Slashdot Mirror
The Worst Jobs in Science: The Sequel
flyingtoaster writes "For the second year in a row, Popular Science published their annual countdown of the worst jobs in science. This year's list includes Anal-Wart Researcher, Iraqi Archaeologist and Landfill Monitor. And you think your job's bad?" We also linked to last year's list.
Those sound like bad jobs to me ;-)
It's either on the beat or off the beat, it's that easy.
I moderate therefore I rule!
--
How appropriate =)
s html?tid=127&tid=187&tid=98
http://games.slashdot.org/games/04/11/21/1746257.
Odd, "EA Researcher" was nowhere to be found. Oh that's right, they don't have any. They're just an assembly line now.
In Soviet America the banks rob you!
Computer scientist is a scientist, no?
A Multiplayer Strategy Game for Mac OS X, Windows, and Linux
Ewww!
#4 is Tampon Squeezer
On the other hand, Tampon Tester would rate as one of the best jobs ever.
*sigh*
Sorry if I grossed someone out.
Vote for a Man, Vote for Bush!
Not a liberatarian flipflop hippie.
At the landfill I monitor we have these Valves that releases this totally putrid smelling Steam. Even with all the funk, people flock to our landfill more than anyone elses!
ItWasFree.com - Take the mystery
to /. trolls ;) http://www.popsci.com/popsci/science/article/0,209 67,713425,00.html
The bright side? "In 13 years I've only been pooped on twice, and that's not bad." :-|
I love my job.
Sure, you aren't killing puppies for science, but you do spend all day listening to people demanding that you fix their problems like it's your fault. You're usually rated by call time, so actually helping people looks bad on you review.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
Don't forget Iragi Weapons Inspector?
The jobs not done until you find at least one.
Food taster for Fear Factor...
The cradle of civilization and agriculture. The first place humans built cities. The birthplace of writing. And--oh, yeah--currently the best place in the world to get yourself kidnapped or killed. For archaeologists, there's no plum like Iraq. Saddam actually let them do their job, and he even protected his country's heritage in museums. But now no archaeologist can work in Iraq until security improves. Meanwhile more than 8,500 treasures have been stolen, and those are just from museums, where artifacts are cataloged.
What truly troubles archaeologists is imagining what's being taken from their dig sites in the field. Archaeologist Francis Deblauwe, who is trying to keep tabs on the looting, knows of more than 30 important digs, including ancient Babylon, that have been despoiled, but he notes that his list is "very preliminary and grossly incomplete." When the researchers do get to go back in, they'll be able to determine which sites have been looted. But they'll never know what's been taken.
Sheesh! And I wonder how many such 'casualities' of war we ignore. Really sad.
War is not just people, it's a whole lot more. And as an amateur archaeologist, I really do feel bad. And these things are irreplaceable.
Vote for a Man, Vote for Bush!
Not a liberatarian flipflop hippie.
I was shocked to see "public school science teacher" on their list. They used a poor example, and yes, that would be a bad job. But there are many good science teachers, and most schools are better than the one they picked out. The article also implies that public-school science teachers are all poor teachers, which is not true. I was shocked to see that (I'm a high school student), and I'm sure many other slashdotters are too.
What about President Bush's Science Advisor? If that job did drive you to drink nothing would.
Anyone find it funny the most common job on there is Nursing? The nursing role has changed from working with patients to Medical Assistants. They hire 10-15 MA's to 1 Nurse in most clinics. And then to top it off, they dont pay the Nurses for the years in school, and hard work, and they get no respect for managing the MA's ontop of normal nurses duties.
What a shame.
In our Internet-based summons for readers to top (bottom?) last year's "Worst Jobs" list, nurses nominated themselves in droves: "Still a no-respect profession. Doctors treat you like slaves." "The pay is substandard for all the training." "Just look at the current shortage." Indeed, the government estimates that we're short 110,000 nurses, and that by 2008 we'll need half a million more.
Numerous studies echo the dissatisfaction of our nurse readers. Nurses are fleeing the profession because of stress, long hours, low pay and lack of advancement opportunities. The cost? A recent University of Pennsylvania study found that surgical patients at hospitals with the worst nurse-staffing levels (ergo the most overworked nurses) have a 31 percent greater chance of dying. If this trend doesn't improve, we might soon find "patient" topping our list.
Some of those were hard just to list.
sigs, as if you care.
How about just grad student? No matter what your research is, you're overworked, underpaid, and then thrust into a saturated job market, where you may never find a tenure track position. And if you do, you'll still be paid a far sight less than any random dick with an MBA.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
"Quark Whore"
I'm Erwin Schrodinger and I approve of this message, and I do not approve of this message!
They should have said "weather desk staffer" at a TV station.... the one who takes the calls after the "great weekend" doesn't materialize. Agree that the on-camera job is actually a pretty good one, and it's in the entertainment industry, not science.
I think you had it wrong - they aren't implying that public school science teachers are poor teachers! It says they have one of the worst jobs, which I believe is true. Not only do they have to teach a subject which requires intelligent thought to a disinterested student body, their profession is constantly under attack by religious radicals.
