Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Funny how this works ... (Score 1) 99

by smooth wombat (#47976083) Attached to: Netflix Rejects Canadian Regulator Jurisdiction Over Online Video
our so-called representatives voted to bail out the supposed `too big to fail` organizations.

Which was the direct result of the financial industry whining that the proposed regulations would make them less competitive in the markets.

I have an article at home which outlines how the proposed regulations would have either mitigated to a significant degree, or even prevented, the bailout such by requiring higher capital requirements, more diligent use of mark-to-market, risk analysis and so on.

One can blame Congress and the President for agreeing to the bailouts, but there is a direct line between the bailouts and the lack of regulations.

Comment: Do you want to do research or be a programmer? (Score 2) 107

by AuMatar (#47975941) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Finding a Job After Completing Computer Science Ph.D?

A Phd is a researching degree. If you want to use that degree, you should be making very targeted applications at companies that are looking to hire people in your subfield. You should not be applying to general developer positions, you should be applying to very specific jobs you specialize in.

If all you want is a job as a developer, then you're going to get interviewed like a developer. Don't hide your phd, but don't expect it to mean anything. A Phd isn't going to help you write a webpage, or develop a standard business or phone app. The things they need aren't addressed in a phd program. They need programmers. So they're going to test that you can actually program. They're going to treat you just like any other applicant, whatever degree they have. That means starting with the "is this guy a complete fraud" test.

I've gotta ask- why did you get the Phd? If you got it because you wanted to work on a specific field, work in it. If you got it because you wanted to call yourself doctor or you thought more degrees the better, you should have done some research before spending 6 years of your life on it.

Comment: Re:Phone size myopia (Score 1) 206

by Overzeetop (#47975343) Attached to: Phablet Reviews: Before and After the iPhone 6

If you go by preorders, all of the the 6+ models at verizon (16/64/128GB in the three colors) were multiple weeks out before the 6 models started to slip on delivery.

As for cutting into tablet 5.5" LG G3 works well enough for surfing that I gave my iPad to my daughter. I just no longer have much use for it. It's not full featured like my Win8 based convertible, and it's not portable enough to justify carrying it with me many places just to surf or read email.

Comment: The REAL problem is NO small flagships (Score 1) 206

by Overzeetop (#47975285) Attached to: Phablet Reviews: Before and After the iPhone 6

Now that Apple has joined the phablet bandwagon, we have another problem: manufacturers are only offering their premium devices in phablet, or near-phablet, sizes. Want the "smaller" iphone? Sure, but you have to give up camera features. Most of the Android phones are in a similar boat - you can get a 4-4.5" screen phone, but you'll give up memory, or speed, or camera functionality, LTE, or any of a number of other features. Smaller screens mean lower price points and cutting corners.

Wouldn't it be nice it you really could choose a 3.5-4" screen phone that did everything else the larger models did?

Comment: Re:So in the future ... (Score 1) 140

by Rei (#47974841) Attached to: The UPS Store Will 3-D Print Stuff For You

Really, shipping bulk raw materials is equivalent to shipping finished goods, in your world? Finished goods are usually predominantly waste space, are full of packaging, have to be handled gingerly, and need to be distributed to individuals in different locations. Raw materials are packed together as densely as possible, little to no packaging, can be thrown around, and go straight to just a couple manufacturers. And when import taxes come into play, it's even more extreme, since those are generally based on the price of what you're importing.

Comment: Re:Funny how this works ... (Score 1, Insightful) 99

by smooth wombat (#47974775) Attached to: Netflix Rejects Canadian Regulator Jurisdiction Over Online Video

Exactly. Look at how great limited regulation fared in 2006-2008 when the financial industry whined and complained about the "burdensome" regulations that were proposed regarding their use of derivatives, capitalization and related matters.

Not having regulations worked out really well, didn't it? It only cost us taxpayers a few billion dollars to clean up the mess.

Comment: Re: So in the future ... (Score 1) 140

by Rei (#47974671) Attached to: The UPS Store Will 3-D Print Stuff For You

You know, I was just thinking, wouldn't it be possible to make a rapid 3d *moulder*, for those bulk parts that you don't require as much precision on (aka, chair)? Picture a stretchable half-mould surface, on a large bed (maybe 50x100cm for a home edition, larger for a workshop) with a grid of little pistons on it that can change it's shape (nothing too high res, maybe one every square centimeter). Picture a second half-mould positioned just opposite, such that the two elements can close off off a 3d space. Such a system could virtually instantly form whatever shape you want, spray the inside with release agent, pipe in a thermoplastic or thermoset resin or wax (for lost wax casting) or confectionary or whatnot, let it set / cure it, and then open up. The pistons could then reshape to ready for whatever shape you want next. If such a moulder would you mess with the two halves individually after they've formed their shapes, you could use it as a composite layup, too. Disposable liners for the mould could be used if sticking / damaging the adjustable mould surface would be a problem.

Wouldn't that be getting awfully close to the potential that mass manufacture currently has? Casting as many times as you want and only having to wait for the product to set? Sure, you'd be limited to relatively simple geometries, but if you need anything more complex, that's what regular 3d printing is for. Hollow shapes could be handled in a two-stage process, first printing out the inner, releasing it, securing it in place, respraying both it and the mould with release agent, then printing out the desired part. I'd think a well-designed moulder could handle that without human intervention.

