Europe's 'no smoking' zones
eat in Belgium
On 1 January, Spain became the latest European country to ban smokers
from public places. Here we look at the current state of legislation in
all 25 members of the EU
Published: 05 January 2006
Irish Republic
Centuries of tradition were overturned in March 2004 when smoking in
bars and all other workplaces was banned. The measure was pushed
through by a crusading health minister in the teeth of opposition from
the politically powerful hospitality industry.
Although controversial to begin with, smoke-free pubs and other
workplaces quickly came to be regarded as the norm and the Irish
Republic has been visited by delegations from a number of other
countries contemplating anti-smoking moves.
Northern Ireland
A smoking ban encompassing all enclosed public places - including pubs,
restaurants and hotels - is due to come into effect in April 2007.
Smoking is already banned in government offices and other institutions.
Making the announcement last October, Northern Ireland Office minister
Shaun Woodward said: "No one has a right to subject colleagues and
workmates to the dangers and hazards of second-hand smoke and passive
smoking." He, of course, represents an English constituency - where the
proposed ban is much less complete.
Although the Northern Ireland policy could be changed if a new
powersharing government is formed in Belfast, the expectation is that
it would go ahead as planned. No major political party has voiced
opposition.
England
Of the four countries of the UK, England is the only one going for a
partial ban, due to be introduced in April 2007. This will permit
smoking in pubs that don't serve food. It has provoked widespread
protests that it will be unworkable. The Government has promised a set
of guidelines - but they are unlikely to be simple.
Scotland
A complete ban on smoking in enclosed public places in Scotland comes
into effect at 6am on Sunday 26 March following a unanimous decision by
the Scottish Executive last November. It will be an offence - with a
minimum penalty of £50 - to light up, or allow others to do so, in "
no-smoking premises", defned as enclosed locations which are used by
the public.
Sweden
All restaurants, bars and cafes are now smoke-free. Ventilated smoking
rooms where food and drink is not served can be set up.
Denmark
Under current legislation, smoking is only banned in schools and
government buildings open to the public. Transport and council services
must have individual smoke-free policies.
Germany
Buses, underground trains, cinemas and theatres have been no-go areas
for smokers in Germany for more than 30 years. However a powerful
tobacco industry and the fact that the Nazis offcially frowned on
smoking, have led post-war German legislators to avoid the imposition
of more Draconian measures. Mainline trains still have smoking
carriages, for example.
Last year the government reached a voluntary agreement with restaurant
and pub owners for the creation of limited no-smoking areas in 30 per
cent of all licensed premises.
The partial smoking ban is scheduled to be extended to 90 per cent of
all pubs and restaurants by 2008 when owners are requested to ensure
that 50 per cent of their premises are reserved for non smokers.
Finland
Smoking is completely banned in healthcare, educational and government
facilities, indoor workplaces and offices, theatres, cinemas and public
transports although separate areas for smoking may be provided.
Discussions are underway regarding a complete smoking ban and new
amendments to curb smoking in restaurants and prevent employees being
exposed to ambient tobacco smoke should come into effect in summer
2006.
Estonia
The Tobacco Act of 2001, amended in 2004, imposes a complete ban on
smoking in healthcare, education and government facilities, indoor
offices and workplaces, as well as theatres and cinemas although in all
these areas special smoking areas are permitted.
Latvia
>From July the current smoking ban, which includes public buildings and
workplaces, will be extended to cafes, bars and restaurants. Designated
smoking areas will be provided. Smokers who step outside for a
cigarette will be subject to a ban on lighting up within 10 metres of a
public building.
Lithuania
Designated rooms are provided in all workplaces, as well as in all
health, educational and government facilities. A complete ban on
smoking on public transport is enforced, but long-distance trains and
planes have smoking areas.
Poland
Smoking ban in force in workplaces and public buildings. No plans to
extend this at present.
Hungary
Employers must provide adequate protection for non-smokers. Designated
smoking areas may be provided. A 1997 Child Protection Act also states
that children have the right to be protected from environmental hazards
and substances harmful to health.
Belgium
2006 ushered in a complete smoking ban in all workplaces. From January
2007, a ban on smoking in restaurants will be enforced.
Luxembourg
No current legislation, but there are moves to introduce a complete ban
on smoking in the workplace.
The Netherlands
A 2004 bill cut down on smoking in public places and the government
aims to reduce tobacco consumption by 80 per cent by 2008. This year
smoking rooms will be set up in eating establishments, with the aim of
phasing out smoking in public.
Slovenia
Smoking in hospitals and schools is prohibited.
Slovakia
A 1997 law requires employers to impose bans on smoking in workplaces
frequented by non-smokers.
Czech Republic
Smoking is banned on public transport and in workplaces where
non-smokers could be exposed to tobacco smoke. It is also forbidden to
smoke in restaurants during breakfast, lunch and dinner.
Spain
Three days after Spain introduced a law banning smoking at work and in
closed public spaces, there is a growing movement to assert what many
consider their inalienable right to smoke. Meanwhile, since 1 January,
25,000 people a day have sought medical advice on how to stop.
Petrol stations, news stands and shops that function as bars are trying
to circumvent the law that bans them from selling cigarettes, and which
has cut their income by up to 20 per cent.
Spain's 12,000 outdoor news vendors feel particularly aggrieved:
smoking is permitted in the open air, but sales of cigarettes are
confned to specialist tobacco shops (where you cannot smoke).
Offces and factories are now smoke-free. Offenders pay fnes of up to
€600 (£414) and employers warn that time lost to unauthorised
"smoking pauses" will amount to 14 days a year per smoker. You can
smoke in the open air and in bars and restaurants smaller than 100
square metres. Numerous small bars in Spain have opted to become
smokers' refuges, generating a worse fug than before.
Larger bars and restaurants may demarcate a smoking section of up to 30
per cent of the space, and have eight months to complete the structural
alterations. This poses problems for large wedding parties, where the
father of the bride traditionally hands out cigars to his guests. (They
can only smoke in the smoking areas, where children are prohibited.)
A massively oversubscribed government helpline reveals grey areas that
caused even offcials to scratch their heads. Can a lorry driver smoke
in his enclosed cab? (Yes, it's not a "work centre".) What about
massage parlours? Yes, if rooms are designated "smoking". Unexpected
opposition has emerged from women at the hairdressers, long accustomed
to smoking under the drier. Now they must step into the streets, even
in their rollers.
Portugal
Total ban on smoking in public buildings, as well as on public
transport when journeys last less than an hour. Partial restrictions on
smoking on aircraft are enforced.
