it is way cheaper than international calling cards. I had been totally non-proprietary for years before signing up for their calling service. They did indeed switch directly from supporting both ALSA and OSS to PA-only. You can't blame PulseAudio for that. You just can't. Skype isn't open source, and isn't developed by Poettering. You blame him, by name, for something done by Microsoft programmers, who likely didn't consult him. That is really lame, and you owe everybody an apology for that pathetic drivel. It is rather obvious to everybody that the users would be better off if they had added PulseAudio support and continued the ALSA and OSS support. Skype is really buggy and their auto-levels system will screw up all the system audio settings; it is more reliable to set Skype to OSS support simply because that minimizes the audio capabilities that the low quality client code can try to operate on. The good news is that after turning off the auto-levels feature, the audio works fine.
TFA is clickbait, you're not supposed to actually read that crap. Where the hell do you think you are? You're going to get eaten by a grue-se.
Why do you think this stuff is happening in the init process?
Because... because... the haters on the interwebs said bleepity-bleep! And haters never lie.
Please god kill systemd before it destroys my servers.
If they were your servers, you'd be the one to blame for installing it.
Or are you coveting your sysadmin's servers again? Jealousy is bad for your health.
I hope so, it is always nice for a big group of haters to have a mass-migration. It is a lot healthier than to stay and whine. Those that leave can enjoy their greener grass, and those that stay have them off the lawn. Everybody wins.
If you hate systemd, don't use it. Problem solved!
Nothing is being forced on anybody. The situation is that systemd is popular and well liked by people making actual decisions, and hated by a bunch of loud pundits that don't have any responsibilities and are jealous of the decisions of others.
Nobody is trying to force anybody to use systemd. We like it, we're adopting it, and haters are loudly shouting that we should somehow be stopped, that we shouldn't be allowed to use what we want, that somehow the world would be better of if some giant angry conspiracy could be formed to somehow cast us out, or something like that.
Newsflash: systemd is popular among people with the technical background to be in charge of choosing a daemon and interface manager. SysV was not the Second Coming, it was only better than what came before. We stuck with it for so long because it worked, but it has serious failings that make it unsuitable and non-optimal for a wide variety of real life use cases.
You won't take it away from us, and no, failing to oppress people doesn't make you martyrs.
Keep your silly file server inside of your own network boundaries. Nobody is trying to touch it. Nobody is telling you what to run on it. So don't tell me what to run on mine.
Being against something is needless; just choose what you want for the reasons you want. There is no natural reason to be against everything else that others choose.
Init starts a daemon that watches for the event. This is how inetd worked. Whatever happened to that?
What happened is that the FUD is so deep, the haters don't realize that they're hating a modular system and that none of their talking points are actually true! lolol
Upstart has serious, known design flaws that cannot and will not be fixed. It will not be adopted for real technical reasons. Shouting slogans doesn't change the technical issues.
See: http://0pointer.de/blog/projec...
SysV is the weird monster that this thing is finally saving me from. You can't force me to keep using that old crap, and you can't force systemd not to replace it for me.
They're simply getting it wrong; they're falling victim to a hateful extremism that hand-feeds them selected (disputed or sectarian) teachings by later people. The basic Sunni/Shia split is similar to Catholic/Protestant in being at least largely about accepting later teachings from a claimed official line of the church and if such new teachings would count as Scripture.
It is generally a bait-and-switch; they emphasize that making images of Mohamed is offensive to God, and then they switch to telling the other humans to be personally offended. They don't continue with the same religious argument from beginning to end. After they establish that the person creating the image is [list of horribles] then they switch to talking about what punishments that would incur if done by nominal Muslims within the unified Muslim State that is assumed and ordered in scripture. Historically when such a state existed it would indeed have been punishable by death. Mainly because there was no chance that an Islamic court was going to treat a person making banned Muslim religious images as other than a heretic Muslim. If they were Christian images, that was actually okay, as long as the person making the images wasn't from a Muslim family. So they had freedom of religion, but not as a matter of personal choice. And non-Muslims who already lived in Muslim-ruled lands were allowed freedom of religion, but had to pay a tax. (Christians and Jews were excepted and didn't need to pay the tax or have a visa)
Freedom of expression isn't a natural right. It is a created right, a somewhat arbitrary luxury. Even where it exists it is not absolute. Historically, the Islamic State had a high level of freedom of expression. It did not extend to religious iconography, but there was extensive and open discussion of the philosophical and creative implications of different religious ideas. This was at the same time that scientists in Europe were being burned at the stake by the Christian Church, just for believing in the wrong physical facts, even where they had conceded they had no opinion on the religious implications. And yet later it was Christian extremists during the English Civil War that created the modern right of freedom of the press, and the separation of church and state; both were enacted so that individuals could have a personal conversation with God, without interference from the State (via an approved church) and then write about their experiences.
