Case in point: the American tax payer has payed for about 4.5 years of my graduate CS education, which, according to my visa documents, exceeds $200,000 in total cost. I'd like to stay, (re-)pay taxes, and I already had a six-digit job offer from a well-known American company. Further, my home country's embassy submitted, in writing, that they have no objection to me staying in the US, even permanently. Nonetheless, I'm getting "kicked out" this summer within 30 days after I graduate.
I trust there must be good reasons on a global scale... but in my local view this makes only limited sense.
(Btw., this is the J-1 visa home residency rule, for those who care. I need to live in my home country for at least two years before I can apply for an H-1b. Two years at home is just long enough to settle in and make moving _again_ not very attractive.)
Where are you getting the milli from? Kyodo reports 8000 micro sievert. So it's an ~5.5x increase from the previous high-water-mark of 1,500 microsievert.
Stop it! This is the proper time to panic and disregard any empirical evidence. The Sky-Is-Falling crowd has needed this release of pure panicgasm for a long time, don't ruin it for them.
Oh, sure, Springer will also let you publish "open access" articles. However, the publishing fee goes up from a few hundred dollars to a couple of thousand. Now find me a prof that will actually sacrifice his precious grant dollars for that.
Not to forget that IEEE/ACM also take a big cut out of every conference budget. In fact, the cut is significant enough that budgets are fudged (frequently at that, I suspect).
This drives up attendance fees, which are of course reimbursed from tax payer money...
2. Hot war breaks out (precipitated by the DPRK or the South or the US), the North loses fairly quickly, there are catastrophic civilian casualties in the South and the North and perhaps elsewhere (e.g. the North launches a nuke or chemical weapons or what-have-you against Japan or the US, just 'cause it can), American military losses are comparatively minor in comparison to everything else. Ultimately, the industrial base and economy of the Korean peninsula is in shambles and is all the worse for having to deal with bringing the North into the 20th (let alone 21st) century, despite lots of foreign aid it's still a shitty situation for a lot of people for a long, long time.
Not so fast. The North has millions of trained, ready soldiers and nukes, and a single-minded determination to fight to the end. A full-blown war would cost millions of lives on all sides, and a win for us is not certain at all. It could easily end with a bloody stalemate and new truce after they've conquered most of the south and we lose the will to send >100,000 US soldiers to die. Just look at how it went the first time. The army of North Korea is quite formidable.
The DPRK has a large standing army, but its armaments are 50 years out of date, and its food supplies are limited at best.
If the South tried to invade the North, the DPRK army could probably wage an effective guerilla war. But if you're invading another country, you don't have that advantage.
The first Iraq war demonstrated that in conventional military confrontations, obsolete tanks and aircraft have little chance against their more modern counterparts. The DPRK would also have to cross the most heavily fortified DMZ in the world, and somehow maintain a supply chain with enemy forces controlling the air and sea. It wouldn't really work.
The first Iraq war demonstrated that in conventional military confrontations, obsolete tanks and aircraft have little chance against their more modern counterparts.
Iraq invasion also showed that to be true. However, war is not won until ground troops get a hold of control over conquered area - which is something US troops never were able to do (not counting japan after WWII - which is not the same as modern conflicts).
Yes, and that's why I said that on their own turf, the DPNK might be able to wage a successful guerilla war. My disagreement was with the idea DPNK had a realistic chance of invading the South.
That said, I'm also not entirely convinced a guerilla war would be successful, either. The foundation of DPNK propaganda is Korean nationalism, and a good guerilla war needs an enemy that can be demonised. It would be tricky for the DPNK to try and paint the South as inhuman after harping on about unification for so long.
The last Korean war was backed by opposing superpowers, but North Korea doesn't have anyone backing it up this time. China is sympathetic because it doesn't like the idea of NK refugees flooding over its border, but it's not going to help out if a conflict begins.
> I can only conclude that many scientists are not confident at all with their theories, or they are purportedly cheating.
That's really not an insightful conclusion. I think it's rather a question of pride and effort: the code probably needs to be cleaned up before release, and the reward for investing that time is very low (career-wise). Researchers are going to publish their source code when it becomes required by most major journals and conferences.
Besides being a door-opener for research jobs, pursuing a PhD is also a great chance for personal growth. You will be challenged on many, many levels and thus likely develop skills that you never knew you were lacking in the first place. In my view, the world becomes larger in grad school; you'll get to see so many hard questions and unknowns that your appreciation for existing knowledge will no doubt grow.
There may be jobs in industry that allow for similar growth, but they are certainly not the norm. It is easy to stay within one's comfort zone once one gets paid to do so.
In my (completely biased) opinion, doing a PhD is worth it for great and curious students that like to be challenged and that can afford 5 years, no matter what you plan to do afterwards (in fact, especially if you don't know what to do afterwards). You can always be a code monkey for 50 years after the PhD; it's hard to go the other way.
I completely agree that you learn all sorts of unexpected things doing a PhD that are often unrelated to the specific field you're working in. Lots of these things seem to be common across the experience of many people, but some of them while be uniquely yours.
But lots of what you'll have to do won't be cool or new, it will be tedious and time-consuming drudgery. Of course, it still might be worth it, but don't expect it to be all sunshine and light.
The '=' vs. '==' example actually nicely demonstrates the limits of automatic bug hunting. The variable 'rig' is NULL when it is being dereferenced, thus the program will segfault regardless of '=' or '==' being used. The "fix-it" tip is highly misleading.
(This is probably a side effect of PR people preparing the website; there is no reason why LLVM should not be able to detect this particular kind of NULL-dereference.)
So according to their lawyers you can view their RSS feed as long as you haven't purchased the viewer?
No, you, the consumer, are not making commercial use of the NYTimes.com newsfeed.
The company producing the Pulse reader, however, is making commercial use of the NYT brand and content by featuring it prominently in the advertising material.
So, as mentioned by others, the easiest solution seems to be to remove all NYT references (and other unlicensed brands) and resubmit.
I can see an objection to that, but it's pretty clear the NYT lawyers don't understand that they are sharing their content freely on the internet via the RSS feed and there's no coinbox on the front-end to gate it.
This reminds me of companies complaining about web sites not getting approval to link them.
Not so ironic if you consider that Apple probably has a legal agreement with the NYT company to do so. Just look at how frequently the NYT is featured in Apple commercials and presentations; this doesn't happen just by accident.
The problem here is that the Pulse reader is (from the point of view of the NYT) trying to get a free ride on the NYT's brand name. This is really no different from ripping off any other brand name to advocate your product, e.g., you can't advertise your "high-performance shoe laces" by prominently featuring Nike shoes without obtaining prior approval.
I trust there must be good reasons on a global scale... but in my local view this makes only limited sense.
(Btw., this is the J-1 visa home residency rule, for those who care. I need to live in my home country for at least two years before I can apply for an H-1b. Two years at home is just long enough to settle in and make moving _again_ not very attractive.)