GeorgiaDon

D'oh! You're correct of course. I guess I jumped to conclusions because of his reference to "3 homes". At any rate these crazy prices (in Toronto too) are making a lot of "paper millionaires". Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Bear in mind that the Vancouver housing market is absolutely insane at the moment. The cost of a "benchmark" (= "average") detached house in the entire greater Vancouver area is now over $1.4 million dollars, and has been increasing by about 10%/year. If someone bought a house to live in, and a couple as rentals/investments, 15-20 years ago, they could easily have over $5 million in assets, and also owe property taxes on that $5 million. In most places, owning 3 houses would not make you a "multi-millionaire". Considering that the median income in Vancouver is only about $77,000, I wonder how sustainable the real estate bubble will be. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

This sucks. I did a lot of jumps with Andy back in his Monroe days. I knew he'd stopped jumping, but I'd always hoped to run into him again. Back when he was a "young jumper" (55 years old!)with only 70 jumps, in 2004, he organized the first Georgia POPS record jump. It was only a 12-way but it was a lot of fun. The bottom photo in this link shows the group, Andy is the one with the big smile standing in back in the very middle. Blue skies Andy. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

It's a nefarious plot! Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

From the article: "Congress authorized the program but never actually provided the money for it, wrote U.S. District Court Judge Rosemary M. Collyer. " Typical shit-eating Republican games. Duplicitous bastards, all of them. They are the anal warts of the political world. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Expect some form of personal responsibility from them, and expect them to get a job at some point. When is "at some point"? What should be done with people in the meantime? I don't disagree that there can be issues with section 8 tenants. My daughter lived in a nice townhouse complex that changed dramatically when the management changed and a lot of section 8 families moved in. In that case I think part of the issue was that it wasn't one or two families, it quickly changed to where 3 out of 4 townhouses had section 8 tenants. When you get that situation the "mood" of the neighborhood changes in a negative way. I recall a discussion a long time ago where there was a consensus that creating communities where everyone is "on the dole" is a bad idea, as kids grow up without seeing adults going to a job, and everyone just comes to accept living that way as "normal". I vaguely recall that you participated in that discussion, though I may be wrong. Anyway I think most people would agree that creating communities where no-one has a job, where most households are single parent, etc just creates "Welfare University" campuses that grow the next generation of welfare recipients. One solution is to try to disperse families needing (hopefully temporary) help throughout working communities. That way at least the kids will see their friends in families that support themselve, and will grow up realizing that is normal. Of course that means that sometimes you might find yourself neighbor to such a family. One consequence of NIMBYism is that the is no choice left other than to warehouse all the section 8 families together and create those welfare incubators. I suppose another alternative might be to bring back debtor's prisons and indentured servitude for the kids. Some might see that as preferable. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

It's the title of the article in the newspaper. I'm quite certain you are capable of writing an informative title of your own, instead of copying/pasting an obvious appeal to racist sentiment. The issue you raise is worth discussing, but it doesn't help to cloak it in terms that conflate the real issues with blatant racist drivel. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Code name "Humpty Dumpty". Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Yesterday on an NPR show produced in Atlanta they were discussing Newt Gingrich as a VP pick. Apparently Gingrich has already indicated he would accept if asked. I thought the idea of a Trump/Palin ticket was as odious as it could get, but I was handicapped by a failure of imagination. A Trump/Gingrich ticket would be significantly more repulsive. Trump is a narcissistic ass, as is Palin, but Gingrich is truly evil. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Have a mom and a dad in the house, one or more of whom has a job. That would be desirable, sure, as a long term goal (with the caveat that it could be mom & dad or dad & dad or mom & mom, or even just dad or mom as long as they are self sufficient). What do you think should be done in the meantime with/for the people who currently qualify for section 8 housing, the people you apparently do not want messing up your upscale white neighborhood? The title is what it is, I had nothing to do with it.So the title of the thread you started was written by whom, leprechauns? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

What would be the right direction, in your opinion? BTW do you see the assumption behind the "...force suburbs to be less white..." part of your title? Do you see the inconsistency with your statement that you "really don't care what color your skin is"? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Yet another reason why I can't support Republicans, they have absolutely no sense of humor and can't recognize a joke when it hits them over the head. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

