It is a fantastic idea but I just looked over the site and I see only biology/medicine related videos. No math/physics/chemistry/computation, etc. Is that deliberate or just a matter of time since it's so new?
You're assuming that intelligence == higher marks/grades. That's not always the case.
Wrong. I am not making that assumption. I simply stated our school's policy. It is the effects of that policy that I was VERY happy with because a lot (not all) the people who ended up as my classmates were EXTREMELY intelligent. Furthermore, they possessed a maturity that was not exhibited by students in the lowest classes. Make of that what you will.
better performing students either get pressurized to perform and in some cases break apart (you're an Indian, so I assume you've read of the growing number of student suicides due to seemingly low grades),
The suicides you refer to continue to rise in spite of the apparently enlightened changes made in the system. Surely, you haven't forgotten so much of your childhood as to assume that this sort of meritocracy was the only pressure a student had upon him/her? And it was hardly the most significant either. The suicides continue even in junior college (grades 11-12 for the Americans reading this) where no such system exists. That is simply the pressure inherent in competing in an overpopulated society where jobs are at a premium and grades are the only sensible measure people have found to work at that scale.
or they bask in the glory of being in a higher division and become full of themselves. Some even get scared of making mistakes/failing, hence making them overcautious (and hence, often underachieving) by nature.
Oh give me a break! What is it with this double standard? Jocks are allowed to bask in their physical abilities and triumphs but nerds can't feel good about being smart? As for the latter part of the quote above: that's a typical appeal to the self-esteem arguments that a country like India just can't afford. As such, please look at this objectively and try to avoid ascribing all the ills of academia to the single idea of a meritocracy.
Also, I knew many who were much smarter/intelligent than the top division and still were among lower divisions merely because they wouldn't/couldn't mug up answers for examinations.
Yes, I know the type and I sympathize with them. However, if they really were intelligent, they would have shown at least a semblance of pragmatism in deciding when to make their stand. I'm sure shooting themselves in the foot seemed very brave at the time but it was merely foolish and dramatic and a feel-good option. Futile rebellion. I learned to work within the system, beat it and eventually go beyond it. So did a lot of my classmates. Further, it was quite fashionable to puke the argument that you have above as an excuse for bad grades. I recall it being QUITE difficult to separate the true believers from the merely lazy. If you refuse to play the game, don't be surprised if you don't win.
Lastly, it doesn't really help the not-so-smart kids either because they find the company of fellow fuckups (as you described them) and it simply puts them one step away from any sort of reform.
Excellent point. Of course, that's a little strange coming from you because the higher division folks are arrogant bastards anyway and the lower division folks are basically decent (and I should be chastised for calling them fuckups. OH NOES:P). So, I fail to see the problem here. The not-so-smart kids are spending time with good decent kids who are NOT arrogant. Surely, you, with your equality mandate are not going to suggest that the people I call "fuckups" are in any way bad company for the not-so-smart kids eh? Plus, so what if they're not as smart? That's not really important according to you so why should it matter who they spend their time with? It seems to me that you're arguing against my definitions and yet agree with them on a subconscious level.
But, to address the issue you raised anyway, I simply had/have no d
hypothesis-formation itself in not an algorithmic, but a heuristic process.
Quite true. That is the intuitive process. I was talking about BELIEF. Saying that "I think this might be the way to proceed. I don't really know why - it just seems right. Let's see if it works." is FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT from saying "I believe this path to be true. It WILL get me to the answer. I will only accept evidence that shows it to be true because I believe in it".
The sort of belief (in lowercase, and it's still not the correct word to describe what you mean) that you are referring to in the process of hypothesis-formation entails considering and discarding SEVERAL, (sometimes only slightly differing) options because they don't make as much sense as they did upon initial thought. I lose track of the number of times I thought of an amazing route to solving a problem in my research when lying half-asleep, which upon reflection turned out to be of no value whatsoever. The first thing a scientist learns is NOT to fall in love with a particular theory but give it only as much respect as it deserves, based on the evidence at hand. Just as an example: that is why Richard Dawkins seems like such an abrasive personality to his religious readers. If creationists had been satisfied with believing what they do without wanting to force their views on the scientific community, "The God Delusion" would never have been written. That book was a prime example of what happens when a lovingly held belief is laid bare before the process of merciless scientific scrutiny. There is no malice in it. This is what we do. Theories are not supposed to have feelings that are hurt when we dismantle them. THIS is why people should not BELIEVE in theories.
Your post simply reinforces my conviction that scientists and science writers should avoid using the word "believe" when speaking of untested hypotheses because the word has more serious connotations for the public at large. When the public hears "believe", it denotes something that cannot be casually thrown away, which is simply not true about scientific hypotheses. A typical scientist will consider and discard thousands if not more competing hypotheses in his/her career with perhaps a slight twinge of pain when it happens to be a particularly beloved one.
Instead, (and I strongly advise all scientists reading this to consider doing this in your lectures) say "we have strong reasons to think that a particular theory is correct". In my opinion, and no doubt the opinion of most scientists, the word THINK is infinitely superior to the word BELIEVE anyway and the latter has an indelible aura of insufficient evidence floating around it.
Well now, I actually agree with the second amendment. The only problem is, when the NRA gets in bed with the administration because the Democrat bogeymen will take away their guns, it automatically means that gun-owners will never really USE this right in the way it was meant. The current administration has shown every intention of abridging EVERY right they can get their hands on. Except the gun clause. And that's good enough for the gunmen. Weird.
