There is already a profusion of similar ID systems operated by the big players in the field. For instance, Web of Knowledge http://apps.webofknowledge.com/ and Scopus http://www.scopus.com/ already have some kind of an automated author sorting system behind their paywall. I think that Thomson is also behind ResearcherID. Plus there is ResearchGate which creates a profile for you without asking you anything and computes a totally non-transparent metric of your impact as a scientist. In the end, I think that free and transparent will prevail, that is Google Scholar. It is simple, accessible by anyone and already provides your h-index (yes I know how poor of a metric it is). Only you can create a profile for yourself and there is a minimal but meaningful level of control to check that the person creating the profile is indeed who he claims he is. Admittedly, it does not solve the Wang problem but there can be only so many Y. Wang in your tiny field of interest so searching for " Y. Wang + insert favorite keyword here " should do the trick.

And complaining about airport closure because of snow did not provide enough of a context? Seriously?

Speaking English only might be ok in an academic environment although my experience (in Japan) says that you might have most of the staff reading and writing English but unable to speak it. You might also want to apply directly to American or Western companies in the area. I assume there is no shortage of them.

It looks very much like a drop pod. It could be straight from this ODST ad http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzkL-vg8MHE.

I found it by chance yesterday, at least it looks good http://www.shapeways.com/model/432614/nanolet-ipod-nano-bracelet.html

" UK In Danger of Having Third World Standards Infrastructures "

There, fixed the title. A chance our taxpayers money is wisely spent to upgrade London in the wake of the Olympic Games.

I doubt they are stupid. They know it is broken. Seriously, how much do you think Zuckerberg's parole is worth? Sure, give us all these rights, we promise we won't abuse them.

Just go for a PhD and think about an academic career again once you are in your last year. In my experience, you will be disillusioned about science within 4-6 months. Most projects don't work and most PIs have unrealistic expectations and no time for supervision. Salaries suck and long-term career prospects suck, in all fields. There is a lot of jobs in competitive fields but cut-throat competition and no jobs in the other fields. Also I think that fraud is more widespread that a lot of academics would like to admit but it remains anecdotal and it will certainly not have any impact on your career prospects if you are honest. This being said, this is I think the best and most stimulating job in the world (or at least one of them). And I personally work from 9.30 till 9.00 every weekday and some hours over weekends.

My best advice is to consider it as seriously as you would any other job. It helps to have a clear career plan and know where you are going. Too many students start thinking it will just happen. Once you know in which field you want to work, seek advice about the best labs and apply there. Visit as many labs as you can. Don't be afraid about moving to other countries/states and if an excellent opportunity presents itself outside of what you initially considered, take some time to think about it. The most important things are (1) that you choose a project that you like, (2) that the lab where you work is full of nice people and (3) that your boss is really famous in his field, not necessarily in that order. Don't go for second grade universities, it is not worth it. If you want your academic career to be full of opportunities, you need to do your PhD in one of the top 50-100 best universities of the world and in a really good lab for your field. That will keep most doors opened and put you in the most stimulating environment. This is not to say that good research is not done outside of these but simply that you are guaranteed to get maximal exposure to foreign ideas and people.

Let's publish it quickly, then get a tenured job and change topic before others find out it's all wrong!

So now flight attendants are experts at recognizing "handmade explosive devices"? Isn't the definition of handmade that it looks like anything and nothing? And where is the explosive itself? A cell phone and "something with protruding wires" is hardly going to do any harm on its own. Also the summary states that they left it behind meaning it had passed security at least once and had gone through a full flight without being detonated. And at now point those morons thought that if the purpose was to blow up an airport or a plane the terrorists would have done it already.

Yes, of course, because this will never go through the constitutional council which has already killed a number of laws proposed by Sarkozy's party. (Almost) Everybody knows it but on the other hand, presidential elections are next month so this might just gain him a few votes. There is nothing more than that, he is loosing in the polls and is desperate to strengthen his position before election day.

Most referendum in Switzerland usually end up with a score like that, accepted (or rejected) by 50 to 60% of voters, irrespective of the question asked. On rare occasions the score is much higher. For instance, on Sunday we also voted against two extra weeks of paid holidays (from four to six) by 67%.

It is most probably an evolutionary mechanism to reinforce group cohesion. Clearly we are better off as a group than as lone wolfs, especially some thousand years back. Those who don't collaborate, are egoistic in nature or are just plain aggressive benefit from the group without contributing so the group has a very good reason to get rid of them (or socially isolate them). You can find a more academic formulation in game theory to explain altruism and why egoistic behaviours don't take over a population over generations ultimately hurting the group/species.

Completely true. But let's be realistic here, when was the last time a country went to war as a matter of charity or enlightenment again? Wars are waged for territories, resources or influence one way or the other. One party has an aggressive policy of resource gathering or conquest, diplomacy fails, it escalates and eventually provides a casus belli to one or the other party. Of course, to sell it to Joe Sixpack, it is faster to wrap it with religion or moral.

I have worked in Switzerland in the life sciences and there is plenty of private funding bodies or foundations that fund fundamental or applied research. There is certainly no shortage of rich families there. In my experience, it is rare that they fund a chair or a whole institute but it is relatively easy to get money for a PhD student or a postdoc. Companies are more difficult essentially because they always want to get something marketable out of their external funding and their grants come with all kind of annoying restrictions regarding IP and animal experimentation.