Well, they would have done that, but then they'd have had to get some of those lazy good-for-nothing professors to come down from their ivory towers to do the study.
professors complaining that their jobs are more stressful than others are doing so without any rational basis for comparison if their academic career didn't have any gaps while they did other jobs.
So, you think professors' parents name them "Doctor" when they're born?
Hey guyz guess what? I've worked *plenty* of 50-60 hour workweeks and holidays. Deadlines all over the place. Pressure to perform. Stress levels off the map, schedules, budgets, and meetings.
At a construction company. As a labor crew leader.
Note to professors: It's called "the real world", deal with it.
Note to you: anywhere where people live is the real world.
I've held a fairly wide variety of jobs in my life: Army infantryman, Air Force medic, civilian EMT, web developer, programmer, DBA, teaching assistant, research assistant, graduate research fellow. (Next, hopefully, comes the remainder of the academic track: postdoc, assistant professor, associate professor, professor... if I'm lucky, and I reach the endpoint before "corpse" appears on the list.) So far, my working life has been about equally divided between military, industry, and academia. You know what? None of these fields is any less "real" than any of the others. In every single one of them, I've had to deal with long hours, unreasonable demands, and the feeling that I'm never getting paid quite enough. You know, like damn near everyone else in the world. And paying attention to the way my advisor and other faculty members live, I don't expect this to change until (if) I retire.
We academics understand perfectly well that other people in the world have hard jobs too. All we ask is that other people recognize that our jobs are, first and foremost, jobs, like anyone else's. And if you're not willing to do that, then just take your "real world" self-righteousness and shove it up your ass.
Well, the degree to which a school is a "reach" school, to use GPP's terminology, is probably a pretty good measurement of that school's reputation. And to be sure, people who graduate from elite schools go on to do great things, out of proportion to their numbers--a degree from Stanford is no guarantee of greatness, just like a degree from Enormous State University is no guarantee of mediocrity, but there's a real correlation. So in crude terms, judging a school by its acceptance rate makes a certain amount of sense.
You might want to read some of the criticisms of the author of that article. His motives are deeply suspect, and there's so much literature on the subject that it's easy to cherry-pick. (Note to anyone dragging out the "ad hominem" card: this is entirely relevant to the subject at hand, and casts serious doubt on anything he has to say about the subject.) Here (PDF link) is a rebuttal to his primary claims--which, unlike the link you provided, actually goes into some detail about the methods of analysis.
It proves that the military believe this link exists.
Actually, it doesn't even prove that. It proves that the military believes the games are useful for training in some way--which might be making trainees more willing to kill, or it might be improving their reflexes or their tactical awareness, or it might just be as a morale-boosting tool for a generation of recruits who grew up playing the games. Personally, having served as both an infantryman and a medic, and having become very familiar in the latter capacity with what the consequences of real-world violence look like, I'm deeply skeptical that even the most realistic modern video games will do much to "desensitize" anyone to actual killing.
Brother. Nobody seems to think of them first when the "who do I buy a printer from?" question comes up, for some reason, but damn do they make good printers.
So why hire people in a 'Right to Work' State if they cannot leave 'at will'. HP certainly thinks that they can fire staff at will...
Because only the will of the nobility counts. The peasants are not supposed to have any will of their own, and must be punished harshly whenever they show signs of developing such a trait.
Honestly, I'm amazed that anyone is still even asking such a question.
Except in reality, it seems to have worked out in reverse: those "tiny tasty eggs" with their "obsolete silicon" turned out to be a lot smarter than the "shark in caviar" thought.
You had no point. Now you're making up justifications after the fact using excuses other people have handed you. Pathetic. Just take your lumps and move on.
In the late nineties or 2000 or so, a recent college grad knew about as much about Java as someone who had been programming in other languages for a decade or more.
The hypothetical Class of 1999 grad might as known as much as or more then about Java as the hypothetical 10-year programmer, but I guarantee you he didn't know as much about programming. The longer you spend in programming, especially if you work in a number of different langauages, the more you realize that familiarity with specific languages--or specific areas of application ("internet technologies," etc.) for that matter--is much, much less important than is familiarity with programming in general.
That "senior citizen" they hired instead of you? I guarantee you they made the right choice.
If they were to employ scientists not partially, but fully, in this issue, we would have it solved by now. The prblem is that the long term answers by scientists would reduce short term gains desired by business.
This.
I cringe every time I hear people accusing scientists of scaremongering for the money. The big money in all the controversial areas is on the anti-science side, without exception.