And once again, you completely miss the point. Let me say it very clearly so there's no mistake:
OF COURSE EVOLUTION IS NOT AN ULTIMATE THEORY. It is a work in progress. Science evolves in itself and changes over the years. The science of our ancestors was laughable compared to what we have today. That is why the pathological ancestral worship we see in religion is NOT the way to cause revolutions in understanding.
being opened minded, even if it *might* seem counter-intuitive or against what we've always thought/been taught, whatever, is actually preferable so that those "impossible" things don't go untested or un re-tested and unsubjected to scrutiny and research.
And of course, the people who support ID are the very same people who oppose progress in all its forms. Or have I missed something and the religious right is suddenly on the side of favoring stem cell research? That's rich: the scientific community toils for centuries to create a framework that explains a LOT (but of course not all - we're working on it;-)) of natural phenomena. NOt just that, the framework allows us to predict things with an accuracy so breathtaking that the least skilled scientist today would have been burned at the the stake as a warlock just a hundred years ago:P. And now, the very same cretins that have been steadfastly fighting a losing battle all these years decides to change tactics and join the science club:P. Only, because of eons of atrophy, the only thing they are capable of creating is a cargo cult; ID - useless, disjointed, disingenuous and ultimately doomed to failure NOT because it is revolutionary but because IT IS old, expired, obsolete and repackaged clumsily in its garish and vulgar wrapping. The desire to retch is strong at this point but I'll keep going:P.
Further, people make a huge fuss about some crank (who might have the right idea, who knows?) being ridiculed for his opinions. They attribute this to some vast conspiracy of evolutionary biologists who wish to hold on to the status quo and.... what? Live their lives in the grand manner that they are accustomed to?:P
Let me tell you how revolutions take place: VERY RELUCTANTLY. A new theory is subjected to a merciless attack which it MUST survive. No one is going to take a new idea seriously if it doesn't provide any advantage or any new understanding in the subject. It is in that sense that ID fails miserably. For all its grand institutions like the unspeakable ICR or the ridiculous mickey mouse "museum" in that hick state whose name escapes me right now, ID can be stated simply as "SOMEONE MADE IT ALL". It has nothing more to offer, no more information to give, no more leaps in understanding.
Above all, it is another one of those juvenile retreats to "daddy knows best" that we have come to expect from the fundamentalist crowd. Mainstream Christianity (the Catholic church is a good example of scientifically enlightened religious authority... well, in some respects at least) has realized where ITS scope ends.
In conclusion, ID is great for pointing out the problems in evolutionary theory. Evolutionary biologists should embrace this group of thinkers for what they can offer because it can only lead to perfecting evolutionary theory by subjecting it to more and more tests. What ID does NOT do is justify in ANY rational way - ID.
So, PLEASE don't even think of spinning your conspiracy theories out of the HIGHLY OBVIOUS fact that yeah: "Scientists quarrel amongst each other". Big whoop. Surprise of the century.:P
You make some good points about String theory and yes, it has been labeled pseudoscience by some. That is a result more of frustration than anything else. The thing is, String theory actually does make predictions, they just happen to be in a regime that is not currently testable. Ag
Belief is a useless term in science. It is sufficient to state whether a theory has merit and accurately describes what it sets out to describe. Anything beyond that is unscientific drivel and unworthy of discussion in this context.
Accordingly, evolution (as it stands today) has considerable merit and quite a bit of explanatory power. Intelligent design has no substance to even consider for this question. As a result, the famous words of physicist Wolfgang Pauli (uttered for other crackpot fantasies of his time) are most appropriate when judging ID or Creationism - "it is not even wrong".
To address the subject of this thread - "Do you believe in evolution" is hardly a useful question to ask anyone because both affirmative and negative answers signify ignorance of subtly different kinds. The answer that science would put forth is that a scientific theory does not require your belief for it to be correct. Bernoulli's principle works every time an airplane flies. You do not need to believe in it for it to work. THAT is the reason why science has come to dominate the way we think today - it works.
This semantic trap is also the reason why scientific issues cannot be constructively debated in a public forum. It is not simply a lack of detailed knowledge on the part of the public at large that messes things up. On the contrary, a well-informed public can be quite knowledgeable about certain things. The idea of using tools that WORK is something the layperson tends to forget and instead ends up espousing his/her pet cause, regardless of the details. Thus we have a rabid eco-terrorist movement, stemming from an activism based largely on ignorance. Further, we have the abortion debate, where the arguments have left the realms of legitimate scientific inquiry and degenerated into opinion polls.
Science philosophers, in my opinion, are responsible by way of shirking their duty of informing the public about the paradigms of evolving theories and definitions of truth insofar as it pertains to natural law.
anyone know if they've ever tried splitting the smarter/average/dumb kids up into their own classes permanently from 5th or so through 12th, as in they hardly ever see the other groups anymore except between classes and at lunch?
Yes. I went to school (through high school) in India and I was lucky enough to be in such a system as you describe. That is one reason why the whole idea of "jocks" and "geeks" and "nerds" was so alien to me until I came to the US. In my day, the person we strived to compete with and get ahead of was the super-geek-jock:P - the guy/gal who did everything right. Kinda nice when you think about it. That gave me an edge that I have never regretted. My 3.5 years of college in the US (and I say this in a good way) were the most relaxing in my life, even with a physics major and I ended up learning a LOT of other stuff as well (I love liberal arts schools:D).
