can you elaborate on what you mean by this

research funding through the military budget is about the only part that i find somewhat permissible. It's **** like the national labs where money gets spent on actually developing and building a product that is overpriced because of the inifnite budget and likely never going to be used (or just used the kill people) that I see as the problem.

When I was graduating high school, my friends basically split in two ways. Half stayed at home or went to college, half enlisted.

There's lots of poverty and meth where I grew up. I had a friend whose mom was a meth addict and he basically grew up by himself. Literally owned 1 pair of jeans. Another lived with only his alcoholic construction worker dad who was never around. A set of twins had a mom who was dating an abusive alcoholic and left them both to go to Missouri two days after they turned 18.

Most of this group enlisted. If they weren't coming from poverty, then their families were lower middle class and they felt too dumb for college. Around that time, any idea of a career felt too hard for them.

Same happened with people a few years my senior. They enlisted. It's the only decent job they could find.

Most served in combat. Some came back fine, some came back missing body parts or with lasting mental health issues.

None of them joined out of maliciousness, or a feeling they wanted to hurt people. They joined because they felt it was the only chance to earn a living.

It would be irresponsible to blame them for that choice.

I don't want to be too specific for reasons, but it isn't just funding grad school, it's also research internships at a big name federal agency developing intelligence technology and a pipeline into a career there.

This person had other funding offers, as well. They elected the DoD grant because it paid a tad more and gave the career option. So this was completely voluntary.

One of my favoritist lectures about the limits of scientific understanding. Love Chomsky here, plus it's fun to listen to him slight modern science for thinking they're discovering new things about the mind when they're reinventing the wheel of 18th century cognitive philosophy.

People underestimate the wisdom and sophistication of past thinkers. I blame our ****ty educational system for overemphasizing the new and refusal to teach people how to properly approach histories.

If I were a high school history teacher (barf), I would make students give a presentation on the history of a scientific discovery. And try to get people past historical memes, like people's understanding of Newton being limited to Principia and alchemy, or in fact people's understanding of the history of chemistry being alchemy -> chemistry without any idea of how many lucky and profound discoveries were made.

The discovery of oxygen was among the top few most important scientific discoveries. Yet who really knows the history of it? Our understanding of the past is criminal.

wrong thread

wrong thread

Admittedly not the best career choice for you.



If the reason people haven't heard about it is its discoverer wasn't part of the white male patriarchy, the chances are that we'll all get to learn about it in a Hollywood movie some day.

At any rate, science is rediscovering and appropriating what Deepak Chopra has known for 500+ years.

Also why do anarchists uses Poké Balls for their logos if they are against corporate oppression?

wow I'm a dick

I think you think you're cleverer than you really are.

Oh, trust me, I don't think I wrote anything clever at all. In fact I was mildly ashamed of it as soon as I posted it.

I felt a little bad at the time, but then I remembered all the times you've made low-effort ****posts as well.

Also, clicking around on that Wiki page led me to this bizarre rabbit hole. Just look at how long it is for something so arcane.

In all seriousness though, I'm not sure about the wisdom of anybody claiming we should "return to the wisdom of past thinkers". If I had more time I might suffer through that Chomsky lecture, but the idea seems highly suspect to me.

You only have to watch about 10 seconds of it to see Chomsky's frown turn into this very warm and welcoming smile:

Who are you quoting?

You?

but does his wisdom compare to that of Sam Harris...

Wait a minute, this actually does sound interesting! I should actually listen to this, it sounds cool.

Would a corporation pay to DDoS a piracy service? Hearing rumors that Sci Hub is being DDoS'ed

Would they profit more by doing it than the expected cost?

I'm not sure, how expensive is a DDoS?

It's free for somebody.

So probably then. Wouldn't be surprised if this happens to coincide with a new release from some publisher.

I doubt that (Edit: that it coincides with a new release from a publisher. The American Chemical Society sells journal subscriptions, not best selling books).

Researcher wants paper -> tries scihub -> oh it's down -> requests it from library

Honestly not sure how many people are sitting on the edges of their seats waiting for some particular journal paper to get published.

Oh, just read the link. Can Russia use it's lawless bull**** to host sites like that please? At least if your country is going to be ****, do stuff that's cool.



Probably not many, tbh yeah.

At least math has the arXiv. which proves mathematicians (& cs, physics) have the best academic community, truth.

It should be illegal to submit papers to commercial journals if they received any kind of government funding.

If journals want the papers so badly, they should fully fund the research that produces them.

Bunch of greedy ****ers.

It should be illegal to use any kind of government-funded research without paying a hefty tax on it.

In specific, we should have medicare for all.

Patents, too. I'm ok with the original researchers receiving reasonable royalties (not the labs, absolutely not the universities), but if you get public funding, you need to license it out to anybody who wants it.

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/06/15/taplock_broken_screwdriver/

Articles like these tickle me. The amount of effort wasted on "smart" appliances which are strictly inferior in every capacity is astounding.

To be fair though, padlocks are essentially worthless for keeping people out.

I was going to say that a padlock worked pretty well to stop people from stealing my t-shirt and pants in high school gym, but then I remembered that correlation does not imply causation.

To be fair to the Canadian university student who conceived of the fingerprint-driven padlock after having to have his own lock cut three times on account of forgetting his combination, he has fulfilled his goal of getting his locks to open more easily.

Is this mentality too different from a common one w.r.t. computer security? A small group of people are sincerely interested in making systems more secure, whereas the rest are apparently just annoyed that they have to think about security at all, and therefore do everything they can to circumvent it in the name of convenience.