Hell, my own mother threatened to take me out if they taught me evolution. It didn't happen, but I shudder to think of other students who did have that happen to them.
Also, science is one of the most poorly funded departments across the nation. Hell, team sports such as Football and Soocer, even electives such as music get more funding in some areas.
So yes, they've got one of the worst jobs in science: teaching it to the next generation.
Without a proper flamewar, Anonymous was undecided on what shell to run.
... a USDA meat-packing plant inspector?
perl -e 'foreach(values %SIG){$_="IGNORE";}while(){}'
This issue was published quite a while ago. Why is it just now appearing here?
Not true:
By William Speed Weed | November 2004
Spoon not. Fork, or fork not. There is no spoon.
Dubbya's speechwriter?
Sleep, she is for the weak..
The link mentioned in the previous slashdot article no longer works. Compliments of the WayBackMachine
I have no
In all seriousness, the first posting of last year's list does have some great comments.
It rated only 2 positions below help desk tech, all my science teachers in shool seems to like their jobs.
Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
Your Sig was the worst part.
Help fight continental drift.
Even if you don't get bit, the staff dusts you *just to be sure*.
Talk about temp help....
Yeah, due to your sig I see you really give a shit about the casualties of war.
If I got paid what I get now as an IT worker, I would rather drag a blanket through the woods singing songs.
If that's even a job, it'll certainly be at the top.
Yes, you just published the answer in the previous article (and before). Obviously the worst job in science was that scholar that spent a year at EA. Of course.
sgis ddo ekil t'nod i
Picture the puke scene from Team America: World Police and you've got a good idea of HALF of what I just went through.
You, sir, should be kicked off slashdot, post-haste.
-paul
Pistol caliber is like religion: everyone has their favourite, and theirs is the only right choice.
I can't think of anything more hideous.
In fact everytime I think about it everything turns white and I hear a continuous tone.
I think its some kind of defense mechanism, or survival skill.
I'm not sure I understand why that is one of the worst jobs in science. Reading the article, it seems they were just being belittled and TV weather-forcasting called a "fast-food science."
It's no different from being a high-tech fortune-teller. Your crystal ball is replaced by a supercomputer running weather simulations. Your predictions are only as good as the output results. Read up on the "Great Storm of 1987" and Michael Fish, who reassured a concerned view that there was no danger of a severe storm coming ashore (which obligingly decided to change course).
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
Don't her patients have any sphincter control?
"sweet dreams are made of this..."
here's the poll results... Main site - poll is halfway down on the right.
Energy: time to change the picture.
. . . the female Dracunculus medinensis migrates from the gut to a point just under the skin of, say, a leg, where she then commences growth to a length of as great as three feet, and where, ultimately, she lays her eggs. When the thousands of babies make their joyous arrival, they blister the skin and pop through, leaving Mom behind. The traditional way to get rid of her is to wrap her head around a stick and twist very slowly--one turn of the stick per day--for weeks or months, depending on how long she is. (This treatment is so old that it inspired the ancient snake-and-pole aesculapius symbol of medicine.)
i saw the baby, and the baby looked at me
What about SCO programers?
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
I mean, holy shit, this is the magazine my grandpa collected...that ain't right!
Unemployment! But if you still consider your job to be worse than that...
...theres no need to fear, Reverend Sharpton is here! ;-)
Cheers,
Adolfo
I once got a job picking through garbage to separate the amount of paper that is thrown away that could have been recycled. It was such a joy when you come upon the used tampon, diaper or condom. Rotting food was wonderful too.
To say nothing of the incredible lack of dignity being a meteorologist among "weathermen" as some are.
I spent one summer screening race horses for drugs... by chemically testing their urine.
Yes, I had the joy of sitting in a lab and handling horse piss for eight hours a day. Let me tell you, the range of colour, texture, and viscosity of the stuff is truly mind-boggling.
The one saving grace? I wasn't the guy that had to collect it from the source.
I heard if you fall in you have to get a ton of shots.
Some links of interest:r bour/cleanup.jsp The Harbour Cleanup Project website.l and_and_Labrador A post on /. wouldn't be complete with a a wikipedia reference.
http://www.ozfm.com/skycam.htm for a live webcame of the downtown core.
http://www.stjohns.ca/cityservices/environment/ha
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._John's,_Newfound
"Thanks to the remote control I have the attention span of a gerbil."
I found this neat company that made a system that controlled the thickness of sheet metal was it was being manufacturered. Kinda interesting, I thought... I could apply DSP algorithms and statistics to the problem. Low pass filter, etc...
The factory tour went something like this:
----
The core technology of the company was a non-contact system that used radiation to penetrate the steel and measure its thickness. Are you cool with radiation and wearing the exposure badge? Sure, not planning on any kids for a while...
Now, this steel is pretty hot, so you've got to be careful not to touch it, ok? Sure.
It's also relatively thin and the edges aren't the smoothest -- so, it's sharp. But it's steel, so it's still heavy. You wouldn't want to get any fingers you're particularily attached to near it. Uh, ok.
And, it's moving out the mill at a fairly fast speed. Radioactive, Semi-molten, sharp and fast. Still ok? uh, yeah, sure.