To give you an idea of what the system was:
Starting with the 3rd grade, the entire school (10 classes per grade level with about 50 students each = A CR**load of students:P), was put into the running. Classes were named from A through J and your initial class was determined by a criterion that no one seemed to know:P. However, after that, it was all merit-based. Your class (A - J) in the next grade was determined by how well you did in the current grade (exams, etc.) Upward mobility was the key and with it came the chance to be with the smart kids and learn from them. Oh it was farking beautiful:D. And it didn't really hurt anyone either - if you wanted to be a fuckup, you had full freedom to do so, without bothering the sincere kids and as a bonus you got to hang out with other fuckups like yourself:D. Win-win! Everyone's happy.
Of course, it couldn't last. The parents whose kids were in the loser classes saw this as a social stigma (albeit well-deserved). I heard that they discontinued this practice a few years ago so my hometown in India should be reaching full mediocrity right about now:P.
Wish I had mod points left. Parent is a troll? WTH??? For pointing out the obvious that TFA failed to realize? Let me add another to his/her list:
"showing unusual interest in information outside the job scope": otherwise known in popular culture as "thinking outside the box" and "researching unusual solutions to problems".:P
Also, "keeping unusual hours" is what distinguishes university folk from common people who do grunt work - the nine-to-fivers. I guess the FBI itself should be put under surveillance if their members suddenly start showing NON-zombie-like behavior.
I agree that special precautions should be taken when considering a National Lab associated with a university, but the University itself will be a source of several thousand false positives if these are the (rather pathetic) indicators they can come up with.
Good reply. Tenure reform seems to make sense based on what I read above. But not tenure abolition. Perhaps something like a peer-reviewed performance evaluation, whose results could be used to revoke tenure (in addition to the usual rules like - don't snog a student:P)? What I am REALLY afraid of is academia turning into a microcosm of industry when each have their uses and each must exist, independently to some extent. The potential for short-sightedness is just too dangerous.
I do take your point about young researchers not being allowed to take risks. That, fortunately, is a problem that can be solved at the department level since the hiring committee, comprised of professors, can easily reward a young non-tenured researcher who dares to take (well-thought out) risks. At the moment, there is really nothing to stop people from doing just that. In fact, I would say that departments have started to do just that, with the recent hiring boom in String Theory. Talk about risk!:D (No, I'm not a theorist:P).
Also, I must admit that I have NOT thought that far ahead - marriage, family, etc. The two-body problem may be soluble, with the right super-partner, but you do know that no one has yet solved the three-body problem?:D But seriously, you make some excellent points in that regard. For a single guy, a GSR's salary (for me at least) is like living in the lap of luxury (no jokes). Of course, this will change at some point. It is ironic that one's wants increase with increasing salary:P.
I certain that we're at the same school, same department. Small world! Good ol' Anne:D. What would we do without her?
Hmm, abolishing tenure is an incorrect solution, much like abolishing copyright in the rants we hear on/. every once in a while. I am a physics graduate student and I do agree that the tenure system can be much abused. Speaking for my field, and my field ONLY, I have grave doubts that it IS being abused.
Shoring up salaries to match industry and removing job security is IMO not a viable solution in this case. For one thing, a physicist (I would say a scientist in general, but I have no personal knowledge of that) works for lower pay even as a postdoc or non-tenured researcher because he/she actually enjoys his/her work and going further, would consider doing it on their own time. I am not spouting fairy tales here, few people get into academia because of the lucrative nature of the realm:P. One may sneer at tenured professors but the fact is that they've had to work their arse off for said position.
Now, HOW exactly are we going to establish that the professors are not "making much of a contribution"? True breakthroughs in physics are not a dime a dozen. Sometimes it takes years of painstaking work as parent no doubt knows of his/her own experience. In that case, the decision to terminate a professor (in the absence of tenure) would go to an established committee of bureaucrats, who would base the decision on some standard metric. Enter - THE IMPACT FACTOR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_factor) - one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard of.
Here's the consequences:
1)LESSER risk-taking. Bet on a surety. If you fail, you could lose your job. Physics will largely look like biology in the 18th century - catalog the properties of materials. Oh joy, the rule of the mediocre. Do you really want the state of physics research to parallel that of the media?
A concrete example: my grad adviser takes on the most outlandish (read: bold and fascinating) projects now that he's established tenure and respect in his profession. You can't do that in your youth and still earn enough to eat:P.
2)Good research will be confined to industry. Why? Well, that's where the smartest people will be. The idea of competition rarely arises in basic research in anything but a secondary role. The whole premise of industrial research is competition in a narrow regime. That is why Bell Labs did not survive. The amazing environment it sported and the fascinating array of physicists who broke new ground at that august institution would be suicide in the democratic, committee-based corporations of today. The only research that would survive is short-term research.
It is fashionable to blame tenured professors for not pulling their share of the work. The fact is, they are often an enormous source of ideas. Also, contrary to stereotypical representations of scientists (which might be accurate for some fields in the humanities), older physicists (at least the several that I have met) tend to be rather bold in their outlook, because they really have little to lose - they've made their mark. Do you honestly want to retire them? Far better to simply ask them (command if need be) to teach and pass on their substantial wealth of knowledge to the next generation.