That explains why you make such claims so regularly. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Thank you for the question. This discussion has made me realize I should ask collaborators to send me a copy of their raw data as well as the finished figures/tables so I can have a copy of everything in one place. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Fair enough question. I don't know what your field of research is, so it's hard to make comparisons. In my case, I may have one person who does flow cytometry, another who handles multiplex assays for cytokines and chemokines, someone else who handles mass spec, an X-crystallography person, a bioinformatics person, and so on; I usually handle cloning and expression and HPLC, and some bioinformatics. Everyone works on multiple projects simultaneously. So, the raw data is distributed across several people's lab books (generally multiple books/person), and each lab book records experiments for multiple projects. When we meet to work on a specific paper, people bring the experimental results that are relevant to that paper to the meeting. Bear in mind that not all these people are in my lab, some may be collaborators at other institutions, and the meetings are often done online. I have some collaborators I have never met in person, so I have no access to their notebooks. In the case of my students and technicians, I require that they keep a "table of contents" for each lab book so I can figure out where to look for (as an example) some specific gel or Western blot. So, it is possible for me to provide the raw data for any figure or table that was generated from my lab, but I would have to go through many lab notebooks copying a page here, three pages there, and so on. In the case of collaborators, people would have to contact them directly to get their raw data. I have a few collaborators who have retired or left science (for example, to go into medical practice), and I have no idea where to go to get their lab notebooks. I am not aware of any University policy to ensure lab notebooks are archived in perpetuity; as far as I know they are discarded when people leave (if they don't take them when they go) or die. In many ways, it is easier to archive mass sequencing data such as RNAseq, as that data is already digitized so you just have to keep the raw sequence files and an accurate record of anything you did to analyze it. There is no physical "stuff" to keep track of, such as dried gels or Westerns. Any script that needs to be written can be reported as supplementary information. I am not a computer geek, so I do use some GUI-driven analysis, but current versions of some analysis packages such as Geneious do a good job of recording every step of the analysis so it is always possible to retrace your steps precisely. Personally, I consider it most important to report the methods in enough detail that anyone (with the appropriate equipment) can repeat exactly what I did. Also I keep glycerol stocks of anything I clone/express, and provide those to anyone who asks, so they can re-sequence them or use them to express and bioassay recombinant protein and so verify my results. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I think he was. Of course, how you look at things depends on how you define "broken". If you expect that every published paper will be perfect, with the conclusions impervious to reinterpretation based on new information gained from subsequent research, then I guess you could say science is "broken". In that case, though, no-one could ever publish anything until they were certain beyond all doubt that there was nothing more to be learned about a subject. The study on reproduciblity of "social science" papers is instructive. As we all know from personal experience, human behavior is strongly influenced by environment and by prior experience (learning). All experiments in that field are highly subject to uncontrollable variables such as the personal life history of the people used in the experiment, and the results can be altered by seemingly trivial elements of the way the study is conducted, such as the precise wording of surveys or even the time of year (people behave differently [more helpful and generous] around Christmas for example, but only in societies that make a big deal about Christmas). People certainly are not chemicals, where the reaction products are highly predictable based on starting conditions. Many scientists who work on the physical sciences and biology don't really accept "social science" as a science, because everybody knows the methodological problems prevent repeatability. Many studies that find a lack of reproducibility are really concerned with data management. For example, they will contact the authors of 100 published papers, many going back years or even decades, to obtain their raw experimental data, or get minor details of methods that were not included in the methods section of the paper. In theory, "reproducibility" includes that ability to reanalyze the original data and replicate the conclusions. If the authors did not respond within a certain period of time, the paper was scored as "unreproducible". However, no allowance was made for researchers who might have moved, retired, or died, and so never got the request. Perhaps this is an issue, but I would have to say that it would take me months to comb through all my student's lab notebooks to pull out the raw data that pertains to every paper ever published from my lab. If someone was to contact me and want all the raw data for a 10 year old study, and only give me a couple of weeks, it is not going to happen. In a pinch I might have the whole notebook copied and send it and tell them to figure it out. I cannot stop all my other responsibilities, tell the students in the courses I teach to take two weeks off, cancel every meeting, ignore every deadline, just to provide someone with a data point. The BICEP2 study on plight polarization by gravitational waves associated with inflation in the first milliseconds after the Big Bang was instructive too. The study, which involved very precise and difficult measurements of incredibly small amounts of polarization, was rigorously done, measurements were repeated several times, and the data was analyzed according to state of the art theory. After it was published a different group of researchers (the Planc group), who were using satellite based observation to quantify dust in interstellar space, realized that the amount of dust they were finding (which was more than had previously been measured using less precise ground-based approaches) could explain most or possibly all of the observed light polarization. This group published their dust measurements six months after the BICEP2 study as published. They then contacted the first group who reanalyzed their data in light of the new observations and agreed that the higher amount of dust could account for at least 40%, and possibly all, of the light polarization, leaving it uncertain of there was any signal resulting from cosmic inflation. This new analysis was published jointly by the two groups. In what way does this reflect science being "broken"? A study was published, subsequently new data came to light, the data from the first study was promptly reanalyzed including the new data, the new analysis disagreed with the first, and the results were promptly submitted for publication. No-body hid the new data, nobody denied that the initial conclusions were undermined by the new data, instead everything was made public. Perhaps we should consider Newton to have been a fraud, because his work was supplanted by Einstein's work on relativity? We still use Newtonian mechanics to calculate lots of things because it works very well, as long as you're not talking about close to light speed. Not many would consider Newton to be "broken". Not many would say that Newton should not have published the "Principia" because of the possibility that there might be something more to learn about physics. As far as the crap in the opinion piece article about researchers having to conform to the theories of their elders, I have never experienced that or seen it happen to anyone. Science is not perfect, after all it is an enterprise carried out by humans and humans are subject to a number of foibles, including becoming overly enamored of their own ideas and unwilling to tolerate criticism. Such people are rare in my experience, though, and quickly become marginalize and bypassed by the rest of the field. Everyone I know is much more motivated by curiosity and a desire to really figure out what is happening. Everyone can tell lots of stories about their great ideas that turned out to be compelling but wrong. There is no shame in that. Only theologians and politicians are convinced of the unassailable correctness of their ideas, and neither group ever allow their ideas to be subject to critical examination. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