Finally, for some ungodly reason, it is dripping with acid. We don't know why; that's just part of the manufacturing. That's partly why we go with a non-contact measurement.
Lastly, even though your resume is excellent, we're going to put you on the support team for at least a year. It's low pay, but there's lots of overtime and travel benefits. You'll go to all sorts of exotic mill towns.
----
And that, my friends, is why I took the rocket-scientist job instead.
HIV Crosses Species Barrier... into Muppets
A friend of mine is looking to go into meteorology...he told me that there are two course paths offered by most colleges with progrmas: a BA and a BS. I always thought it was rather telling. Apparently the BA program gets about 4 times the applicants of the BS.
If you want a decent weather forecast, get a book on basic weather and go to the National Weather Service website (www.weather.gov) or get a weather radio. At least the NWS isn't beholden to ratings.
Please look at talkorigins.org. No legitimate scientist doubts that evolution happens; it's how it happens that gets debated.
'Religious radicals' is a fair call, except I'd be tempted to add a few more carefully chosen phrases, like 'not very bright', 'deluded', 'ill-informed', and 'poorly educated'. I'm sure you get my drift. I don't believe you've opened your eyes and looked at the real evidence at all, otherwise you'd be convinced that the theories of evolution offer a considerably more likely explanation than do the fairy-tales of a bunch of wandering sheep-herders. It's very sad that more than half the population of the US is in the same boat.
I'm just thankful we don't have too many of these people in Australia, although the number is growing, largely because, I suspect, science education is poorly funded here too.
What a long, strange trip it's been.
Even worse is the phrase "weather bunnies" when referring to the attractive single women employed to keep the ratings up for the weather reports in local small-town TV stations.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
Just because there are a lot of you doesn't mean you're not stupid and wrong. There were many people who thought the world was flat and there were many people who thought having white skin made you better than people who didn't and even today there are some who still belive that but it doesn't change the fact that they are wrong.
People need to be maligned and impugned when they are wrong.
Use your brain and tell me where the fucking dinosaurs are in the bible.
Job 40:15-24, 41:1-34. And before you say that the first is an elephant or a hippopotamus, ask yourself how many of those have tails like cedar trees... (vs17).
Actually, I speak french fluently and german passably. The point is: how can you have the literal Word of God when its been translated so many times that no one knows what the original divine version was? The grandparent was saying that the Bible is the Word of God and my questions is: which version?
I had a steady B+ in my AI class until I failed the Turing test...
Actually, the Bible I have in front of ME says it is an Elephant. But it also says "that I made along with you" Dinosuars died out way before humans walked the earth. Nice try. Thanks for playing.
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/science/article/0,209 67,713468,00.html
"Each of us has about a 10 percent lifetime risk of contracting anal warts..."
Perhaps the phraseology is just misleading.
It is probably more like: "people that engage in unprotected sex have a 30% chance of contracting this STD, those that don't have a 0.01% chance of contracting it".
It is certainly not an equal 10% chance for everyone.
Whenever the offence inspires less horror than the punishment, the rigour of penal law is obliged to give way...
... you have nothing to lose but your benefits. Just because a large no of people are idiots doesnt detract from the fact that they are idiots. The whole religious right has been created by the Republican partt. I mean if you look at it from a purely economic point of view Republican policies only benefit 1% of the population and if everyone voted as per their self interest(as it is supposed to work in an ideal democracy) no way can the Republicans can win election. So they cant win on economic issues so they have to come up with something that is so important for the poor that they will vote to starve themselves. Voila! Enter Creationism,anti gay rights and all the other irrelevant issues to detract people from whats really important. I mean the US is the only country in the world I have heard of where taxes go down as you earn more(its true you do not pay medicare and social security on any income above 100000!!!) I mean I am a poor student right now and if I was a citizen I would definitely vote Democrat. Not to say once I graduate and I am earning more than 100000 I will vote Republican!!!
**Life is too short to be serious**
i got a phd in particle physics - as a grad student, i got paid to satisfy my own curiosity. (and for me, as a bonus, got to live at CERN for a few years.) how many people can say that about their job? if you didn't enjoy what you are learning, you can always quit - in fact, you should quit. it's an avenue you chose to pursue - so complaining about it sounds pretty weak.
"You do realize that over half of Americans reject the standard theories (important word: theories, not laws) [emphasis added] for the origin of life and the universe that are presented in secular science education, don't you?"
Yes, it troubles me greatly, as does your post and far, far too many just like it. The word "theory" in science doesn't mean "half-assed guess" like it does in normal parlance. It means an idea that has been rigorously tested and is supported by a mountain of evidence. Theory of relativity. Theory of gravity. Germ theory. Theory of evolution. All supported by mountains of evidence, all have stood the test of time and are all highly unlikely to go away anytime soon. Sure any one or more of them could be wrong. Some may be able to adapt to new evidence, some might (heavy, very heavy emphasis on might) be relegated to the scrapheap of disproven scientific ideas...like phlogiston or creationism. The latter one is the most troubling. Two hundred years ago the dominant scientific idea in the west was a special creation taking place 6000 years ago. Christian geologists went out looking for this, but instead found evidence incompatible with a young earth, thus refuting young-earth creationism (note: not creation, a supernatural event and thus outside the realm of science. A god or gods could create using any means s/he/it/they deem appropriate and are thus undetectable to naturalistic science). Modern day creation-science and its bastard child "intelligent design" are just attempts to turn back scientific progress over 200 years. So yes, it does bother me a great deal to see that certain well-established scientific theories are thrown out because of the religous ideology of certain groups. Whats worse is that these religious radicals aren't objecting to the science, they're objecting to the implications of established science towards certain literalistic interpretations of the Bible, not science at all. There is one scientifically valid idea about the origin of species currently, and like it or not it is evolution.