I am given to understand that a tenured professor in his late fifties would get MORE in the way of pension at a large public university than he earns from the university as a salary (I'm not making this up!). Do people ever stop to consider why these venerated folk still prefer the university to retirement when recent surveys have shown that the average American would like to retire by some ridiculously early age (40-something I think? Dunno, I'm bad with numbers:P, gimme symbols any day)?
This is a rather long diatribe on my part, but it saddens me when a simplistic statement is thrown out as a solution to what is a complex problem, with caus
Altruism, the experiment suggested, was not a superior moral faculty that suppresses basic selfish urges but rather was basic to the brain, hard-wired and pleasurable. The circle-jerk and the love fest...:P
FFS! When will people stop using verbs like "believe" when applied to scientific issues? A testable hypothesis has nothing to do with belief.
Do the friggin study:
1)Get a few dozen lab rats (baby rats if you RTFA and are still worried),
2)Put them near a wi-fi base station for a few months
3)Dissect and observe if tumors have formed
4)Repeat as necessary, with other organisms if you wish (perhaps the uninformed media wh**es?)
Now tell me: where in that list is there ANY room for a bunch of moronic talking heads on an alarmist docudrama to offer their OPINION? Farking incompetent buncha loonies! Bah...
Rants aside, people really need to grow up and get over this knee-jerk reaction they have with "radiation". In case it hasn't been said already, EVERYTHING emits radiation. Fancy names like gamma rays, xrays, alpha, beta, etc etc (ad nauseum) are just names that were given to things BEFORE we figured out the physical principles that governed them. Someone needs to construct an equivalent of the dihydrogen-monoxide parody for radiation methinks:P.
Anyway, I found a very nice website for laypeople that explains the behavior of water exposed to different parts of the EM spectrum (water is a good prototypical substance as it is so ubiquitous in our body): http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/vibrat.html.
A special focus on the microwave region (1mm to 30cm wavelengths) can also be linked from that page. A few seconds of Googling found the following articles:
"When we have conducted measurements in schools, typical exposures from wi-fi are around 20 millionths of the international guideline levels of exposure to radiation. As a comparison, a child on a mobile phone receives up to 50 per cent of guideline levels. So a year sitting in a classroom near a wireless network is roughly equivalent to 20 minutes on a mobile. If wi-fi should be taken out of schools, then the mobile phone network should be shut down, too -- and FM radio and TV, as the strength of their signals is similar to that from wi-fi in classrooms."
A new Danish study tracked 420,095 people who've been using mobile phones for up to two decades or more, and found absolutely no evidence of a substantial cancer risk. The study is the largest yet disproving any cancer link, but the debate over the topic is like a b-horror film villain, who just keeps popping up after you're sure the last blow killed him. Science means little to the significant number of people who have made cancer via wireless their personal techno-bogeyman, so no study in the world is likely to change their minds and put this debate in the morgue.
Especially note the lines I have highlighted in bold.
these people aren't digging that far into their systems. Hmm, perhaps they are, oh I don't know, busy folks who have barely enough time to USE their machines towards the purpose for which they bought it:P?
[sarcasm]
You know what? I'm a physicist, and I am seriously offended at people who show no curiosity whatsoever about the quantum mechanical theory of the semiconductor (which after all, is the basis of the whole shebang) when they use their computers every day.
[/sarcasm] Oh wait, that's rather stupid isn't it?
I have just as much contempt for this flavor of arrogance as I do for the macho idiots who sneer at you if you get an oil change at a shop rather than do it yourself:P.
[offtopic rant]
I have used the Linux commandline in numerous stages of my life (as also DOS and even VMS) and I wasn't impressed. Memorizing arcane commands to do simple things (vi as a text editor is an extreme example of its absurdity) is on par with memorizing Clebsch-Gordon coefficients:P. Above all, why it's become fashionable to run these tasks in your own personal RAM (*points to brain*) when the mindless computing machine in front of you can handle them quite easily is a mystery to me. It's all so...twentieth century... that I'm amazed that people actually consider that "advanced". I would rather have the workstation do the things it's supposed to do behind the scenes and spare me the irrelevant details so I can actually focus on the task at hand.
The last thing we need right now is old farts like Pat Robertson (and pretty much the entire religious right (globally, not just the US) whose mean age must be 150:P) continuing to f*** up civilisation. It's a good thing their lifetimes are limited. Since earthly justice has never existed, perhaps the last great equalizer is the only thing saving our colective butts.
[/sarcasm]
As Captain Duv Galeni says in "Brothers in Arms" (Lois McMaster Bujold):
How fortunate that science hasn't cracked human immortality. It's a great blessing that we can outlive old wars. And old warriors.
I agree fiannaFailMan. Some people need to live out their entire lives in a padded room seeing how any kind of risk seems to get them in a tizzy.
Finally, a country has the BALLS to do something novel in the public transport arena. Wish we had more people in the world like the Japanese who've actually gotten over themselves and are quietly progressing without any fuss.
"pressure to 'open markets'" comes from multinationals looking to screw americans just as bad That's hardly a profound truth. My point is that the labor force (of any country) doesn't seem to mind expanding markets via multinationals when they are the ones who gain from it (due to increasing jobs in the parent country). THAT was the point I was trying to make with the India example. The irony was simply a bonus.