PA = "paraphrasing accurately" Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Sounds like the makings of a killer ad campaign. "WhatsApp, when it just has to be secure". Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Sure. It's people with the resources to set up schemes that are elaborate enough to withstand any but the most detailed (and expensive) audit. It's not likely to be a simple matter of setting up a shell foreign business, send a bunch of money there, then "neglect" to tell the IRS about it. College professors and blue collar workers don't have the resources to make it worthwhile to pay lawyers and accountants to make sure the money trail is buried deeply enough. Anyway, it's not clear that all the businesses set up through Mossack Fonesca are bogus. It's possible that many are legitimate, it's only a crime if such offshore accounts and businesses are used to evade taxes. Nothing of the sort has been proven yet regarding any US citizens. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

They may have other companies that specialize in that market. The US has unusual tax reporting requirements that require you to report all foreign business interests, and submit full tax returns for those businesses so you can be taxed on your off-shore earnings. You can claim any foreign taxes you paid as a deduction, but the difference between that and the US rate has to be paid to the IRS. I believe all the other people with a significant interest in your offshore business are also required to submit a lot of info about their income to the IRS as well. This has also become a big problem for US citizens living, and earning an income, outside the US. The IRS goes after people who, for example, are US citizens but have lived and worked in Canada for years, and have no income from US sources. In some cases the IRS has gone after people who were born in the US (and so are citizens) but moved (with their parents) to Canada as infants, and have never lived or worked in the US. You still have to file a tax return and pay applicable US taxes, if you don't you face stiff penalties even if you do not actually owe any US taxes (as Canadian taxes are higher than US taxes so the credit for foreign taxes paid is larger than the US taxes would have been). The point is, hiding money from the US government is not just a simple matter of setting up a shell foreign business, because you still have to report all income and expenses for that business as if it was a US business. You would also have to create a fake paper trail, with falsified deductions showing foreign taxes paid. Either that, or you don't declare the business at all, but then it's hard to move money from US banks; how do you transfer money to "nowhere"? It may just be easier to park your money in a Swiss bank account. Or maybe such elaborate fake companies exist but are more complicated than Mossack Fonseca deals with. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Unlike pardons, supreme court nominations require confirmation by the senate. While an outgoing president could, in theory, "throw up anyone", that person would have to pass muster with the senate. In effect, by insisting on waiting, you are saying that the senate is not capable of vetting a candidate. In that case, why bother with senate confirmations at all, why not have the president appoint people directly to the supreme court? Would you consider that to be an acceptable resolution to this dispute? In the event that a Democrat wins in November, and the Democrats manage to take back the senate, they could indeed "throw up anyone". Imagine Al Sharpton or Jessie Jackson on the Supreme Court. I think it is quite revealing that Republicans are willing to risk that, and refuse to even consider an excellent moderate nominee, just to gain a "win" in their block-Obama-in-everything campaign. ODS indeed. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

That says a lot more about about the company you keep than it does about the veracity of the article. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

They're working on the salute. Up next: stylish brown shirts with attractive lightning bolt accents on the collar. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Hey, give him a break. He's a turtle. It's not his fault one end looks much like the other. Pretty much all turtles look the same coming and going. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

He said that internet service is much better in Romania than it is in the US, and that the US needs to catch up. Sorry, but I still don't see the problem, from a Romanian point of view. Remind me to never offer you or your countrymen a compliment, no matter how heartfelt. It seems you prefer to take praise as an attack. Now OTOH that "comedian", he is condescending with a capital C. Also not even a little bit funny. I'm not that much of a Sander's fan BTW, but still those "jokes" were just mean spirited jibes at someone for no other reason than that he is old. No class (or humor) whatsoever. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)