What about a science advisor to the Bush Administrator? That's got to be the worst job in science unless you also hold a degree in fair-weather theology.
Let's hear it for tolerance!
The sooner this number becomes the majority, the sooner the USA will decline in irrelevance.
Dammit, should say "decline into irrelevance"
King James. Duh. *ducks*
An obscure group from California provides us around the Charles River with a perenial theme song. Anyways up until a couple of years ago people were indeed advised to have a tetnus shot if they happened to fall in. But the river has been cleaned up quite a bit and has recently been declared clean enough (from bacteria) to swim in. Considering the old maze of poorly documented drainage pipes into the Charles from different municipalities, this is quite an accomplishment. So I imagine there's hope for St John's, too!
In science, "theory" means something radically different than in standard English. Check your facts - and oh, you're not half of America. BTW, which is the "real" creation story - there are two in the Bible, y'know?
Like he said ... *legitimate* scientists.
Hello, I'm a Kansan. You might remember us from such right wing propaganda as "God Hates Fags" or a more recent but ephemeral debate over teaching evolution in our schools. I don't have a dog named Toto, and by my local estimation, pancakes are rather bumpy.
So I'm used to dealing with invective, and even the religious right. A few might be my neighbors. But I reject your hypothesis. "Slightly over 40 percent of Americans" is an extreme interpretation of a stastic of relgious beliefs. My own mother admits she feels the Old Testament to be closer to myth than reality, and generally believes that evolution holds more scientific merit than the newly uprising creationist theory. Some Catholics don't adhere to the abolition of birth control, and I hear some even support abortions. Simply because 40 percent marked down Catholic or Protestant or whatever that number includes doesn't mean they hold belief in common with every other member of the congregation. In fact, I'd say thats downright impossible. Personally, I think that Lamarck had better science than creationism or whatever you call it today; a text cannot be adequate substitute for experimental investigation and observation. And I'm not willing to sign off on ignoring evolutionary theory because its spiritually convinient.
Its debateable whether one can call creationism a theory, and I'm willing to let it into our textbooks, but to exclude evolution is both ridiculus and ignores what is the most plausible theory put forth yet. I think mutual inclusion is perhaps a decent middle grounds to acommodate our individual beliefs.
So when I hear people complain about teaching evolution in the classroom, I say to them: fine, butif you don't want it in the classroom, don't expect your children to attend college. In the suburb where I live, that works reasonably well. In other parts of Kansas, that statement would likely be met with laughter, and likely acceptance of the terms.
I Browse at +4 Flamebait
Open Source Sysadmin
If you want to post some funny bunk science, why not Big Daddy?
Here's the report. You can be proud that your anti-evolutionist views are shared by 80% of people with a high school education or less.
Well, in my humble personal world, one of the worst jobs in IT is still working with the sales department to turn their "lie-to-the-customer-a-bit" into something approaching reality.
And guess what; it's an uphill battle. The more lies you make into working software, the more undoable things are expected from your department. But fail once and you're out of a job.
Look, this thing is totally safe! Built it myself, you know. You just press that button like this and then turn that lev
Yeah, I know.. I was just venting, it's been a long weekend. I love what I do, sometimes I just do too much of it. For the record, I do recommend grad school in the sciences to all those young ones out there. It is very rewarding, and I wouldn't choose to do anything else.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Scary as all that sounds, I've actually been on the train ride. It's very pleasant, the rail cars are antiques, and the tour guide's history of Oak Ridge during WWII was interesting. (Checks rad badge again. No problems.)
It's a shame to see the old girl go down, really. She's done a lot in her time in "Happy Valley". K-25 was at one time the world's largest building. (For a sense of scale, have a look at the two-story townhouses at the bottom of the pic. If you look carefully, you'll see that the two buildings in the center are actually just one building.)
This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
Sure. I'll agree with that. But is that the version "most Americans" consider the literal Word of God? I doubt it because most probably haven't read it. They consider their version the literal Word of God, which is the whole point of my beef with the poster's point: he on his high horse by saying that 40% of Americans believe the Bible to be the Word of God and that it has more weight than science. But if you actually looked at it, 5% probably think its the Hebrew version, 25% think King James, and 10% think NIV. How can "40%" think the Bible is the "literal Word of God" if they can't agree which version is the literal one? Yet science is the one in question. riiiiiiiight.
I had a steady B+ in my AI class until I failed the Turing test...
According to my better half, fluff is the "polite form" of fart. So I guess that makes a fluffer a farter? Mmmmm... Applying the same logic, I guess flatter means wet-one?
