I think it's kind of ironic that Facebook just applied for a frivolous patent for gathering and analyzing the information, but someone else already holds the frivolous patent for acting upon that information.
I see you've gone with the "vehemence" method of trying to convince people you're right. Normally you wouldn't be worth replying to, but someone else reading this thread might get some benefit.
Two of those "regulations" that makes a company "regulated' is that they a) have to very carefully specify exactly how they're making whatever-it-is, including precisely what's in it, and b) have to demonstrate in scientifically rigorous trials that it actually does more good than harm. So the chances of a REGULATED company selling you bad heart medication are vastly lower than those of an unregulated company doing it. A regulated drug producer can kill you if there's some accident, like a tainted batch. An unregulated one can kill you that way, or if they decided it would be cheaper to put a bit less of the active ingredient in, or change the process, or didn't have a reliable process in the first place, or were wrong about the drug working, or just made up the whole thing in the first place.
Don't think someone would make up imaginary treatments? Google "snake oil" and "homeopathy."
Yup. For the paper I'm reviewing at the moment the journal has helpfully sent a reminder five days after I agreed to review it. I appreciate their effort to reduce review times, but that's a bit ridiculous.
Tenure historically was important for arts and philosophy. The idea was that you could say things that were unpopular in safety because nobody could fire you.
Research professors don't really have terribly meaningful tenure anyway, because if you aren't performing you can't get grants and/or the university may deny you students. Either of those essentially means you're washed up.
You've got the problem right, but I disagree with the solution. We need to dilute professors.
Instead of being a postdoc for ten years and then either leaving broken and broke or scoring the big one (and getting to slave away for another twenty years as junior faculty...) make post doc a two year post-post-graduate thing. After that you become a professor. "Professor" stops meaning "old dude who writes grants" and starts meaning "person who does research and teaches." Grants get broken up into smaller pieces, so instead of one professor being responsible for keeping funding that keeps ten, fifteen or twenty students, post docs and techs fed, each professor gets personal operating funds. Professors have one or two students (or none) and do active research themselves.
The current position of "professor" is really a pretty crappy one that I don't think many who actually like doing science really want (I don't). What they DO want is the ability to apply for funding to support their research, get paid a reasonable wage, and maybe have students.
I've thought of the same thing. Put in the charter that all administrators must be academics in good standing, where good standing means they're doing productive research, as assessed by randomly assigned peer-reviewers.
Me too. I was unwise enough to choose to do longitudinal human research. I'm competing with people whose papers require data from ten mice over a couple of weeks. Or better yet, some Excel jockeying on data somebody else spent time collecting.
I got frustrated once and explained to the project PI (a physician) on a group teleconference once what had been done, and what had yet to be done, for a paper. There was silence, then "uh, that sounds like, uh, a lot of work."
Peer review. Which is how it's supposed to be done, except that the peer reviewers know that the administrators are going to count papers, and anyway, they can't take too much time to do a good job because they have to get some papers published.
The system needs some intelligence. Academic performance should be reviewed by peers rather than by numbers. Just like performance reviews in industry, a bright person or two taking a tour is a lot better than someone looking down the columns in a spreadsheet and seeing "comrade, you haven't made your bi-daily quota!"
Absolutely. Someone else already has the patent on adjusting prices depending on someone's net usage.
Statistics doesn't pigeon-hole you. It discovers what factors tend to influence people grouped with you, by how much, and how reliably. Like psychohistory, it only works on groups, the larger the better. The "pigeon-hole" is fuzzy and somewhat arbitrary. You still (maybe) have free will and are an individual... just like everybody else.
Despite driving, biking and taking transit, I didn't really know this city until I started running through it randomly. You go down a lot of little side streets you'd never see unless you were trying to keep a 30 km run interesting.
That is one approach. You might change your mind when some unregulated company sells you bad heart medication though. Or contaminated ibuprofen.
You didn't have chicken pox like I did then. I skipped two weeks of school all right. And I spent a lot of the time in front of the TV, true, mostly because I couldn't walk because I had pox on the bottoms of my feet. Oh, and in my nose and ears.
I spent almost as much time in cold baths as in front of the TV though, because the doctor said if we couldn't keep my fever down I'd have to go to the hospital and they used ice baths. Silver lining though - it washed off the coating of calamine lotion so I could apply a fresh one.'
Kids today don't know how lucky they've got it. Avoid chicken pox with a little jab. Of course, I had it pretty easy too. One of my friends' fathers had been crippled by polio.
Some risks are trivially avoidable. Being an idiot isn't "growing a pair," it's being an idiot. Not getting vaccinated is particularly stupid because you expose other people to risk, not just yourself.
I jump off mountains and travel to places where a mosquito bite can kill you. I've got all my vaccinations.