France
The law on smoking in public places in France, dating from 1991, is
vaguely worded and unevenly applied. The anti-smoking lobby is pressing
for much tougher rules, comparable to those in Ireland and, now, Spain.
Under Article 16 of the Loi Evin of January 1991 - which mostly deals
with restrictions on alcohol and tobacco advertising - smoking is
banned on all public transport and in "places used collectively",
except in " areas reserved for smokers".
The French railways, the SNCF, have gone further than the law and
abolished smoking carriages. However, many bars and restaurants
interpret the law loosely and declare their whole establishment to be
an "area reserved for smokers".
Austria
Austrian law, updated in 2003, prohibits smoking in public buildings
and transport, but not workplaces.
Greece
Public smoking is banned in many places but special smoking areas are
allowed. Cafes, bars and restaurants must allocate space for
non-smokers.
Malta
Total ban in place since 2005. Bars, restaurants and cafes that wish to
allow smoking must provide enclosed areas. The government has the power
to impose fines of up to €250 for contravention.
Italy
An offcial ban on smoking in all enclosed public places including bars,
restaurants and offces came into effect in Italy on 10 January, 2005.
Since then the ban has led to an 8 per cent drop in cigarette
consumption.
There was some initial resistance from smokers and bar owners. But
businesses face a fne of up to €2,000 (£1,395) if they fail to
ensure their customers do not smoke. Smokers themselves can receive a
€275 (£191) fne.
The law allows smoking only in sealed-off rooms with smoke extractors,
but only a few places have bothered to comply.
Generally the law has been accepted.
Smoking is still tolerated at cabinet meetings in the prime minister's
offce, where Defence Minister Antonio Martino, a smoker since the age
of 18, describes the habit as"a sacred right".
Cyprus
Smoking is currently banned in all public places including
entertainment venues, government buildings and on public transport. It
is also banned in private cars carrying passengers under 16, but
remains regulated in workplaces.
Irish Republic
Centuries of tradition were overturned in March 2004 when smoking in
bars and all other workplaces was banned. The measure was pushed
through by a crusading health minister in the teeth of opposition from
the politically powerful hospitality industry.
Although controversial to begin with, smoke-free pubs and other
workplaces quickly came to be regarded as the norm and the Irish
Republic has been visited by delegations from a number of other
countries contemplating anti-smoking moves.
Northern Ireland
A smoking ban encompassing all enclosed public places - including pubs,
restaurants and hotels - is due to come into effect in April 2007.
Smoking is already banned in government offices and other institutions.
Making the announcement last October, Northern Ireland Office minister
Shaun Woodward said: "No one has a right to subject colleagues and
workmates to the dangers and hazards of second-hand smoke and passive
smoking." He, of course, represents an English constituency - where the
proposed ban is much less complete.
Although the Northern Ireland policy could be changed if a new
powersharing government is formed in Belfast, the expectation is that
it would go ahead as planned. No major political party has voiced
opposition.
England
Of the four countries of the UK, England is the only one going for a
partial ban, due to be introduced in April 2007. This will permit
smoking in pubs that don't serve food. It has provoked widespread
protests that it will be unworkable. The Government has promised a set
of guidelines - but they are unlikely to be simple.
Scotland
A complete ban on smoking in enclosed public places in Scotland comes
into effect at 6am on Sunday 26 March following a unanimous decision by
the Scottish Executive last November. It will be an offence - with a
minimum penalty of £50 - to light up, or allow others to do so, in "
no-smoking premises", defned as enclosed locations which are used by
the public.
Sweden
All restaurants, bars and cafes are now smoke-free. Ventilated smoking
rooms where food and drink is not served can be set up.
Denmark
Under current legislation, smoking is only banned in schools and
government buildings open to the public. Transport and council services
must have individual smoke-free policies.
Germany
Buses, underground trains, cinemas and theatres have been no-go areas
for smokers in Germany for more than 30 years. However a powerful
tobacco industry and the fact that the Nazis offcially frowned on
smoking, have led post-war German legislators to avoid the imposition
of more Draconian measures. Mainline trains still have smoking
carriages, for example.
Last year the government reached a voluntary agreement with restaurant
and pub owners for the creation of limited no-smoking areas in 30 per
cent of all licensed premises.
The partial smoking ban is scheduled to be extended to 90 per cent of
all pubs and restaurants by 2008 when owners are requested to ensure
that 50 per cent of their premises are reserved for non smokers.
Finland
Smoking is completely banned in healthcare, educational and government
facilities, indoor workplaces and offices, theatres, cinemas and public
transports although separate areas for smoking may be provided.
Discussions are underway regarding a complete smoking ban and new
amendments to curb smoking in restaurants and prevent employees being
exposed to ambient tobacco smoke should come into effect in summer
2006.
Estonia
The Tobacco Act of 2001, amended in 2004, imposes a complete ban on
smoking in healthcare, education and government facilities, indoor
offices and workplaces, as well as theatres and cinemas although in all
these areas special smoking areas are permitted.
Latvia
>From July the current smoking ban, which includes public buildings and
workplaces, will be extended to cafes, bars and restaurants. Designated
smoking areas will be provided. Smokers who step outside for a
cigarette will be subject to a ban on lighting up within 10 metres of a
public building.
Lithuania
Designated rooms are provided in all workplaces, as well as in all
health, educational and government facilities. A complete ban on
smoking on public transport is enforced, but long-distance trains and
planes have smoking areas.
Poland
Smoking ban in force in workplaces and public buildings. No plans to
extend this at present.
Hungary
Employers must provide adequate protection for non-smokers. Designated
smoking areas may be provided. A 1997 Child Protection Act also states
that children have the right to be protected from environmental hazards
and substances harmful to health.
Belgium
2006 ushered in a complete smoking ban in all workplaces. From January
2007, a ban on smoking in restaurants will be enforced.
Luxembourg
No current legislation, but there are moves to introduce a complete ban
on smoking in the workplace.
The Netherlands
A 2004 bill cut down on smoking in public places and the government
aims to reduce tobacco consumption by 80 per cent by 2008. This year
smoking rooms will be set up in eating establishments, with the aim of
phasing out smoking in public.
Slovenia
Smoking in hospitals and schools is prohibited.
Slovakia
A 1997 law requires employers to impose bans on smoking in workplaces
frequented by non-smokers.
Czech Republic
Smoking is banned on public transport and in workplaces where
non-smokers could be exposed to tobacco smoke. It is also forbidden to
smoke in restaurants during breakfast, lunch and dinner.