Free Firefox news reader.
Could anyone tell me exactly how Genesis and the theory of evolution are incompatable? Besides the word choice that has resulted from semiaccurate transalation, there really isn't anything. There is a difference between believing that the Bible is the literal word of God (I believe that too) and to believe that, because of some poor diction in your KJV Bible, that the universe was made in 144 hours. To put it another way, there are quotes in the Bible that state that the Sun "rises" and "sets". Does this mean that a geocentric solar system is the correct interpretation of the Bible? Of course not. You can believe (without being a heretic) that Jesus and Darwin can dance on the head of a pin, as it were.
eat more shit, people. after all, millions of flies cannot be wrong.
Conservatism: The fear that somewhere, somehow, someone you think is your inferior is being treated as your equal.
"This post brought to you by Big Rosie O's Clamshack! All you can eat with no hands.... they also have crabs!"
Libertas in infinitum
You just quoted Karl Marx in your condemnation of public control.
Or you could go to http://twister.sbs.ohio-state.edu/. That is where I used to get my weather data when I used to set up the weather computer for the newscast.
Whoa! The National Weather Service has "sunrise" and "sunset" on its web site. I think you should send them an email with the correct information right away! They obviously believe in a geocentric solar system. ;-)
Could anyone tell me exactly how Genesis and the theory of evolution are incompatible?
Yes.
Well, I may be "deluded" to be skeptical of evolutionary science's claims, but no-one has ever accused me of being "not very bright" (not before this post), and I'm certainly not "poorly educated". "Over educated" is more accurate - all thanks to the Australian education system.
I have no problem believing (with a healthy degree of skepticism) the results of experimental science. But the absolute faith in a theory that can't be experimentally tested (and I don't think experiments on a few hundred generations of drosophilia demonstrate a great deal) and which therefore will forever remain unprovable, to me appears ludicrous.
Great Windows SFTP Server!
Hey, thanks. That's my new sig.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
I'm extremely tolerant - I just don't suffer fools gladly.
What a long, strange trip it's been.
I think your better half is trying to conceal her past.
Fluffer
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Okay - I may be misjudging you somewhat, as you haven't made your position completely clear, but I'm assuming you believe in creation "science", or at least that you reject any theories of evolution.
The thing is, I'm not sure how you can claim that evolution hasn't been experimentally tested (and I'm not just talking about fruitflies). There is a fossil record (admittedly incomplete) which indicates the mutability of species over millions of years. In just the case of primates, there's strong indications of a direct line from lemur-like creatures to us, through the great apes. I'm not a biologist, so I don't have reams of facts at my fingertips, or a very deep knowledge of evolution, but I still find it far more believable than the folk-tales of people who (to paraphrase Harry Harrison) didn't even understand the mechanism of a rainbow, because there is _absolutely_ _no_ independant, verifiable evidence of the absolute truth of those fairytales. I'm also pretty sure that there is experimental evidence of evolution (as in: The theory predicts this, but we've not found evidence of it yet. Oh, look, here's that evidence. Notch up another win for Occam's Razor.) but I must admit I'm unable to recall a specific instance. Go and talk to a bioligist. Maybe they'll be able to remember the stuff I can't right now.
What a long, strange trip it's been.
On NRK, one of our national TV channels (Norway), the weather is actually presented by real meteorologists, usually seniors from the Meteorologic Institute, which means it's mostly men well into their forties or more. They are definitively not weather bunnies:)
The knuckles, the horrible knuckles!
(I'm a girl, you know)
I'd have to disagree with the Television Meteorologist listing.
In New England, most local television news weather forecasts are overseen and reported on air by actual meteorologists, unlike other parts of the country that have untrained "weathermen" (like southern california). In smaller TV markets, or weather is much more stable, or even on radio, you might as well read off government supplied weather forecasts.
They are well paid for TV. (however if you are not on TV, meteorologists get shafted in terms of pay, unless they work as consultants -- usually environmental consultants dealing with air quality issues.)
Also, those guys are instant celebrities around these parts.
Snow predictions are one of the harder predictions to make. These guys basically have to choose between various computer model predictions, and sometime they are far off.
However, my recommendation is don't trust a forecast longer than 24 hours in advance.
For the biblical literalists who seem to find there way onto /. these days:
(this is not original to me btw, and I found it hilarious when I first read it).
"Let me ask you something. I'm assuming that you are one of those people who believes the bible is literally historically accurate. Based soley on the number of land animal species that taxonimists have identified (and we're talking tens of millions to date), and factoring in all of the extinct fossil species that you believe could not have evolved (hundreds of millions at an archeologists guess), what would the dimensions of Noah's Arc have to be? "Two of every animal" would require a phenominally huge superfreighter, and that's not including food and fresh water for forty days (remember that most water is not drinkable due to salt content). An arc, remember, that was supposedly fourty cubits and built by one man.
Moreover, how did land animals subsequently migrate from the Arc's hypothetical landing site to their present habitats? How exactly did the South American primates get from Eurasia to South America. And let's not forget Austrailia, which is surrounded by the Pacific Ocean, yet has plentiful land animals that cannot posssibly swim (and you say could not evolve)."
