Jaunās režijas vilnis Latvijas teātros. Intervija ar Elmāru Seņkovu

September 4, 2008I graduated high soohcl in 2005. We had a variety of rules for the textbooks at my soohcl, which usually varied according to the class. For some classes we were loaned the books for an entire year and allowed to take them home for study. This was true for most of the mathematics classes I took throughout primary and secondary soohcl. However, some of the math classes I took had books that had to stay in the classroom. The reason for this is that some years we had books in desperate need of replacement. Our soohcl system worked in such a way that the mathematics books were replaced in waves over a repeating ten year period. Ten years is a long time to last through the abuse to which young students subject textbooks.Coming from a wealthier soohcl district in central Ohio, it seemed a little odd to me that this was the case. I would hate to see what the situation is in rural or inner city soohcl districts. My guess is that the textbooks that disadvantaged soohcl districts have are in worse condition than my high soohcl alma mater. As such, it makes financial sense for these districts to keep the books in the relative safety of the classroom.My hope is that with the increasing penetration of the Internet, this problem can be averted by new means of education: the cutting-edge project-based learning initiatives you were hoping to hear about. Textbooks have a great place in education, as they are a very dense, concentrated distillation of knowledge in a handy, useable form. However, for some soohcl districts they represent a financial hardship that must be endured year after year.

I’m not sure where you’re getting that [in ressonpe to my claim that the study considered only high-quality journals]. From the article: “… we carried out a PubMed search for retracted articles among 17 journals ranging in impact factor between 2.00 to 53.484″. An IF of 2 is considered mediocre. Please note that IF (impact factor) is not the same thing as reputation/quality. A journal can have a good reputation and a high impact factor (like Nature), a good reputation and a lower impact factor (like the Journal of Organic Chemistry), or a poor reputation (like the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons). The study only considered high-quality (good reputation) journals, though they considered journals with all sorts of impact factors. Impact factor is a measure of how often a journal is CITED, not a measure of its scientific rigor.The next point you made was that The journal you pick as a counter-example [Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons] is an outlier, I think — it’s not even indexed in MEDLINE or WoS, and has no IF. Yes, that was an outlier. Just as Nature is arguably one of the two most influential and rigorous journals (and is therefore an outlier), I wanted to give an example of an outlier on the other end of the spectrum. Journals like the Journal of Organic Chemistry are more average .You say Most scientists feel that research misconduct isuncommon. However, a meta-analysis of surveydata reported that 2% of scientists report havingcommitted serious research misconduct at leastonce, and one-third admit to having engaged inquestionable research practices (36). Given thestigma associated with retractions and thechallenges in detecting misconduct, it is likelythat retractions represent only the tip of theiceberg. 2% of scientists represents a great minority, making the assertion that research misconduct is uncommon CORRECT. We can speculate that this 2% represents the tip of the iceberg, but it's pure speculation. Since you go on to say that you think science works and that most articles are trustworthy, you and I are actually in agreement. If you recall, my disagreement with Lorie was in her suggestion that MOST articles are inaccurate. Sounds like you and I are on the same page afterall.

Ioannidis' paper is an intriguing jneuory through statistics, but doesn't particularly impress me, because he is not looking at actual retraction and/or error rates. Anyway, here are my thoughts in no particular order:1) I have faith in science2) The corollary to the above is that science is a jneuory, not a destination (yikes, that sounds like it should be on a greeting card or something). What I mean by this is:3) I put my faith in the scientific PROCESS, not in any one scientific article or finding.So, with regard to the cell phone study, the study itself could be wrong. Doesn't bother me; if it is, the scientific process (that is to say, other researchers, more research) will sniff out the truth eventually.4) It's a bad idea to put too many eggs in one basket (boy, I'm on a roll with the cliches today!). What I mean by this is that one shouldn't ever put too much stock in a single study. With regard to the cell phone study, because this is a single study, it would not be wise to engage in a high-risk or high-cost action on the basis of the study findings. For instance, it would be really silly to say, OMG! Cell phones make your brain heat up! Never use cell phones again! However, a low-risk, low-cost action may be justified. For instance, I might say to myself, Huh. Cell phones held near the head seem to affect glucose metabolism. Who knows why. That's weird. What happens if I affect my brain glucose metabolism in odd ways on a regular basis? Who knows. Maybe it's not a problem, but maybe it's not a good thing. Oh well using a headset when I talk for a long time on my cell doesn't cost me anything, and isn't a risk, so maybe I'll do it just as a precaution. That's a very measured, sensible response. See what I mean?So in the end, I think you and I are in agreement. I suspect you'd agree with me that over time, the trajectory of science is a good one (science eventually gets us to the answer), but that the trajectory of any ONE study could be totally right, totally wrong, or somewhere in between and therefore while we can put faith in the greater trajectory of science (and use it as an overarching framework for decision-making), we shouldn't make life-and-death decisions or high-cost/high-risk decisions on the basis of a single study.

Terima kasih sebelumnya telah menunnjgugi website kami. Sebelumnya kami mohon maaf, untuk seri tas yang tidak terpampang di web = tidak ada (kosong), termasuk seri Alto Girl 033 yang ditanyakan.

Neesmu redzējusi Elmāra režisētas lugu, bet cilvēks viņš ir gaismu izstarojošs, tātad arī viņa darbi noteikti sev līdzi nes šo gaismu un cilvēkmīlestību! Jāiet sadabūt rokā biļetes uz bridēju laikam.

Rakstu neizlasīju. Es tikai gribu teikt, ka nesen biju Pēterburgā un tur es redzēju Kristīni, kurai bija apmēram 40 gadi, bet viņa izskatījās kā 50-gadīga sieviete. Edgars , protams, piedzēries , ieķēries Kristīnes elkonī , klumburēja viņai līdzās un kaut ko burkšķēja. Kristīnes seja - nolemtības un nožēlas akmeņota , nepauda nekādas emocijas. Tā viņi aizgāja, bet es priecājos par savu dabas doto instinktu izvairīties no dzerošiem un pīpējošiem vīriešiem. Kā saka, laime pirtiņā , un paldies par to.

Elmāra izrādes līdz sim bijušas ļoti latviskas.

Oi,oi.oi....Lecīgi...oi,lecīgi. Es jau ar 7 Faustiem smagi atrāvos, tāpēc no 2 Kristīnēm drusku baidos.... Bet atkal...kad tad trakos un eksperimentēs, ja ne jaunībā. Galvenais, lai jaunajiempatīk.

Nacionālajam nedrīkst šo režisoru palaist vaļaa!