There are orders of magnitude of difference between the size of asteroid needed to contain industrially useful amounts of metal and the size needed to present a serious threat to Earth's biosphere. You can play around with the parameters to see what I mean.
...because we don't have enough iron on Earth already?
Compared to what we could get from mining (by whatever means) a few good-sized nickel-iron asteroids? No, we don't. Not nearly. The amounts and concentrations (the latter is maybe more important) of industrially useful metals floating around in the asteroid belt are just mind-boggling, and gaining access to those resources would be comparable to a second industrial revolution.
Well, one possible solution would be to send the asteroids to Earth, designate some uninhabited area as an impact zone, and drop the rocks there for traditional mining. We did something similar for nuclear tests for decades, after all (in fact the old nuclear test ranges might be an excellent choice, assuming the radioactivity's died down to safe levels in the meantime). I'd be willing to bet that now as then, the big flash-BANG would be quite a tourist attraction, with the bonus that the sightseers wouldn't be frying themselves as a side effect.
And you know, NASA doesn't have anyone who understands basic thermodynamics or orbital mechanics. [rolls eyes]
Other posters have already pointed out the specific problems with what you wrote, but what bugs me more about this post, and the thousands more like it, on just about any story dealing with any scientific topic, is the inherent assumption that some random dude on/. has seen an obvious logical hole that the people whose job it is to study the subject every day for years have missed, usually based on said random/.er's half-remembered high school "science class" or undergrad Physics 101 class. Now, this is certainly possible--in all fields, amateurs sometimes see things that the professionals miss--but it's really not the way to bet.
Try thinking before you post. Just give it a shot sometime. You might be surprised by the results.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, they would have done that, but then they'd have had to get some of those lazy good-for-nothing professors to come down from their ivory towers to do the study.
professors complaining that their jobs are more stressful than others are doing so without any rational basis for comparison if their academic career didn't have any gaps while they did other jobs.
So, you think professors' parents name them "Doctor" when they're born?
Hey guyz guess what? I've worked *plenty* of 50-60 hour workweeks and holidays. Deadlines all over the place. Pressure to perform. Stress levels off the map, schedules, budgets, and meetings.
At a construction company. As a labor crew leader.
Note to professors: It's called "the real world", deal with it.
Note to you: anywhere where people live is the real world.
I've held a fairly wide variety of jobs in my life: Army infantryman, Air Force medic, civilian EMT, web developer, programmer, DBA, teaching assistant, research assistant, graduate research fellow. (Next, hopefully, comes the remainder of the academic track: postdoc, assistant professor, associate professor, professor ... if I'm lucky, and I reach the endpoint before "corpse" appears on the list.) So far, my working life has been about equally divided between military, industry, and academia. You know what? None of these fields is any less "real" than any of the others. In every single one of them, I've had to deal with long hours, unreasonable demands, and the feeling that I'm never getting paid quite enough. You know, like damn near everyone else in the world. And paying attention to the way my advisor and other faculty members live, I don't expect this to change until (if) I retire.
We academics understand perfectly well that other people in the world have hard jobs too. All we ask is that other people recognize that our jobs are, first and foremost, jobs, like anyone else's. And if you're not willing to do that, then just take your "real world" self-righteousness and shove it up your ass.
There are a great many people in the Pentagon who seem to understand this principle with regards to everything except software. I don't get it either.
Well, the degree to which a school is a "reach" school, to use GPP's terminology, is probably a pretty good measurement of that school's reputation. And to be sure, people who graduate from elite schools go on to do great things, out of proportion to their numbers--a degree from Stanford is no guarantee of greatness, just like a degree from Enormous State University is no guarantee of mediocrity, but there's a real correlation. So in crude terms, judging a school by its acceptance rate makes a certain amount of sense.
You might want to read some of the criticisms of the author of that article. His motives are deeply suspect, and there's so much literature on the subject that it's easy to cherry-pick. (Note to anyone dragging out the "ad hominem" card: this is entirely relevant to the subject at hand, and casts serious doubt on anything he has to say about the subject.) Here (PDF link) is a rebuttal to his primary claims--which, unlike the link you provided, actually goes into some detail about the methods of analysis.
It proves that the military believe this link exists.
Actually, it doesn't even prove that. It proves that the military believes the games are useful for training in some way--which might be making trainees more willing to kill, or it might be improving their reflexes or their tactical awareness, or it might just be as a morale-boosting tool for a generation of recruits who grew up playing the games. Personally, having served as both an infantryman and a medic, and having become very familiar in the latter capacity with what the consequences of real-world violence look like, I'm deeply skeptical that even the most realistic modern video games will do much to "desensitize" anyone to actual killing.