Remember that majority opinion does not equal reality. And the united states is not the entire world; there are scientifically literate nations that have no religious right to speak of and no problem with evolution. Stick to a fundamentalist interpretation of a broze age text, and you will be left behind.
Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
the site seems to be down... so, anyone saw in what position programming at EA GAMES was?
The way the article defines crank, they might as well have said "the worst job in science is doing science". There's potential for acrimony even in what would seem to be the most obscure, boring and straightforward areas. In a better world, most everyone would be objective about research and results, and reserved in judgement. We would not cling to preconceived notions, and not knowingly squelch unfinished research we don't "like", argue unfairly and fallaciously, apply 3rd degree methods, and use other stupid and dirty tricks in support. We can back down if we can admit we were wrong, and can convince ourselves that wrong != stupid. But too often, when something is researched, we suddenly discover that we have opinions about it, and that our opinions come with baggage. Even on research where we have no stake in the matter and have not troubled to inform themselves even a tiny bit, we've got an opinion. Congressional science advisors and school science teachers are treated much the same as "cranks", except that instead of the opposition being mostly heartfelt and even occasionally fair and rational, the opposition is usually a lot of smoke meant to distract and keep a hidden agenda hidden. But that's the breaks in science. When experimental results are not in agreement with popular thinking, shouldn't go with poll results over scientific results. I trust that improvements will continue and someday, that better world will arrive.
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
All you show is that you don't understand the meaning of the word "theory" or the scientific method.
You "know" fuck all.
No but, yeah but, no but...
I mean this IS George Bush's Amurrica and Creationism is being taught now INSTEAD of science.....All I'm sayin.
happiness might be a poor word choice. pacified is more applicable.
- tristan
"fine, butif you don't want it in the classroom, don't expect your children to attend college."
And to think, I made it all the way through college. Amazing.
signed,
Kansas Believer in Creation.
Fix Your Own TV - RiddledTV.com Avoid the Landfill
No, it's not debatable whether one can call creationism a theory because it's not. Let's start with the deifinition of a theory:
Since creationism/intelligent design relies on a supreme being to start the whole thing rolling, a being which can neither be proven nor disproven, the arguments for these concepts fall flat. Without being able to verify or deny any part of ones thoughts (I refuse to call them theories) you cannot have a theory. End of story.
One can argue until they're blue in the face about how their evidence shows they're thoughts are just as plausible as someone elses but unless/until they can offer proof of a supreme being their ideas are relegated to the same pile as Santa Claus and the Easter bunny.
Next thing you know people will want to believe that the Grand Canyon is only a few thousand years old and was made by the flood during Noahs time. Oh wait, that's already being done.
Well at least the fact that humans and dinosaurs did not live at the same time is still a safe subject. Er, maybe not.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Actually it was built by one man - and his three sons, for over a hundred years.
They were on the ark for much longer than 40 days (thats how long it rained) the waters receded for over a year. However, there were many animal types that could have already been extinct by that time. That wasn't all THAT many years ago. The dimensions of the ark were 300 x 50 x 30 cubits. None of those numbers is 40.
You should really read what your arguing against sometime. Or whoever actually wrote the argument should. Its only about 10 pages?
I find it humorous that you can pass over that there was a great flood over the whole earth without arguing it, but then argue that the animals could never have made it onto the boat. By the way, even evolutionists have a theory that the continents were not always seperated. It doesn't sound so implausible to you because they say it happened billions and billions of years ago, which somehow makes all assinine theories sound more possible.
Fix Your Own TV - RiddledTV.com Avoid the Landfill
No cure in sight for nurses' strike The four-month-old walkout at Lourdes Medical Center is at an impasse. Both sides say they remain determined. By Frank Kummer Inquirer Staff Writer It is no surprise to their union that nurses who walked off the job at Lourdes Medical Center of Burlington County more than four months ago are still picketing this Labor Day. Shortly before the union's two-year contract expired at the end of February, its leaders showed the nurses video of a similar hospital strike that lasted two years. They wanted the nurses to know they would need resolve. The labor action remains bitter, with no negotiations scheduled since talks broke down early last month. The Willingboro hospital has hired permanent replacement workers, and as many as half the striking nurses are working other jobs to help support themselves or their families. As the strike drags on, union representatives say that maintaining big pickets has become harder, but that nurses are determined nonetheless. "We have been staffing the lines during rush hour," Pierre Joanis, a negotiator for JNESO, said Friday afternoon when no nurses were picketing. "The pickets have dried up some because so many have found other jobs." One sign at a hospital entrance on Sunset Road read: "Friends don't let friends work at Lourdes." About 80 of the 280 nurses who walked off the job April 19 have crossed the lines to work, Joanis said. About a dozen of those have resigned or been fired, he said. About half the nurses honoring the picket line have found supplementary or full-time work elsewhere, Joanis said. Other health-care facilities have been recruiting them because of a nationwide nursing shortage. A central issue in the dispute is a management push for contract language that would allow it to change nurses' schedules as it saw fit for flexibility. Nurses say that would be a giant step backward and alter their lifestyle and finances because some of the changes would mean three 12-hour shifts instead of five eight-hour shifts - a loss of four hours a week and full-time status. Indeed, nurses began fomenting resentment almost a year ago under the last contract when the hospital began making shift changes and laying off workers. Few talks were held after the nurses walked out. Negotiations stopped Aug. 10 when both sides agreed they had reached an impasse. The hospital said it had given its last offer. Scott Share, a hospital spokesman, said Friday afternoon that no new talks were scheduled. Both sides are awaiting rulings on several issues under arbitration. In the middle of last month, an arbitrator sided with the nurses on shift changes, but the ruling is unlikely to have an effect on the walkout. The union has filed a grievance with the National Labor Relations Board, contending that management had no right to hire permanent replacements. So far, union officials said, the hospital has hired about 12 replacements. Management said it had to act because the high pay rates for temporary replacements were a financial strain. It also maintained that the National Labor Relations Act permits the move. So both sides said they were dug in for the long haul. "We will be there for the fight and engage them every step of the way," Joanis said.