Spain
Three days after Spain introduced a law banning smoking at work and in
closed public spaces, there is a growing movement to assert what many
consider their inalienable right to smoke. Meanwhile, since 1 January,
25,000 people a day have sought medical advice on how to stop.
Petrol stations, news stands and shops that function as bars are trying
to circumvent the law that bans them from selling cigarettes, and which
has cut their income by up to 20 per cent.
Spain's 12,000 outdoor news vendors feel particularly aggrieved:
smoking is permitted in the open air, but sales of cigarettes are
confned to specialist tobacco shops (where you cannot smoke).
Offces and factories are now smoke-free. Offenders pay fnes of up to
€600 (£414) and employers warn that time lost to unauthorised
"smoking pauses" will amount to 14 days a year per smoker. You can
smoke in the open air and in bars and restaurants smaller than 100
square metres. Numerous small bars in Spain have opted to become
smokers' refuges, generating a worse fug than before.
Larger bars and restaurants may demarcate a smoking section of up to 30
per cent of the space, and have eight months to complete the structural
alterations. This poses problems for large wedding parties, where the
father of the bride traditionally hands out cigars to his guests. (They
can only smoke in the smoking areas, where children are prohibited.)
A massively oversubscribed government helpline reveals grey areas that
caused even offcials to scratch their heads. Can a lorry driver smoke
in his enclosed cab? (Yes, it's not a "work centre".) What about
massage parlours? Yes, if rooms are designated "smoking". Unexpected
opposition has emerged from women at the hairdressers, long accustomed
to smoking under the drier. Now they must step into the streets, even
in their rollers.
Portugal
Total ban on smoking in public buildings, as well as on public
transport when journeys last less than an hour. Partial restrictions on
smoking on aircraft are enforced.
France
The law on smoking in public places in France, dating from 1991, is
vaguely worded and unevenly applied. The anti-smoking lobby is pressing
for much tougher rules, comparable to those in Ireland and, now, Spain.
Under Article 16 of the Loi Evin of January 1991 - which mostly deals
with restrictions on alcohol and tobacco advertising - smoking is
banned on all public transport and in "places used collectively",
except in " areas reserved for smokers".
The French railways, the SNCF, have gone further than the law and
abolished smoking carriages. However, many bars and restaurants
interpret the law loosely and declare their whole establishment to be
an "area reserved for smokers".
Austria
Austrian law, updated in 2003, prohibits smoking in public buildings
and transport, but not workplaces.
Greece
Public smoking is banned in many places but special smoking areas are
allowed. Cafes, bars and restaurants must allocate space for
non-smokers.
Malta
Total ban in place since 2005. Bars, restaurants and cafes that wish to
allow smoking must provide enclosed areas. The government has the power
to impose fines of up to €250 for contravention.
Italy
An offcial ban on smoking in all enclosed public places including bars,
restaurants and offces came into effect in Italy on 10 January, 2005.
Since then the ban has led to an 8 per cent drop in cigarette
consumption.
There was some initial resistance from smokers and bar owners. But
businesses face a fne of up to €2,000 (£1,395) if they fail to
ensure their customers do not smoke. Smokers themselves can receive a
€275 (£191) fne.
The law allows smoking only in sealed-off rooms with smoke extractors,
but only a few places have bothered to comply.
Generally the law has been accepted.
Smoking is still tolerated at cabinet meetings in the prime minister's
offce, where Defence Minister Antonio Martino, a smoker since the age
of 18, describes the habit as"a sacred right".
Cyprus
Smoking is currently banned in all public places including
entertainment venues, government buildings and on public transport. It
is also banned in private cars carrying passengers under 16, but
remains regulated in workplaces.
David Horne, _the_ chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco 24h offy
> Europe's 'no smoking' zones
This was already posted today- without quoting the entire text.
--
David Horne- http://www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk
http://homepage.mac.com/davidhornecomposer http://soundjunction.org
eat in Belgium
David Horne, _the_ chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and
prestwich tesco 24h offy wrote:
> eat in Belgium <michael...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Europe's 'no smoking' zones
>
> This was already posted today- without quoting the entire text.
Thats ok then, I always quote the entire text :)
Des Small
> eat in Belgium <michael...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Europe's 'no smoking' zones
>
> This was already posted today- without quoting the entire text.
And (which matters far more to me) with attribution. I expect to be
baffled to my dying day by people who don't think it matters where
they found an article.
Des
bar...@cix.compulink.co.uk
> England
>
> Of the four countries of the UK, England is the only one going for a
> partial ban, due to be introduced in April 2007. This will permit
> smoking in pubs that don't serve food. It has provoked widespread
> protests that it will be unworkable. The Government has promised a set
> of guidelines - but they are unlikely to be simple.
I thought the final decision on the nature of the ban had not yet been
made? There was a lot of arguing about it in government a month or two
ago.
Also worth noting that smoking is already banned (by managements, not by
law) in nearly all enclosed public spaces /except/ most pubs and
some restaurants.
----------------------------------------------
The poster formerly known as bar...@cix.compulink.co.uk.
eat in Belgium
Martin wrote:
> On 5 Jan 2006 11:52:46 -0800, "eat in Belgium"
> <michael...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >David Horne, _the_ chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and
> >prestwich tesco 24h offy wrote:
> >> eat in Belgium <michael...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Europe's 'no smoking' zones
> >>
> >> This was already posted today- without quoting the entire text.
> >
> >Thats ok then, I always quote the entire text :)
>
> then?
> --
> Martin
only if you correct it :)
eat in Belgium
Martin wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 14:28:23 -0600, bar...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
>
> >In article <1136490423.5...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> >michael...@yahoo.com (eat in Belgium) wrote:
> >
> >> England
> >>
> >> Of the four countries of the UK, England is the only one going for a
> >> partial ban, due to be introduced in April 2007. This will permit
> >> smoking in pubs that don't serve food. It has provoked widespread
> >> protests that it will be unworkable. The Government has promised a set
> >> of guidelines - but they are unlikely to be simple.
> >
> >I thought the final decision on the nature of the ban had not yet been
> >made? There was a lot of arguing about it in government a month or two
> >ago.
> >
> >Also worth noting that smoking is already banned (by managements, not by
> >law) in nearly all enclosed public spaces /except/ most pubs and
> >some restaurants.
>
> --
> Martin
I think the part about Iraqi WMD being ready in 45 minutes is
erroneous....