Hmm, come to think of it, it might even be possible to make a direct metal casting moulder. I know there are high temperature flexible fabrics that can withstand the temperature of most molten metals (various ceramic fiber ones), although I'm not sure whether there are any with sufficient flex for such a role. Oh, hey, carbon fiber and graphite felt are used as a flexible insulating material , that'd probably do the trick.

Comment: Re:Competitive pricing? Depends... (Score 1) 140

by Rei (#47974313) Attached to: The UPS Store Will 3-D Print Stuff For You

Come to think of it, this has to be a godsend for Hollywood. They've got the budgets, and you can use the same model for both CG special effects and printing for camera work (whether we're talking about printing for miniatures, animatronics, prosthetics, molds for prosthetics, gadgets or other small objects, etc). No need to have both your 3d artist and a physical artist create the same thing.

Comment: The perverse incentives in biomedical research (Score 2) 150

by pesho (#47974265) Attached to: Anonymous Peer-review Comments May Spark Legal Battle

My experience is that most of the work is done by the first one or two authors under the direct supervision of the last author (there are exceptions when the lab is very big and the PI has delegated most of the supervision to postdocs or staff). Generally, the corresponding author on the paper bears much of the responsibility for the data being published under the assumption that he is supervising the research and is intimately involved in analyzing the results and writing the paper. Many journals now require a statement, which briefly outlines the authors contributions. Having said that it is not unheard of that a student or a postdoc will manipulate data and the PI in his willingness to prove a hypothesis will not be overly critical.

The deeper problem is that there is a huge pressure in the biomedical field to publish often. The PI will not be able to receive grants unless he/she has demonstrated a track record of productivity. If he/she doesn't get grant funding he/she will not be receiving full salary and will not get tenure. At the same time the competition for funding is furious. The percent of applications being funded by NIH are in the low teens and for some NIH institutes they are under 10%. So not only you have to publish, but you have to publish more and in better journals than 90% of the people in the field to be competitive. All this puts huge pressure on the PIs to publish. Few of them publish rubbish and some resort to fraud. Students and postdocs are under similar pressure to be "productive" not only from their PIs, but also because their future prospects depend on the research they publish.

The irony is that the current situation is to a large degree caused by the expansion of the NIH budget in the past. Public and private research institutions rushed to build lab space, recruit scientist and train students to take advantage of the NIH grants (this expansion still continues!). The incentive for the institutions is that they get 40% or more (up to 100%) on top of the grant award as an overhead. So a typical $250K per year grant from NIH will pay directly to the university at least $100K per year in overhead in addition to sponsoring the PI and staff salaries from the direct costs. The NIH budget, however, did not continue to grow rapidly after the initial jump during president Clinton's time in office and has actually shrunk in the past year. The result is that now you have a large number of scientist desperate for grant money and not enough grants to fund even a small fraction of them. The current incentives do not reward the quality of the research, but the speed by which it is done and its quantity. This is a very perverse situation. It also creates a negative feedback loop where the poor quality of the published data prevents people from defining valid hypotheses or identifying viable lines of research. As a result they waste time and are subject to even more pressure to publish junk.

Comment: Re:Please describe exactly (Score 1) 384

Right. So when any of the normal annual changes take place (the way they handle certain experimental drugs or therapies, the way they handle certain hospital scenarios, etc), the insurer can no longer provide the plan - the ACA shuts it down because it doesn't provide post-menopausal women maternity care, etc.

So I am a bit confused about why that is a problem. The cost to the insurer of offering maternity care to post-menopausal women should be about zero. Why not tack that onto an otherwise good plan if that's what the law requires? Wouldn't that make more sense than scrapping the plan for such a flimsy reason?

Comment: Re:His articles on PubPeer (Score 1) 150

by pesho (#47973533) Attached to: Anonymous Peer-review Comments May Spark Legal Battle
I don't see any evidence that all the comments are posted from the same person. "Peer 1" is not a nickname or user ID. It looks like the initiator of each thread on PubPeer is automatically named "Peer 1" if he/she is registered. The next commenter on the thread will be "Peer 2" and so on. I also don't see anything personal in the comment that you cite. To me it looks like a statement of fact.

Comment: Re:Not MAD. (Score 1) 287

by s.petry (#47973449) Attached to: US Revamping Its Nuclear Arsenal

I think you are (intentionally?) using a non dictionary definition for "destroy". Rendering the surface of the Earth uninhabitable due to radioactive particles covering all surface area is destruction. Check your local dictionary, "destroy" is to render something completely useless. You seem to be replacing the word with "demolish"

Comment: Re:Know who to sue (Score 1) 150

by pesho (#47973377) Attached to: Anonymous Peer-review Comments May Spark Legal Battle

The scientist and his lawyer suspect foul play by anonymous person(s) who allegedly defamed him by posting ad hominem attacks in their pubpeer comments and then distributed those comment pages to both universities associated with him.

Any criticism of his work should be valid and fact based and that should be enforced by the site's moderators.

I am reading through the comments related to his papers on pubpeer. I haven't found any personal attacks. May be there are some in the comments I have not read yet. However, what I find is a number of papers with blatantly manipulated images, use of the same image to represent different experiments in different papers and even a combination of the two. His defamation lawsuit has no legs and the university has every right to rescind its offer. In fact they would have been complicit if they did not do so. I predict that Dr. Sarkar's next discovery will be the Streisand effect.

If you aren't rich you should always look useful. -- Louis-Ferdinand Celine