Also, considering the selective vision of \. (or/.:P) users, I'm not surprised that you missed my comment that it IS a problem and the solution is economic/political. It is NOT a moral problem and pseudo-patriotic Union horseshit like "buying American" is NOT going to solve it, simply because people aren't stupid when it comes to shopping around - as the whole Ford/GM vs. Toyota debacle shows.
Also, I notice that the tired old cliche that "the american government has not worked at the behest of the people in almost 40 years" has arisen again. I am well aware of that fact and perhaps when you can change that, things might actually change. And before the flood of "BBbut the US is the strongest democracy in the world today" posts begin, I can assure you that I am on board with that:P.
hell, microsoft recently built r&d labs offshore. Hmm, I guess I could always emigrate to those countries and live that lifestyle. Wouldn't kill me:P. If it's worked for the Indians who emigrate here, perhaps the reverse can hold true.
mean time we will continue to make cracks at the expense of people pillaging our lifestyle wholesale, both the corporates and the indians, and racism has nothing to do with it. You absolutely have a right to do so. And no "PC" should stop you. I just wanted you to know that after a point those kind of jokes just make you look like a whining tool:P. It IS racism when an entire nation is ridiculed (and incompetently too:P, at least improve the quality of your jokes) for the actions of what is a tiny minority of its workers (who are hardly in a position to demand more wages or benefits). Meanwhile, I will say (using the same non-PC right) that this kind of economic dislocation happens every time a non-competitive and complacent labor force runs up against the tough reality of choosing between a lifestyle that has gotten increasingly bloated and having to keep your job.
The worst act of the labor Unions that just turned around my view of them as a positive force in the corporate structure was when they started spewing all that moral outrage over the sweatshops as if they really gave a shit about the oppressed workers. If they can stoop so low and hijack a genuine human rights problem for the LESSER purpose of saving their workers' jobs, I can't imagine what else they're capable of.
In passing, a tidbit that will give you vicarious thrill no doubt (or at least a dubious pleasure:P): Labor force complacence is a generic problem that eventually afflicts ALL markets. As a result, (and as is already the case), the lowest tier jobs are already being further outsourced away from India. It won't be long before Indians are making the same tired old jokes about Bangladeshis or some other small country on the subcontinent. Also, the IT boom in India has led to massive inflation as the newly emancipated upper middle class throws money around like confetti.
Coming back to the thing that started all this, do I think that racism in jokes is a sufficient reason to dub them unfunny? Not at all. Lack of intelligence and creativity in humor IS. And if nothing else, the moderators' assignment of "funny" points to these hoary old cliches that I have seen on/. (or is it \. ?) for the past YEAR simply speaks of the frustrations (probably legitimate) of the IT community here. Sorta like a bunch of schoolgirls.
If by competitive you mean undercutting first world by living in "developing" conditions, settling for income which wouldn't qualify to pay for a refrigerator box in the middle of highway 1 let alone raise a family, then yeah.. it's competitive.
so lets see here.. youre really sensitive to racism but youre perfectly ok with the dispossession of the middle class of an entire nation for the sake of another which should be building its own middle class without draining the wealth of another... im confused as to what political affiliation youre supposed to have. Yes. They should just refuse these jobs and insist that the American middle class be given a fair break first. That's a yuppie wet dream that obviously doesn't stand up under turnabout.
The income from these jobs is sufficient for a middle class family in India to live quite well, if not in the lap of luxury. Of course, they probably won't be able to afford a big house with a lawn, annual vacations, flying everywhere and maintaining their children in the extravagant lifestyle that American kids are accustomed to. Oh wait, that's not a "living on highway 1" lifestyle, that's a non-idiotic lifestyle. When the American middle class learns how to live within their means, perhaps they will realize just how the American worker has priced himself/herself out of the global workforce.
Also, if you claim to be living in a democracy, perhaps you'll explain why the Government has done absolutely nothing about a problem that allegedly undercuts the majority of the American population.
By the way, the most wicked irony of all this is that the US pressured India a few decades ago to open up its market and when the (then socialist) Indian Govt. resisted this in order to protect the Indian manufacturing sector, India was reviled as anti-capitalist by the same class of people who today have their bile up in self-righteous fury over the sheer moral OUTRAGE of it all! Well, India finally bowed to the will of the US and voila, it actually did them good and the people who could dish it out in those days obviously can't take it now. Labor unions especially seem to have a short memory in this respect:P.
Sure you're entitled to feel angry about it all. Who wouldn't? Just don't degrade yourselves by calling this a moral problem. It's straight up economics and it ain't gonna be solved by sappy platitudes. When you take a moral stand that you won't work for a company for less than a certain amount, that's very heroic. Just don't complain if that job goes overseas and your moral outrage goes unnoticed.
I should mention in passing that I am NOT an IT person and don't have an iota of personal stake in the whole issue. I do feel the racism thing is a valid point as NO ONE and I mean NO ONE in the US could get away with racially mocking African Americans over, say the Affirmative action issue. Try some jokes about athletic scholarships and see how fast you get IMUS-ed:P. The simple fact is that the racist Indian jokes exist here and elsewhere because you can get away with them. Hell, I find them just as amusing as any American because there's nothing more foolish than underestimating an entire nation by stereotyping them as is usually done. They're the ones laughing all the way to the bank:P.
Wait until the next big thing in the office market comes along, and soon we'll all be talking about how we can't live without the feature(s). You miss my point. I'm sure there are hitherto undiscovered features in a wordprocessor that will make life easier for us. I'm just saying it's not a glamorous field of innovation. Sorta like the difference (in physics) between working on high temperature superconductivity versus inventing new plastics.