Padraig Breathnach
I suspect that you are not truly baffled; it seems to me more likely
that you disapprove, and politely mask your disapproval as bafflement.
I made that up unaided, so I don't need a footnote or citation.
--
PB
The return address has been MUNGED
eat in Belgium
maybe I'm stupid, but since he posted the fucking article must know
where it comes from !
Runge
"eat in Belgium" <michael...@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
1136490423.5...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Northern Ireland
England
Scotland
Sweden
Denmark
Germany
Finland
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
Poland
Hungary
Belgium
Luxembourg
The Netherlands
Slovenia
Slovakia
Czech Republic
Spain
?600 (£414) and employers warn that time lost to unauthorised
Portugal
France
Austria
Greece
Malta
to impose fines of up to ?250 for contravention.
Italy
An offcial ban on smoking in all enclosed public places including bars,
restaurants and offces came into effect in Italy on 10 January, 2005.
Since then the ban has led to an 8 per cent drop in cigarette
consumption.
There was some initial resistance from smokers and bar owners. But
businesses face a fne of up to ?2,000 (£1,395) if they fail to
ensure their customers do not smoke. Smokers themselves can receive a
?275 (£191) fne.
Cyprus
Irish Republic
Northern Ireland
England
Scotland
Sweden
Denmark
Germany
Finland
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
Poland
Hungary
Belgium
Luxembourg
The Netherlands
Slovenia
Slovakia
Czech Republic
Spain
?600 (£414) and employers warn that time lost to unauthorised
Portugal
France
Austria
Greece
Malta
to impose fines of up to ?250 for contravention.
Italy
An offcial ban on smoking in all enclosed public places including bars,
restaurants and offces came into effect in Italy on 10 January, 2005.
Since then the ban has led to an 8 per cent drop in cigarette
consumption.
There was some initial resistance from smokers and bar owners. But
businesses face a fne of up to ?2,000 (£1,395) if they fail to
ensure their customers do not smoke. Smokers themselves can receive a
?275 (£191) fne.
Des Small
> Padraig Breathnach wrote:
> > Des Small <vonb...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > >this_address...@yahoo.com (David Horne, _the_ chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco 24h offy) writes:
> > >
> > >> This was already posted today- without quoting the entire text.
> > >
> > >And (which matters far more to me) with attribution. I expect to be
> > >baffled to my dying day by people who don't think it matters where
> > >they found an article.
> > >
> > I suspect that you are not truly baffled; it seems to me more likely
> > that you disapprove, and politely mask your disapproval as bafflement.
I am baffled that it is not obvious to everyone that providing sources
is better. I'm just as baffled by top-posting Timmy; it doesn't
preclude open disapproval.
> > I made that up unaided, so I don't need a footnote or citation.
>
> maybe I'm stupid, but since he posted the fucking article must know
> where it comes from !
In this case I do. In many other cases I don't.
Des
bar...@cix.compulink.co.uk
(Runge) wrote:
> *From:* "Runge" <phi...@bigfoot.com>
> *Date:* Thu, 5 Jan 2006 23:27:04 +0100
>
> OT
>
> "eat in Belgium" <michael...@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le message de
> > news: 1136490423.5...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Europe's 'no smoking' zones
About as on-topic as you can get, in fact.
"The posters outside looked from Runge to Evleth, and from Evleth to
Runge, and from Runge to Evleth again; but already it was impossible to
say which was which."
Mxsmanic
> And (which matters far more to me) with attribution. I expect to be
> baffled to my dying day by people who don't think it matters where
> they found an article.
If respecting copyright doesn't matter, why would attribution matter?
--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
Mxsmanic
> I am baffled that it is not obvious to everyone that providing sources
> is better.
I am equally concerned ("baffled") by the fact that people quote
copyrighted material without authorization. Doing so with attribution
doesn't eliminate the infringement.
eat in Belgium
Des Small schreef:
I know but it was a slow day in Toy Town and I thought I would try and
liven things up :)
The reason for not posting the URL is that its more key strokes,
and I decided that if people really want to know the source they could
probably Google it,
or failing that ask me.
Miss L. Toe
"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:s9urr15flhm7ncj5t...@4ax.com...
> Des Small writes:
>
> > And (which matters far more to me) with attribution. I expect to be
> > baffled to my dying day by people who don't think it matters where
> > they found an article.
>
> If respecting copyright doesn't matter, why would attribution matter?
>
Because it allows the reader to make a judgement about the credability.
DDT Filled Mormons
wrote:
>Des Small writes:
>
>> I am baffled that it is not obvious to everyone that providing sources
>> is better.
>
>I am equally concerned ("baffled") by the fact that people quote
>copyrighted material without authorization. Doing so with attribution
>doesn't eliminate the infringement.
I am equally baffled as to how you can think aesthetics in a coffee
shop shouldn't make any difference to the overall experience of going
into a coffee shop.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--
DDT Filled Mormons
wrote:
>Des Small writes:
>
>> I am baffled that it is not obvious to everyone that providing sources
>> is better.
>
>I am equally concerned ("baffled")
Do you know that baffled and concerned are not actually the same
thing?
Mxsmanic
> Because it allows the reader to make a judgement about the credability.
A proper assessment of credibility does not depend on the source.
David Horne, _the_ chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco 24h offy
> On Fri, 06 Jan 2006 06:01:08 +0100, Mxsmanic <mxsm...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Des Small writes:
> >
> >> I am baffled that it is not obvious to everyone that providing sources
> >> is better.
> >
> >I am equally concerned ("baffled")
>
> Do you know that baffled and concerned are not actually the same
> thing?
It depends on the intonation, don't ya know!
David Horne, _the_ chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco 24h offy
> Miss L. Toe writes:
>
> > Because it allows the reader to make a judgement about the credability.
>
> A proper assessment of credibility does not depend on the source.
In your case, it bloody well does!
Des Small
Someone with an aesthetic sensibility of the kind more usually
associated with inanimate objects and and unyielding determination to
leave no gustibus undisputandummed might well argue just that.
Happily, I have him kill-filed.
Des
opr...@gamera.syr.edu
: Miss L. Toe writes:
:> Because it allows the reader to make a judgement about the credability.
: A proper assessment of credibility does not depend on the source.
George Bush, right?
Padraig Breathnach
>Miss L. Toe writes:
>
>> Because it allows the reader to make a judgement about the credability.
>
>A proper assessment of credibility does not depend on the source.
I don't find that suggestion credible.
Runge
Ugh noooo !!