I think your problem (and the problem of people thinking like you) is that your fear science or the implications of it. OR that you simply reject some scientific facts because they contradict the words in your bible/quran/whatever.
:-), you rely on your senses. You have to keep that in mind.
:)
People just do not want to be descendants of apes and/or a bag full of various chemicals. Many feel somehow "controlled" by science and flee into pseudoscience, esoterics or religion which forbids reasoning. IMHO very understandable but still VERY stupid and dangerous for society.
First of all, you have to realize that all the people who dig out these facts are also simply such meat bags.
And second, and much more important, there are too many scientists today who mix their opinion with their findings. I think this is one of the major reasons why people get dragged into the silliest of cults.
Examples:
Take a biologist, his/her job may be to find about the evolotunary dependencies between various species (for example), NOT TO endorse social darwinism.
Take a neurologist, his/her job may be to find about some thought processes, NOT to promote enslaving because "it is a scientific fact that noone has a free will".
Of course these examples are exaggerated, but I hope you'll understand what I'm trying to say. Also, this list can be further extended.
Both opinions (and they are sadly very widespread) result from silently pouring personal premises into the equations. And telling it in the way "I'm know, because I'm a scientist in that field.".
IMHO, as a scientist, you have to remind yourself that you are describing the "objective" part of reality. Additional to pure philosophy which only uses rational thought (note that I didn't say "brain" here
If I say "time started with the big bang some 13.7 billion of years ago and it doesn't make sense to speak about 'the time before'", I'm extrapolating and interpreting scientific facts with my rational mind and therefore using my senses (or those of other people) to give that answer.
I hear you saying now: But in the end, I can't really be sure that everything works according to the laws of nature, that there is 'really no god'. IMHO you're right.
- And, for some of those atheistic nerds here: It's dishonest to oneself to strongly deny the existence of any GOD but to think OTOH "Maybe I'm just a brain with electrodes connected to it or I'm just a a simulation running on someones computer".
I don't know for sure and maybe I'll never know, but why should I believe -> therefore I'm agnostic( and thinking that I have a free will). Yes, this is probably my own twisted religion. But at least I try to distinguish between reasoning and belief.
I'll try to say it in yet another way: By letting in astrology/religion/... into your *everyday life* and by believing in 'religous facts' which contradict scientific facts(*), you're either
a) denying that your senses give the proper output, so to say
b) abandoning rational thought, i.e. logic reasoning.
---------------
(*) - There are of course, (too) many scientific "theories" which do not deserve that title because they are just called that by the more influental people in the community. And, theories have borders, i.e. newtons law is good enough to describe the motions of the planets around the sun but not a black hole.
But, please, this is not the case with evolution.
...a person who supports Liberachi for President, I believe.
I forget what 8 was for.
What part of "this is not original" to me was lost on you? I was merely reposting someone else's argument that I had saved when I first read it and found funny (hint: it's meant as a semi-serious joke, at least I think).
As for the factual stuff, I bluntly don't care how big it was, it's still too damn small. The whole point of the joke is that arguing over a religious interpretation of history, complete with deluges, miacles and creation myths, is like arguing over klingon anatomy among star trek nerds; it wastes your time and starts pointless contradictory flamewars. As for the supercontinent theory, that's geology buddy, not biology. If you can't tell the difference between the two, then the public school system really has failed you. Saying "evolutionists" (which isn't the right term in any case) have a theory about _tectonic_ drift makes you look like a real idiot. You want to tell me to read a bible so I'll understand it's "history"? Then you go read a textbook and get back to me when you have some basic understanding of the different sciences.
Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
... and these kids are failing in a *good* school. She tells stories of how the mentally deficient children are assigned ALL of the tutors to help educate them to standardized levels.
You know who misses out on this? The normal, non gifted non slow children. They 'pass' enough on their own, so they don't qualify for tutors. The gifted ones excell on their own, and don't need the tutors.
Instead all of the monies are spent on bringing up 'special ed' for mainstreaming purposes.
Just grand.
Homeschooling starts to sound more and more like a viable choice.