Also, there is a hidden assumption with people today that every field necessarily always has something new to discover. That is just wishful thinking. Fields do die out in terms of innovation and are superseded by other realms of enquiry. What works for science works for the IT world as well. To my mind, the field of wordprocessors has become sterile in terms of innovation. Sure you can add bells and whistles and html editors and whatever. However, that is hardly a wordprocessor feature. Sometimes, things really are simple and you can indeed predict the final set of core features that you will be left with in a piece of software.
What exactly do Google employees do all day? Count money, play pool, and ride Segways? They don't hire the best graduates to do trivial things like make office suites:P. There are programmer drones to do that kinda stuff. Besides, the concept is so old now that the last ounce of novelty has been squeezed out of it. It would be like hiring a Beethoven to write elevator muzak:D.
Slashdot Mirror
It is a fantastic idea but I just looked over the site and I see only biology/medicine related videos. No math/physics/chemistry/computation, etc. Is that deliberate or just a matter of time since it's so new?
You're assuming that intelligence == higher marks/grades. That's not always the case.
Wrong. I am not making that assumption. I simply stated our school's policy. It is the effects of that policy that I was VERY happy with because a lot (not all) the people who ended up as my classmates were EXTREMELY intelligent. Furthermore, they possessed a maturity that was not exhibited by students in the lowest classes. Make of that what you will.
better performing students either get pressurized to perform and in some cases break apart (you're an Indian, so I assume you've read of the growing number of student suicides due to seemingly low grades),
The suicides you refer to continue to rise in spite of the apparently enlightened changes made in the system. Surely, you haven't forgotten so much of your childhood as to assume that this sort of meritocracy was the only pressure a student had upon him/her? And it was hardly the most significant either. The suicides continue even in junior college (grades 11-12 for the Americans reading this) where no such system exists. That is simply the pressure inherent in competing in an overpopulated society where jobs are at a premium and grades are the only sensible measure people have found to work at that scale.
or they bask in the glory of being in a higher division and become full of themselves. Some even get scared of making mistakes/failing, hence making them overcautious (and hence, often underachieving) by nature.
Oh give me a break! What is it with this double standard? Jocks are allowed to bask in their physical abilities and triumphs but nerds can't feel good about being smart? As for the latter part of the quote above: that's a typical appeal to the self-esteem arguments that a country like India just can't afford. As such, please look at this objectively and try to avoid ascribing all the ills of academia to the single idea of a meritocracy.
Also, I knew many who were much smarter/intelligent than the top division and still were among lower divisions merely because they wouldn't/couldn't mug up answers for examinations.
Yes, I know the type and I sympathize with them. However, if they really were intelligent, they would have shown at least a semblance of pragmatism in deciding when to make their stand. I'm sure shooting themselves in the foot seemed very brave at the time but it was merely foolish and dramatic and a feel-good option. Futile rebellion. I learned to work within the system, beat it and eventually go beyond it. So did a lot of my classmates. Further, it was quite fashionable to puke the argument that you have above as an excuse for bad grades. I recall it being QUITE difficult to separate the true believers from the merely lazy. If you refuse to play the game, don't be surprised if you don't win.
Lastly, it doesn't really help the not-so-smart kids either because they find the company of fellow fuckups (as you described them) and it simply puts them one step away from any sort of reform.
Excellent point. Of course, that's a little strange coming from you because the higher division folks are arrogant bastards anyway and the lower division folks are basically decent (and I should be chastised for calling them fuckups. OH NOES :P). So, I fail to see the problem here. The not-so-smart kids are spending time with good decent kids who are NOT arrogant. Surely, you, with your equality mandate are not going to suggest that the people I call "fuckups" are in any way bad company for the not-so-smart kids eh? Plus, so what if they're not as smart? That's not really important according to you so why should it matter who they spend their time with? It seems to me that you're arguing against my definitions and yet agree with them on a subconscious level.
But, to address the issue you raised anyway, I simply had/have no d
Quite true. That is the intuitive process. I was talking about BELIEF. Saying that "I think this might be the way to proceed. I don't really know why - it just seems right. Let's see if it works." is FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT from saying "I believe this path to be true. It WILL get me to the answer. I will only accept evidence that shows it to be true because I believe in it".
The sort of belief (in lowercase, and it's still not the correct word to describe what you mean) that you are referring to in the process of hypothesis-formation entails considering and discarding SEVERAL, (sometimes only slightly differing) options because they don't make as much sense as they did upon initial thought. I lose track of the number of times I thought of an amazing route to solving a problem in my research when lying half-asleep, which upon reflection turned out to be of no value whatsoever. The first thing a scientist learns is NOT to fall in love with a particular theory but give it only as much respect as it deserves, based on the evidence at hand. Just as an example: that is why Richard Dawkins seems like such an abrasive personality to his religious readers. If creationists had been satisfied with believing what they do without wanting to force their views on the scientific community, "The God Delusion" would never have been written. That book was a prime example of what happens when a lovingly held belief is laid bare before the process of merciless scientific scrutiny. There is no malice in it. This is what we do. Theories are not supposed to have feelings that are hurt when we dismantle them. THIS is why people should not BELIEVE in theories.