Anyway what evleth posts doesn' t mean we can do the same
One is enough + martin
Incidentally, I am very interested in travelling in Europe
<bar...@cix.compulink.co.uk> a écrit dans le message de news:
ufmdnVwMtJx...@pipex.net...
Des Small
> Mxsmanic <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Miss L. Toe writes:
> >
> >> Because it allows the reader to make a judgement about the credability.
> >
> >A proper assessment of credibility does not depend on the source.
>
> I don't find that suggestion credible.
Well, consider the source.
Des
Padraig Breathnach
Des Small
For sure. Mixibaiting is much better as a team sport.
Des
JohnT
"Martin" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:2lptr1t9hrv15mq0u...@4ax.com...
> On 06 Jan 2006 18:58:53 +0000, Des Small <vonb...@yahoo.co.uk>
I believe that Miguel has now realised that the major improvements he made
to Mixi in Autumn 2005 (new NiMh batteries) didn't work, so he is having to
study WestWorld to decide what to do next with him.
JohnT
Des Small
> On 06 Jan 2006 18:58:53 +0000, Des Small <vonb...@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> As a result you didn't notice that he has been missing for sometime.
'Course I did. If he's around, people not in my killfile argue with
him. (Do they not have New Year's Resolutions outside of Blighty?)
Des
Des Small
> On 06 Jan 2006 22:05:20 +0000, Des Small <vonb...@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >(Do they not have New Year's Resolutions outside of Blighty?)
>
> Of course they do. If you looked at Dutch newsgroups you would have
> found at least one woman who had already broken her resolution to give
> up smoking, before I got up on 1-01-06.
Ooh, Dutch froups! What's the Dutch rte called, then?
[Pause]
Ooooh! I like the way it's broken down into ".caravans",
".campervans", ".tents" and ".other(what are you _thinking_!)".
Des
Des
David Horne, _the_ chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco 24h offy
> On 06 Jan 2006 22:05:20 +0000, Des Small <vonb...@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >Martin <m...@privacy.net> writes:
> >
> >> On 06 Jan 2006 18:58:53 +0000, Des Small <vonb...@yahoo.co.uk>
[on the subject of the beloved Mixi]
> >> >Happily, I have him kill-filed.
> >>
> >> As a result you didn't notice that he has been missing for sometime.
> >
> >'Course I did. If he's around, people not in my killfile argue with
> >him.
>
> In fact few have for some weeks now. Some were too fascinated by the
> Earls's NY party.
None more than the man in question!
David Horne, _the_ chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco 24h offy
> On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 22:33:09 +0000, this_address...@yahoo.com
> (David Horne, _the_ chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and
> prestwich tesco 24h offy) wrote:
>
> >Martin <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On 06 Jan 2006 22:05:20 +0000, Des Small <vonb...@yahoo.co.uk>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Martin <m...@privacy.net> writes:
> >> >
> >> >> On 06 Jan 2006 18:58:53 +0000, Des Small <vonb...@yahoo.co.uk>
> >
> >[on the subject of the beloved Mixi]
> >
> >> >> >Happily, I have him kill-filed.
> >> >>
> >> >> As a result you didn't notice that he has been missing for sometime.
> >> >
> >> >'Course I did. If he's around, people not in my killfile argue with
> >> >him.
> >>
> >> In fact few have for some weeks now. Some were too fascinated by the
> >> Earls's NY party.
> >
> >None more than the man in question!
>
> Men?
WTF cares! :)
David Horne, _the_ chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco 24h offy
> On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 22:44:00 +0000, this_address...@yahoo.com
> (David Horne, _the_ chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and
> prestwich tesco 24h offy) wrote:
>
>
> >> >> In fact few have for some weeks now. Some were too fascinated by the
> >> >> Earls's NY party.
> >> >
> >> >None more than the man in question!
> >>
> >> Men?
> >
> >WTF cares! :)
>
> The Earls Courtesans.
WTF cares about _them_! :)
Bert McCarthy
news:c1htr196hn99jnmdl...@4ax.com...
> Mxsmanic <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Miss L. Toe writes:
>>
>>> Because it allows the reader to make a judgement about the credability.
>>
>>A proper assessment of credibility does not depend on the source.
>
> I don't find that suggestion credible.
An in this case, it's the content that has no
credibility. If the content was basically credible,
then we could proceed to evaluating the source ...
oh, it's Mixi, no credibilty at all.
Mixi has taken what small shreds of credibilty that
he might have had, piled them into a heap, and
proceeded to repeatedly defecate on them.
Cold Shoulder
> On 06 Jan 2006 22:05:20 +0000, Des Small <vonb...@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
> If you looked at Dutch newsgroups you would have
> found at least one woman who had already broken her resolution to give
> up smoking, before I got up on 1-01-06.
The sixth of January in the year A.D. 1?
Cold Shoulder
tried to rationalize his lazyness in message
news:1136535811....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> The reason for not posting the URL is that its more key strokes,
> and I decided that if people really want to know the source they could
> probably Google it,
> or failing that ask me.
Why post at all? If people really want to know
your opinion, they can look it up on Google.
Cold Shoulder
news:yyrjwthd...@pc156.maths.bris.ac.uk...
> Mixibaiting is much better as a team sport.
A forced teaming sport, we think you meant.
Runge
"Martin" <m...@privacy.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
m61rr15i2hf15j44e...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 14:28:23 -0600, bar...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
>
>>In article <1136490423.5...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
>>michael...@yahoo.com (eat in Belgium) wrote:
>>
>>> England
>>>
>>> Of the four countries of the UK, England is the only one going for a
>>> partial ban, due to be introduced in April 2007. This will permit
>>> smoking in pubs that don't serve food. It has provoked widespread
>>> protests that it will be unworkable. The Government has promised a set
>>> of guidelines - but they are unlikely to be simple.
>>
>>I thought the final decision on the nature of the ban had not yet been
>>made? There was a lot of arguing about it in government a month or two
>>ago.
>>
>>Also worth noting that smoking is already banned (by managements, not by
>>law) in nearly all enclosed public spaces /except/ most pubs and
>>some restaurants.
>
> I think much of the article is a cut and paste job from old reports.
> --
> Martin
Mxsmanic
> Of course it does. If you read something that sounds unlikely in the
> National Enquirer do you afford it the same level of credibility as if
> you read it in Nature?
If you are exercising the proper discipline in your evaluation, you
base it solely upon the reasoning contained in what you read and its
dependence upon premises that you consider acceptable. It will stand
or fall on those bases alone, and the source of the statement will not
matter.