Brother. Nobody seems to think of them first when the "who do I buy a printer from?" question comes up, for some reason, but damn do they make good printers.
So why hire people in a 'Right to Work' State if they cannot leave 'at will'. HP certainly thinks that they can fire staff at will...
Because only the will of the nobility counts. The peasants are not supposed to have any will of their own, and must be punished harshly whenever they show signs of developing such a trait.
Honestly, I'm amazed that anyone is still even asking such a question.
Except in reality, it seems to have worked out in reverse: those "tiny tasty eggs" with their "obsolete silicon" turned out to be a lot smarter than the "shark in caviar" thought.
My point was ...
You had no point. Now you're making up justifications after the fact using excuses other people have handed you. Pathetic. Just take your lumps and move on.
In the late nineties or 2000 or so, a recent college grad knew about as much about Java as someone who had been programming in other languages for a decade or more.
The hypothetical Class of 1999 grad might as known as much as or more then about Java as the hypothetical 10-year programmer, but I guarantee you he didn't know as much about programming. The longer you spend in programming, especially if you work in a number of different langauages, the more you realize that familiarity with specific languages--or specific areas of application ("internet technologies," etc.) for that matter--is much, much less important than is familiarity with programming in general.
That "senior citizen" they hired instead of you? I guarantee you they made the right choice.
I wrote SAS scripts to interface with the [Google Docs] API
"After which I stabbed myself repeatedly in the eyes with a fork because it felt positively wonderful by comparison."
I'm really puzzled as to how you managed to read my post and get the exact opposite of what I was saying out of it.
If they were to employ scientists not partially, but fully, in this issue, we would have it solved by now. The prblem is that the long term answers by scientists would reduce short term gains desired by business.
This.
I cringe every time I hear people accusing scientists of scaremongering for the money. The big money in all the controversial areas is on the anti-science side, without exception.
That was his point.
I'm pretty sure his point was to spew mindless prejudice, no more and no less.
Don't worry the ivy-league trained communists and 'social constructionists' behind idiocy like this will make exceptions for feminist 'empowerment.'
Dear God. You actually believe what you just wrote, don't you? I mean, this isn't a Poe. You actually meant every word of that. Wow.
To me it says overpriced, bug-ridden, hippie/hipster-fodder. Putting "Organic" on it ensures that I will not purchase it if there is another option.
So I've been meaning to ask, how's that whole "moron" thing working out for you?
Right. And what the hell does that have to do with your original complaint about anti-intellectualism?
I'm sure that in your mind, that's relevant to the main point, somehow.
Using social science and liberal arts as your examples of anti-intellectualism shows that you are, yourself, an anti-intellectual. Have fun with that.
There are orders of magnitude of difference between the size of asteroid needed to contain industrially useful amounts of metal and the size needed to present a serious threat to Earth's biosphere. You can play around with the parameters to see what I mean.
...because we don't have enough iron on Earth already?
Compared to what we could get from mining (by whatever means) a few good-sized nickel-iron asteroids? No, we don't. Not nearly. The amounts and concentrations (the latter is maybe more important) of industrially useful metals floating around in the asteroid belt are just mind-boggling, and gaining access to those resources would be comparable to a second industrial revolution.
Well, one possible solution would be to send the asteroids to Earth, designate some uninhabited area as an impact zone, and drop the rocks there for traditional mining. We did something similar for nuclear tests for decades, after all (in fact the old nuclear test ranges might be an excellent choice, assuming the radioactivity's died down to safe levels in the meantime). I'd be willing to bet that now as then, the big flash-BANG would be quite a tourist attraction, with the bonus that the sightseers wouldn't be frying themselves as a side effect.
And you know, NASA doesn't have anyone who understands basic thermodynamics or orbital mechanics. [rolls eyes]
Other posters have already pointed out the specific problems with what you wrote, but what bugs me more about this post, and the thousands more like it, on just about any story dealing with any scientific topic, is the inherent assumption that some random dude on /. has seen an obvious logical hole that the people whose job it is to study the subject every day for years have missed, usually based on said random /.er's half-remembered high school "science class" or undergrad Physics 101 class. Now, this is certainly possible--in all fields, amateurs sometimes see things that the professionals miss--but it's really not the way to bet.
Try thinking before you post. Just give it a shot sometime. You might be surprised by the results.