Your post simply reinforces my conviction that scientists and science writers should avoid using the word "believe" when speaking of untested hypotheses because the word has more serious connotations for the public at large. When the public hears "believe", it denotes something that cannot be casually thrown away, which is simply not true about scientific hypotheses. A typical scientist will consider and discard thousands if not more competing hypotheses in his/her career with perhaps a slight twinge of pain when it happens to be a particularly beloved one.
Instead, (and I strongly advise all scientists reading this to consider doing this in your lectures) say "we have strong reasons to think that a particular theory is correct". In my opinion, and no doubt the opinion of most scientists, the word THINK is infinitely superior to the word BELIEVE anyway and the latter has an indelible aura of insufficient evidence floating around it.
Well now, I actually agree with the second amendment. The only problem is, when the NRA gets in bed with the administration because the Democrat bogeymen will take away their guns, it automatically means that gun-owners will never really USE this right in the way it was meant. The current administration has shown every intention of abridging EVERY right they can get their hands on. Except the gun clause. And that's good enough for the gunmen. Weird.
OF COURSE EVOLUTION IS NOT AN ULTIMATE THEORY. It is a work in progress. Science evolves in itself and changes over the years. The science of our ancestors was laughable compared to what we have today. That is why the pathological ancestral worship we see in religion is NOT the way to cause revolutions in understanding.
being opened minded, even if it *might* seem counter-intuitive or against what we've always thought/been taught, whatever, is actually preferable so that those "impossible" things don't go untested or un re-tested and unsubjected to scrutiny and research.
And of course, the people who support ID are the very same people who oppose progress in all its forms. Or have I missed something and the religious right is suddenly on the side of favoring stem cell research? That's rich: the scientific community toils for centuries to create a framework that explains a LOT (but of course not all - we're working on it ;-)) of natural phenomena. NOt just that, the framework allows us to predict things with an accuracy so breathtaking that the least skilled scientist today would have been burned at the the stake as a warlock just a hundred years ago :P. And now, the very same cretins that have been steadfastly fighting a losing battle all these years decides to change tactics and join the science club :P. Only, because of eons of atrophy, the only thing they are capable of creating is a cargo cult; ID - useless, disjointed, disingenuous and ultimately doomed to failure NOT because it is revolutionary but because IT IS old, expired, obsolete and repackaged clumsily in its garish and vulgar wrapping. The desire to retch is strong at this point but I'll keep going :P.
Further, people make a huge fuss about some crank (who might have the right idea, who knows?) being ridiculed for his opinions. They attribute this to some vast conspiracy of evolutionary biologists who wish to hold on to the status quo and .... what? Live their lives in the grand manner that they are accustomed to? :P
Let me tell you how revolutions take place: VERY RELUCTANTLY. A new theory is subjected to a merciless attack which it MUST survive. No one is going to take a new idea seriously if it doesn't provide any advantage or any new understanding in the subject. It is in that sense that ID fails miserably. For all its grand institutions like the unspeakable ICR or the ridiculous mickey mouse "museum" in that hick state whose name escapes me right now, ID can be stated simply as "SOMEONE MADE IT ALL". It has nothing more to offer, no more information to give, no more leaps in understanding.
Above all, it is another one of those juvenile retreats to "daddy knows best" that we have come to expect from the fundamentalist crowd. Mainstream Christianity (the Catholic church is a good example of scientifically enlightened religious authority ... well, in some respects at least) has realized where ITS scope ends.
In conclusion, ID is great for pointing out the problems in evolutionary theory. Evolutionary biologists should embrace this group of thinkers for what they can offer because it can only lead to perfecting evolutionary theory by subjecting it to more and more tests. What ID does NOT do is justify in ANY rational way - ID.
So, PLEASE don't even think of spinning your conspiracy theories out of the HIGHLY OBVIOUS fact that yeah: "Scientists quarrel amongst each other". Big whoop. Surprise of the century. :P
You make some good points about String theory and yes, it has been labeled pseudoscience by some. That is a result more of frustration than anything else. The thing is, String theory actually does make predictions, they just happen to be in a regime that is not currently testable. Ag
Accordingly, evolution (as it stands today) has considerable merit and quite a bit of explanatory power. Intelligent design has no substance to even consider for this question. As a result, the famous words of physicist Wolfgang Pauli (uttered for other crackpot fantasies of his time) are most appropriate when judging ID or Creationism - "it is not even wrong".
To address the subject of this thread - "Do you believe in evolution" is hardly a useful question to ask anyone because both affirmative and negative answers signify ignorance of subtly different kinds. The answer that science would put forth is that a scientific theory does not require your belief for it to be correct. Bernoulli's principle works every time an airplane flies. You do not need to believe in it for it to work. THAT is the reason why science has come to dominate the way we think today - it works.
This semantic trap is also the reason why scientific issues cannot be constructively debated in a public forum. It is not simply a lack of detailed knowledge on the part of the public at large that messes things up. On the contrary, a well-informed public can be quite knowledgeable about certain things. The idea of using tools that WORK is something the layperson tends to forget and instead ends up espousing his/her pet cause, regardless of the details. Thus we have a rabid eco-terrorist movement, stemming from an activism based largely on ignorance. Further, we have the abortion debate, where the arguments have left the realms of legitimate scientific inquiry and degenerated into opinion polls.
Science philosophers, in my opinion, are responsible by way of shirking their duty of informing the public about the paradigms of evolving theories and definitions of truth insofar as it pertains to natural law.