Relying upon the putative credibility of a source is a very widely
made mistake and is the source of much grief in the world. It's the
lazy man's substitute for thinking for himself.
--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
Cold Shoulder
news:457ur1p9cqio4ortd...@4ax.com...
> The Rev Gaston writes:
>
>> Of course it does. If you read something that sounds unlikely in the
>> National Enquirer do you afford it the same level of credibility as if
>> you read it in Nature?
>
> If you are exercising the proper discipline in your evaluation, you
> base it solely upon the reasoning contained in what you read and its
> dependence upon premises that you consider acceptable. It will stand
> or fall on those bases alone, and the source of the statement will not
> matter.
What it contains only reporting, and no reasoning?
Your whole premise falls apart. What if it's posted
by a troll in a cupboard in Paris who has repeatedly
posted absolute horseshit, lies, and science fiction,
claiming that it's all based on his own imagainary poll
of women about their underwear?
--
This is Usenet.
It's not Google, it's not a chatroom, and it's not a website.
And it's definitely not your own personal blog.
Markku Grönroos
"Cold Shoulder" <no.spam...@hormel.org> kirjoitti
viestissä:CyIvf.3266$ZA2...@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> "Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> This is Usenet.
> It's not Google, it's not a chatroom, and it's not a website.
> And it's definitely not your own personal blog.
There are a few dozen faggots like this idiot populating rte.
Mxsmanic
> What it contains only reporting, and no reasoning?
If it contains only reporting, then you must do your own research.
Hearsay is never reliable.
Mxsmanic
> No it isn't - it's simply an acknowledgement that one cannot know
> everything, or devote the time needed to analyse every proposition in
> detail. It makes more sense to delegate some analysis to the editorial
> staff of Nature than to attempt to educate myself in every field of
> modern science.
Why do you trust the editorial staff of Nature?
eat in Belgium
Cold Shoulder wrote:
> "eat in Belgium" <michael...@yahoo.com>
> tried to rationalize his lazyness in message
> news:1136535811....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > The reason for not posting the URL is that its more key strokes,
> > and I decided that if people really want to know the source they could
> > probably Google it,
> > or failing that ask me.
>
> Why post at all?
because I thought it was interesting
> if people really want to know your opinion, they can look it up on Google.
and if I never posted anything then Google can not help you,
not until they solve that psychic problem
Earl Evleth
Gaston" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> Why do you trust the editorial staff of Nature?
>
> Experience of how the scientific review process works, personal
> familiarity with the system, and (in this case) the people involved.
It has a high reputation and many scientists sweat blood to get published
there. A submitted article has to be more carefully configured than
in the case of other reviews. There is a special art in writing
communications to any journal.
What I like about Science (which does some of what Nature does)
is that each major article has a review article up front in the same issue.
The articles themselves are often too technical for the general public so an
interpretative article solves this problem. So in fact, I rarely look at
Nature but do scan through Science at the library.
For instance, the December 16th journal has the following article
whose title is off-putting.
Planktonic Foraminifera of the California Current Reflect 20th-Century
Warming
David B. Field, 1*Timothy R. Baumgartner, 2Christopher D. Charles, 1Vicente
Ferreira-Bartrina, 2Mark D. Ohman 1
(However, the abstract says)
It is currently unclear whether observed pelagic ecosystem responses to
ocean warming, such as a mid-1970s change in the eastern North Pacific,
depart from typical ocean variability. We report variations in planktonic
foraminifera from varved sediments off southern California spanning the past
1400 years. Increasing abundances of tropical/subtropical species throughout
the 20th century reflect a warming trend superimposed on decadal-scale
fluctuations. Decreasing abundances of temperate/subpolar species in the
late 20th century indicate a deep, penetrative warming not observed in
previous centuries. These results imply that 20th-century warming,
apparently anthropogenic, has already affected lower trophic levels of the
California Current.
***
The sentence that catches my eye is--
"Decreasing abundances of temperate/subpolar species in the late 20th
century indicate a deep, penetrative warming not observed in previous
centuries. These results imply that 20th-century warming,"
and this stimulates climate buffs to want to know more.
***
The contents of Nature
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v439/n7072/index.html#Article
for mid-December are daunting but one has access to a resumé,
access to the full article costs $30.
I would not make a judgment of which review is "best" but
I trust the editorial staffs of both. When problems do occur
they are self-correcting. The current problem in publishing
in the medical areas is that some researchers do not acknowledge
that they are being paid in some fashion by special interests
to do the research. This problem is currently being loàked
at, but I have not seen any scandals in the staffs, yet.
Mxsmanic
> because what they publish is independently vetted by people a lot more
> credible than people like you.
Which people, and what makes them credible?
Mxsmanic
> Experience of how the scientific review process works, personal
> familiarity with the system, and (in this case) the people involved.
What makes them credible?
I know lots of people, but I don't consider them all credible. I read
various magazines, but I don't consider them all credible, either.
And all of them conduct their evaluations behind closed doors, so I
have no way of examining their evaluation processes.
Essentially it all boils down to believing whom you choose to believe.
Mxsmanic
> It has a high reputation and many scientists sweat blood to get published
> there.
The same is true for _Cosmopolitan_ or _People_. Does that make them
credible?
> What I like about Science (which does some of what Nature does)
> is that each major article has a review article up front in the same issue.
Isn't _Science_ the one that recently published stem-cell research
that turned out to be falsified?
Earl Evleth
"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Earl Evleth writes:
>
>> It has a high reputation and many scientists sweat blood to get published
>> there.
>
> The same is true for _Cosmopolitan_ or _People_. Does that make them
> credible?
One get's paid to published there. The decider is the editor. In journal
article the manuscript is peer reviewed by outsiders. Usually two people
known in the field. From their remarks the editor decides to accept or
reject the paper. The paper can be initially rejected as unsuitable
by the editor, however. This is rare however, I never encountered a problem
with the editor, generally. The editor follows the recommendations of the
reviewers.
>> What I like about Science (which does some of what Nature does)
>> is that each major article has a review article up front in the same issue.
>
> Isn't _Science_ the one that recently published stem-cell research
> that turned out to be falsified?
I haven't heard of that. But generally the medical research area is one
in which fraudulent claims are involved. There are several factors.
