funny, I would have thought it would have had more to do with doing a entire project (not just the proposal) and getting squat for it?.
It's worth noting that in many other industries where the criteria for determining the product quality is very subjective, bids will often take the form of nearly complete projects. Think here of architectural or fashion design, writing fiction, popular music, etc...
Some people think anything you do or say is attention-whoring, even if you never wanted the attention. If a guy makes a joke in a forum post, he's a funny guy. If a girl makes a joke in a forum post, she's an attention whore. If a guy makes a good argument in a forum post, he's a smart guy. If a girl makes a good argument in a forum post, she's doing it for attention. She's ESPECIALLY an attention whore if people like her or agree with her.
Furthermore, we need to eliminate the debt load for student doctors. You can't expect doctors to work for lower salaries (as I propose above) when they are graduating with hundred of thousands in debt.
Would these lower salary expectations not put downward pressure on education costs? After all, if we shift the burden of costs to those who cannot make individual cost/benefit decisions, have we not re-created the very health care market dysfunction we seek to remedy?
P.S. A comparison of average general physician salaries across countries: http://www.worldsalaries.org/generalphysician.shtml
It is unfortunate to see that the paper -- http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/25may2010/1376.pdf -- does not include a statistical test to evaluate that the results are due to chance, but it seems significant
... anyone care to do a ANOVA?
On what? The numbers '9' and '5'?
Don't waste your time thinking about this paper; it's garbage.
They only had 2 hives in their experiment?
No, they had four. Two treatment (T1 and T2), one placebo (B, a dummy phone), one control (C). You wouldn't know it though, the data sheet in the paper shows only two columns, one titled control and one titled treatment. No mention of the placebo, no indication that there are two treatment groups, no test statistic (or it's power) is reported, no model is ever described.
(Direct link to paper: http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/25may2010/1376.pdf)
I feel that this notion ingrained in our environmental education that anything and everything human beings do is bad and/or unnatural is just wrong. The universe is a vast place. And in the big picture, we are all part of it. Nothing we could possibly do is out of the bounds of nature on a universal scale. We have as much right to explore, seed, and shape the cosmos as any other creature in the universe. If we disturb the habitat of any other planet, so be it. It's the laws of the universe at work.
Seldom have I seen this sentiment put so well.
I hesitate though, to single out environmental education for an idea that pervades our culture so thoroughly. Whether it's the remnants of a self flagellating religion, the relentless search for authenticity that is the reverse side of our popular culture, baked into the human mind, or a mixture of these and more, teaching kids about pollution is only this strand's most obvious outlet.
There is however, a legitimate question beneath surface: To what degree, if any, should we maintain areas of the universe as 'wild'? Is there an intrinsic value to an area from which we are absent, or does this value, if it exists, come from rarity?
I don't need to be told that it's "billions of times than ever before", or to compare it to the library of congress, I can understand measurements. so how big is the object? 1 nanometer? 1 kilometer? what? the article doesn't seem to say either.
If the object, or objects, were observable, which it or they are not, then they, or it, would be visible; barely.
Does that clear things up?
Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd. - Voltaire