(yes I have degrees in chemistry and chemical engineering because I love science)
As far as religeous texts go, there are more intact (and consistent) greek manuscripts of the Bible than any other religeous book. Yet somehow the Bible gets all the flak because it is/was so widely translated. If you compare the originals to todays 'interpretations' they are definately agreeable enough (and I have compared them) and most of the mistranslations are menial compared to the big picture. The problem is that the vernacular had definitive words for each interpretation while our modern English language interchanges words like crazy.
What you say about 80 hour weeks is interesting. My mom's been a physician's assistant for years, and just recently got out of emergency medicine and into something a lot slower paced. When she was working in the ER, 30 hours a week was considered to be "full time" for the purpose of benefits, etc. due to the fact that the job was so stressful.
WMBC freeform/independent online radio.
"What part of "this is not original" to me was lost on you?" ...And you want me to read your textbooks, when you can't even read my posts that your arguing against? It was pretty clear that you stated it wasn't your argument, which is why I said "..Or whoever actually wrote the argument..." However, when you present (or even re-present) an argument, it is YOUR argument.
I said evolutionsists because, for me, generally there are two sides in this never-ending debate. Evolution/Creation. So I will state it again. Some people who believe in evoltuion also subscribe to the theory that the continents were not always seperated. I didn't say it was an evolutionist theory.
I never said a thing about it being biology.
By the way, no one else thought your "joke" was funny either, and calling me an idiot makes you look really smart. The verdict is still out on whether public schools have failed me.
Fix Your Own TV - RiddledTV.com Avoid the Landfill
Before you say that it's a dinosaur, you're going to have to explain about dinosaurs with bones made of bronze. (vs18).
Sigh
/.) might have been serious, but the way it's presented I highly doubt it. Reread the post if you don't believe me. You took it seriously, as did some others in all probability, but the gist of it is subtle absurdity.
Ok, first I don't want to get a flame war going, especially not a creationist one. Ironically, the original post that I reposted was someones attempt at poking fun at _another_ such flamewar months ago. So, for the sake of maturity, I apologize for implying you are an idiot. Lets keep this civilized.
FTR, you may have missed the parody humour; the joke is meant to be absurd as an anti-creationist argument. It is not a valid argument, in fact it isn't really an argument at all, and it makes both sides look ridiculous.
In other words, I think the original poster was very deninitely tounge-in-cheek, and was poking fun at both sides of the flamewar. He (I assume it was a "he" - this is
As for the supercontinent argument, sorry, but it really is a seperate issue. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the theory of evolution, nor is it particularly important from a biologist's standpoint. The fact that some people who beleive in one also beleive in the other is immaterial; I believe in the scientific validity of evolution and relativity, but that doesn't connect the two sciences in any way. You may be mixing up "evolutionists" with paelentologists (who study fossils, and support evolution as scientists - and also supercontinent theory). Sorry, but it really irks me when I hear someone lump two unrelated fields of science into an argument; it's like somebody wondering how come scientists can put a man on the moon but can't cure cancer.
Oh, and for the record "evolutionist" is pretty antagonizing. People who accept a given scientific theory are not the same as a religious group, nor are they a single group. Generally, any attempt to lump people who disagree with your point of view into a single entity is bound to give people the idea that you're closed minded and unwilling to listen to reason. At least avoid making the matter "us vs them"; I didn't assume you were a christian when I responded, did I?
Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
I'm going to take a stab in the dark here and guess that bronze was used figuratively incinuating strength given the density of the metal. Relating to the time period bronze was one of the strongest known substances at the time. But who knows, maybe they were giant robosauruses made out of erector set...
I guess this puts me in the 3rd column.
I believe in evolutionary creationism. I believe all life started from a single divine moment that took a bunch of random proteins and hooked them together and typed "go" at the console. This single celled creature went forward, ate something and split. From that point, the Gods just sat back and let natural evolution take its course.
That same theory could also be extended to the migration from a single continent to the multiple continents that we've got today. One could argue that the Gods just saw what was going to happen an decided that they didn't need to influence things. Maybe they decided they wanted things in a specific spot for some reason and influenced things one way or the other. A fault line here, a n ocean current there, etc.
Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
nonexistent jobs do not count...
I think you misunderstand me; all of the Board of Regents Universities were upset about this, and thereatened not to admit students that didn't have that as part of their studies. As you should know, this measure didn't pass, and I suspect that we both attended a biology class where evolution was taught.
I Browse at +4 Flamebait
Open Source Sysadmin
They obviously believe in a geocentric solar system. ;-)
Yes, I realise these words are part of the vernacular. The point I was trying to make was that this word use, as well as Aristotelian philosophy, was the main reason the Roman Catholic Church was opposed to a heliocentric worldview.
As for the Young-Earth/Old-Earth argument, if we continue that, we'd just be trading websites for weeks.
You assume that the speed of light has remained constant since then. ;)
:)
There was a Slashdot article quite recently about a new super-accurate atomic clock that will help scientists determine more readily whether our universal constants are really constant. We'll know in a few hundred years, I guess.
Of course, it will probably mean that the light from Andromeda has been travelling for 2.5001 million years instead of just 2.5 million years.
...they were nucular
'tis but a scratch.