These are highly funded areas, research funding has to be periodically
renewed, so it is a rat-race area. All reported research has to be
reproducible, which will take months, years. A reviewer of a medically
related article can not go into the lab and check the results. He/she
has to judge the work on its reasonableness. He/she knows that extraordinary
claims will be checked, so the falsifying researcher is living on borrowed
time. The system can not prevent this from happening 100%
My area was theoretical chemistry. I sometimes when to the computer to
check a result of a paper I was reviewing. I never found a false
claim in my reviewing articles. Over the years I have ran into several
cases of fraud. One of my colleagues PhD. students in the UC system
heavily falsified his thesis research, his supervisor did not double
check his work until later. The degree was later withdrawn. The problem
was corrected.
The funding pressures on French researchers are less than in the US and I
have never ran into a problem in France. But the situation in the US
can be cut throat at times. To get a research grant approved you have
to have partial results which prove your idea is correct. This means
that researchers piggy back a new project illegally on the back
of another project en route. This requires "creative accounting".
If the results are not actually obtained some researchers might include
"results" not yet obtained but which seem reasonable. Some get
caught in a situation of not obtaining the results they said they did.
They might publish anyway since one has to show published work.
And so on. The problem is not with the review procedure but somewhere else.
Mxsmanic
> Do your own research.
Why should I do research if others just believe whatever they are
told?
Mxsmanic
> I haven't heard of that.
Woo Suk Hwang, and his papers published in March 2004, May 2005, and
June 2005 in _Science_.
See
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/311/5757/22
> But generally the medical research area is one
> in which fraudulent claims are involved.
Are cold fusion and N rays areas of medicine?
> The funding pressures on French researchers are less than in the US ...
When there's no funding for research, there's no pressure. From what
I hear, the only pressure French researchers have is from their
landlords.
> They might publish anyway since one has to show published work.
Why so much pressure to publish?
Mxsmanic
> When that happens, it's front page news. When the National Inquirer
> publishes something that turns out to be false ... well, who's
> surprised?
As a general rule, nobody checks out stories from the _National
Inquirer_ to begin with ... they are simply assumed to be false, which
they may or may not be.
Mxsmanic
> That contradicts your first post on the subject, but what's new.
No. I described how it should be, then I described how it is.
Mxsmanic
> Indeed, but I didn't say that my knowing them makes them credible, I
> said that I know them and this puts me in a position to judge their
> credibility, and to act on that judgement.
How can simply knowing them make it possible to judge their
credibility?
It's easy to discount a blatant liar as incredible, but how can you
recognize a skilled liar?
> Of course - and that choice can be well made or poorly made.
On what bases?
Padraig Breathnach
>On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 12:22:29 +0100, Mxsmanic <mxsm...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Martin writes:
>>
>>> Do your own research.
>>
>>Why should I do research if others just believe whatever they are
>>told?
>
>Blah blah blah. Why should we waste our time arguing with you?
I wish somebody would tell me why. I sure as hell don't understand the
phenomenon.
--
PB
The return address has been MUNGED
David Horne, _the_ chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco 24h offy
> "Cold Shoulder" <no.spam...@hormel.org> kirjoitti
> viestissä:CyIvf.3266$ZA2...@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> > "Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > This is Usenet.
> > It's not Google, it's not a chatroom, and it's not a website.
> > And it's definitely not your own personal blog.
> There are a few dozen faggots like this idiot populating rte.
My, we started early today, didn't we!
--
David Horne- http://www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk
http://homepage.mac.com/davidhornecomposer http://soundjunction.org
Mxsmanic
> Bye, have a nice day.
Is that a promise?
Des Small
> On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 09:48:15 +0100, Mxsmanic <mxsm...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Why do you trust the editorial staff of Nature?
>
> because what they publish is independently vetted by people a lot more
> credible than people like you.
Well, it is, of course, but don't let's be all mistaking Nature for a
serious peer-reviewed scholarly journal, 'cos it ain't no such
something. It's a semi-scholarly magazine, although it's prolly sound
enough on the biochemistries which seem to be its meat and drink.
(I've watched the Nature review process at second-hand, is my source
for that.)
Des
Earl Evleth
"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> But generally the medical research area is one
>> in which fraudulent claims are involved.
>
> Are cold fusion and N rays areas of medicine?
Neither were actual frauds. Poor experiments.
N-rays is a long time ago, at a time when X-rays
had recently arrived. I read a review of the whole
subject years ago. Experimental methods were primitive
and the observations depended on the small deflection
of a needle on the measuring device. If you stare as something
long enough it moves! Especially if you want it to.
The experimental claims of Cold Fusion were not widely published,
it started out as a press conference. I don't even remember if it
was published in electrochemical journals. The results published
could not be reproduced reliably by other groups. Some people
are still kicking it around. And no neutron emission was detected.
Measuring the extra heat coming out of electrolysis is not easy.
Most labs these days are not set up to calorimetry. These cells
get warm anyway because electricity is put into the system.
The controls of science functioned well in the cold fusion case.
>> The funding pressures on French researchers are less than in the US ...
>
> When there's no funding for research, there's no pressure.
Wrong.
Funding is provide to the experimental group as a whole. Extra funding
is available but one's existence is not dependent on it. Sometimes
the funding is small, I ran funded exchange programs with Algeria
and Cuba. This sponsored travel to and from France and those countries.
If a special expensive project is proposed in a lab extra funding is
requested. One of the reasons I came to France is that I had to pay
for computing time in the UC system, paid out of federal grant support.
Here, computing time was allocated to each lab. One we went
to powerful work stations this battle was over too.
>> They might publish anyway since one has to show published work.
>
> Why so much pressure to publish?
In the US it is necessary for being first hired, then getting tenure
and finally funding from various agencies.
In the CNRS, the only measure of our producing something was the
publications we individually or collectively produce. Each lab
is judged every couple of years, that judgment is based in large
part on the quality and quantity of publications. Roughly speaking
a single researcher will produce about one publication per year.
If you direct a group of 40 researchers, that group should produce
about 30-40 publications per year. Funding
in the CNRS will depend on the level of production. If the lab
is grossly underperforming, it will be shut down and the
personnel distribute to other labs.
A top academic researcher who has a career publication of 400
articles will have copublished, on the average, with two or
three others. The fewer the coworkers, the lower the production.
There are exceptions to this general rule, Einstein had
315 publications and he was the sole author in 88% of them.
Publish or perish.
But one knows the rules of the game, there is no wiggle room.
Mxsmanic
> Neither were actual frauds. Poor experiments.
Since the result is disconnected from reality in either case, does it
matter? Why didn't the peer-reviewed journals catch it?