So Christians have rejected freedom of religion and freedom of expression in the past, too. It should be no surprise that there will be extremists that engage in these patterns of control. But it is not something that is in the nature of either religion; it is in the nature of sociopathic control freaks who sometimes manage to get power over land, or for example in France, simply can persuade some common criminals to become murderous villains.
The Koran does call for strict religious rule in a home region, but there is nothing in it about restricting freedom of expression beyond the standard anti-veneration protocols. And it could be argued that the history of the Catholic Church and freedom of expression is diametrically opposed to modern American values, and yet, it doesn't stop Catholics from loving God, or being good Americans. Like my dad (a non-Catholic) says, "if you don't want to be anything like a Catholic, just hate God and you'll have nothing in common."
We don't need to reconcile the views, the vast majority will continue to come together to oppose religious violence. There will still be radicalized nutjobs blowing stuff up, just like there are still burglars and murderers and various sorts of neer-do-wells.
That said, if I intentionally antagonize my neighbor by posting insulting pictures of what he values (and presumably, I don't) then he may eventually snap and punch me, or do whatever bad thing. Almost everybody in the community will agree punching is bad. He'll probably get fined and put on probation. But also, I'd still know when choosing to
So, be ready to see basic research shift to another country in about 15 years.
Despite the cuts, the US still spends more per capita on R&D than any other country except South Korea, and far more than any other in absolute terms. Source: List of countries by R&D spending.
This really makes me ask: Is there a real shift here that is problematic, or was there a bubble where research increased very rapidly in new fields, where older people didn't have right degrees to get the money, and so it started out with an unusually young group of people? Like in CS at the start of the modern research efforts the people had math and physics degrees. In medicine I'm assuming that wasn't done; they didn't just have veterinarians doing human studies because there weren't enough research doctors. There doesn't seem to be any closely related fields to draw people from either. So I would expect there to be research age bubbles whenever there is a major new round of medical tech.
A big question I don't know the answer to: What percent of NIH grants go to that sort of degree-restricted field, compared to degree-portable fields like CS? My initial guess is that most of the NIH grants would be degree-restricted and require a medical degree.
Just having 1983 and 2010 as data points, without anything farther back, seems dubious, even with the other data point in TFA using 1980 instead of `83.
If you were 36 in 1980 you were born in `44. So it may even just be as simple as, "baby boomer generation had a baby boom, news at 11." If the percent of young researchers had remained level, that would actually mean that researchers were getting younger, because there are a higher percent of older people with medical degrees now.
you forgot the most important point that the OP made however
I didn't say there was none, I said there was no major outcry.
so to me, thats showing that he is aware of the truths that there are some out there standing up. but he is correct when he says there is no major outcry
Nope. You don't consume media that would contain that information, that is why you're unaware of it. It is a lie, because you know that you don't know. You know that being unaware of what regular Muslims, and Muslim-focused media, are saying, is not the same as them not saying anything. You're not a low-IQ schoolchild who never confronted the difference between what you know, and what you know you don't know. Hate can blind anybody, even people who would otherwise be intelligent.
I saw headlines in some media giving an analysis of actual media coverage in the middle east, and there was extreme outrage, and religious offense. You'd rather hate people based on what other people with the same religious label than to understand what is actually going on in the world and what the majority views of that religion are.
they don't drive, they have drivers - and escorts. and not just the escorts of the call girl variety, but like, 3 G mercs. because, you know, it's Russia. Plenty of the Russian elite emigrate just to feel safe.
Most of the elites have been under forced foreign divestiture rules the past couple years, in anticipation of sanctions, so those still there are mostly stuck now.
I fully support Russia's efforts to establish themselves as the force of Evil to be opposed in this New Cold War.
It is great for the US economy.