> N-rays is a long time ago, at a time when X-rays
> had recently arrived. I read a review of the whole
> subject years ago. Experimental methods were primitive
> and the observations depended on the small deflection
> of a needle on the measuring device. If you stare as something
> long enough it moves! Especially if you want it to.
What do observations depend on today?
> The experimental claims of Cold Fusion were not widely published,
> it started out as a press conference. I don't even remember if it
> was published in electrochemical journals. The results published
> could not be reproduced reliably by other groups. Some people
> are still kicking it around. And no neutron emission was detected.
> Measuring the extra heat coming out of electrolysis is not easy.
> Most labs these days are not set up to calorimetry. These cells
> get warm anyway because electricity is put into the system.
I recall Los Alamos finding helium where there had been none before.
Transmutation of elements implies a nuclear reaction.
> In the US it is necessary for being first hired, then getting tenure
> and finally funding from various agencies.
Sounds like the private sector would be easier.
Earl Evleth
"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Earl Evleth writes:
>
>> Neither were actual frauds. Poor experiments.
>
> Since the result is disconnected from reality in either case, does it
> matter? Why didn't the peer-reviewed journals catch it?
N-rays were so long ago I don't recall where is was published.
As I indicated peer-review journals are neither fool-proof or fraud
proof. But scientific method permits people to challenge published
work and show it is wrong. I don't remember seeing an article on
cold fusion in the journals I read and published in (Journal of the
American Chemical Society, Journal of Physical Chemistry, Journal
of Chemical Physics). Some "pseudo" journals were created in this
area.
On the other hand, work is still going on with regard to cold
fusion. The cold fusion hypothesis is not totally rejected yet.
>> of a needle on the measuring device. If you stare as something
>> long enough it moves! Especially if you want it to.
>
> What do observations depend on today?
Instruments which are more precise, automatic data gathering
and analysis. Human error is reduced.
> I recall Los Alamos finding helium where there had been none before.
> Transmutation of elements implies a nuclear reaction.
If it occurs. It has to be done by several groups. With mass spectrometry
you can detect very low concentrations of helium. Some helium is
found in C60 buckyballs coming from outspace!
>> In the US it is necessary for being first hired, then getting tenure
>> and finally funding from various agencies.
>
> Sounds like the private sector would be easier.
My first post PhD job was with IBM. They looked me over and hired me, I did
not have to dance a lot. Getting an academic post was harder, retaining
it by getting tenure was even harder. Getting good grant support was
much harder. Only about 1 grant proposal in 10 gets accepted, I was
spending half my time writing proposals. All that disappeared in France.
In the US one spends one evenings, weekends, vacation periods working.
In France, one takes vacations! My productivity rose however! I was
not wasting time writing proposals.
Mxsmanic
> My first post PhD job was with IBM. They looked me over and hired me, I did
> not have to dance a lot. Getting an academic post was harder, retaining
> it by getting tenure was even harder. Getting good grant support was
> much harder. Only about 1 grant proposal in 10 gets accepted, I was
> spending half my time writing proposals. All that disappeared in France.
> In the US one spends one evenings, weekends, vacation periods working.
> In France, one takes vacations! My productivity rose however! I was
> not wasting time writing proposals.
Why did you leave IBM, which sounds like it was the best deal of all?
Cold Shoulder
> Martin writes:
>
>> Do your own research.
>
> Why should I do research if others just believe whatever they are
> told?
Because you're an asshole. Research that, pal.
--
Cold Shoulder
news:1h8styf.kufb6811pi7bjN%m...@privacy.net...
Like women's underwear and Usenet trolling.
Cold Shoulder
> Martin writes:
>
>> That contradicts your first post on the subject, but what's new.
>
> No. I described how it should be, then I described how it is.
You described how YOU think it should be, then you
lied about how it is in Mixixixixi Bizarro World.
Earl Evleth
"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Why did you leave IBM, which sounds like it was the best deal of all?
I got a grant to come to France in `65. Moneywise IBM was the best,
University salaries are a bit low but of course that is a comparison between
9 and 12 months pay. At IBM you naturally work on things of interest to
the company, an academic chooses his own pathway. The rewards are
different.
Mxsmanic
> At IBM you naturally work on things of interest to
> the company, an academic chooses his own pathway. The rewards are
> different.
How did you decide what to research in the academic world?
Earl Evleth
Rev Gaston" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> At a guess, in order to pursue the research he found interesting, rather
> than the research that IBM found interesting.
At the time, our particular section had two major projects, One was the
development of an organic based photoconductor for a photocopy machine,
replacing silicon. The other project had to do with the development
of a non-silver based microfilm. This was to be use in connection with
an information retrieval computer driven system. IBM built 2 prototype
computers for the CIA and mistakenly thought they could go commercial.
About 80 million dollars were spent on the project before their market
research determined the market was not that big. It is one of the failed
IBM project they never talked about. I got two microfilm patents out of
it. I was discouraged by the fact that the deciders could screw up this
badly and thought perhaps it was better to do my own thing. Applied
research can be fun too, however.
Earl Evleth
"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> How did you decide what to research in the academic world?
Good question, sometimes one is lead to a research area by
previous research. Some people plan better than I do. Initially
I was interesting in why things had colors, so that lead me to
computed excited state properties of molecules, eventually that
lead to photochemically related problems and toward end of that
pathway I ended up looking at the photochemical properties of
small molecules. Simple questions. Excited water or ammonia show
single bond O-H or N-H ruptures, while methane an ethylene kick
out molecular hydrogen (H2). Why?
It turns out this photochemistry is important in space, the
methane seas on Titan probably undergo photochemistry from the
sun's UV, giving rise to more complicated molecules.
Some of the things wee found had no importance
at the time, we discovered the complex world of Rydberg state
photochemistry before people recognized it might be going on.
Rydberg states when when the electron is excited well outside the
normal space of the molecule. My last 10 years at research were
less interesting, most mundane and uninteresting. But a good
research project stimulates the pleasure zones, better than
sex.
Some people have a very planned research path. For instance
once Watson and Crick had guessed correctly the structure
of DNA the race was on to break the code. The people who
attacked this problem knew exactly the target and they
knew it possibly also merited the Nobel Prize. That
is high stakes research. The emotional rewards are tremendous.
Pure pleasuring, it is an hedonistic game.
I sometimes wonder how high Einstein got when relatively was
all layed out to him.
Earl Evleth
"Martin" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>> It is one of the failed
>> IBM project they never talked about.
>
> There are others which are.
Curious, what are they?