Memory eraser??? ---> http://www.std.com/~mica/mib.jpg
Yes. I went to school (through high school) in India and I was lucky enough to be in such a system as you describe. That is one reason why the whole idea of "jocks" and "geeks" and "nerds" was so alien to me until I came to the US. In my day, the person we strived to compete with and get ahead of was the super-geek-jock :P - the guy/gal who did everything right. Kinda nice when you think about it. That gave me an edge that I have never regretted. My 3.5 years of college in the US (and I say this in a good way) were the most relaxing in my life, even with a physics major and I ended up learning a LOT of other stuff as well (I love liberal arts schools :D).
To give you an idea of what the system was:
Starting with the 3rd grade, the entire school (10 classes per grade level with about 50 students each = A CR**load of students :P), was put into the running. Classes were named from A through J and your initial class was determined by a criterion that no one seemed to know :P. However, after that, it was all merit-based. Your class (A - J) in the next grade was determined by how well you did in the current grade (exams, etc.) Upward mobility was the key and with it came the chance to be with the smart kids and learn from them. Oh it was farking beautiful :D. And it didn't really hurt anyone either - if you wanted to be a fuckup, you had full freedom to do so, without bothering the sincere kids and as a bonus you got to hang out with other fuckups like yourself :D. Win-win! Everyone's happy.
Of course, it couldn't last. The parents whose kids were in the loser classes saw this as a social stigma (albeit well-deserved). I heard that they discontinued this practice a few years ago so my hometown in India should be reaching full mediocrity right about now :P.
"showing unusual interest in information outside the job scope": otherwise known in popular culture as "thinking outside the box" and "researching unusual solutions to problems". :P
Also, "keeping unusual hours" is what distinguishes university folk from common people who do grunt work - the nine-to-fivers. I guess the FBI itself should be put under surveillance if their members suddenly start showing NON-zombie-like behavior.
I agree that special precautions should be taken when considering a National Lab associated with a university, but the University itself will be a source of several thousand false positives if these are the (rather pathetic) indicators they can come up with.
I do take your point about young researchers not being allowed to take risks. That, fortunately, is a problem that can be solved at the department level since the hiring committee, comprised of professors, can easily reward a young non-tenured researcher who dares to take (well-thought out) risks. At the moment, there is really nothing to stop people from doing just that. In fact, I would say that departments have started to do just that, with the recent hiring boom in String Theory. Talk about risk! :D (No, I'm not a theorist :P).
Also, I must admit that I have NOT thought that far ahead - marriage, family, etc. The two-body problem may be soluble, with the right super-partner, but you do know that no one has yet solved the three-body problem? :D But seriously, you make some excellent points in that regard. For a single guy, a GSR's salary (for me at least) is like living in the lap of luxury (no jokes). Of course, this will change at some point. It is ironic that one's wants increase with increasing salary :P.
I certain that we're at the same school, same department. Small world! Good ol' Anne :D. What would we do without her?
Shoring up salaries to match industry and removing job security is IMO not a viable solution in this case. For one thing, a physicist (I would say a scientist in general, but I have no personal knowledge of that) works for lower pay even as a postdoc or non-tenured researcher because he/she actually enjoys his/her work and going further, would consider doing it on their own time. I am not spouting fairy tales here, few people get into academia because of the lucrative nature of the realm :P. One may sneer at tenured professors but the fact is that they've had to work their arse off for said position.
Now, HOW exactly are we going to establish that the professors are not "making much of a contribution"? True breakthroughs in physics are not a dime a dozen. Sometimes it takes years of painstaking work as parent no doubt knows of his/her own experience. In that case, the decision to terminate a professor (in the absence of tenure) would go to an established committee of bureaucrats, who would base the decision on some standard metric. Enter - THE IMPACT FACTOR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_factor) - one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard of.
Here's the consequences:
1)LESSER risk-taking. Bet on a surety. If you fail, you could lose your job. Physics will largely look like biology in the 18th century - catalog the properties of materials. Oh joy, the rule of the mediocre. Do you really want the state of physics research to parallel that of the media?
A concrete example: my grad adviser takes on the most outlandish (read: bold and fascinating) projects now that he's established tenure and respect in his profession. You can't do that in your youth and still earn enough to eat :P.
2)Good research will be confined to industry. Why? Well, that's where the smartest people will be. The idea of competition rarely arises in basic research in anything but a secondary role. The whole premise of industrial research is competition in a narrow regime. That is why Bell Labs did not survive. The amazing environment it sported and the fascinating array of physicists who broke new ground at that august institution would be suicide in the democratic, committee-based corporations of today. The only research that would survive is short-term research.
It is fashionable to blame tenured professors for not pulling their share of the work. The fact is, they are often an enormous source of ideas. Also, contrary to stereotypical representations of scientists (which might be accurate for some fields in the humanities), older physicists (at least the several that I have met) tend to be rather bold in their outlook, because they really have little to lose - they've made their mark. Do you honestly want to retire them? Far better to simply ask them (command if need be) to teach and pass on their substantial wealth of knowledge to the next generation.
I am given to understand that a tenured professor in his late fifties would get MORE in the way of pension at a large public university than he earns from the university as a salary (I'm not making this up!). Do people ever stop to consider why these venerated folk still prefer the university to retirement when recent surveys have shown that the average American would like to retire by some ridiculously early age (40-something I think? Dunno, I'm bad with numbers :P, gimme symbols any day)?
This is a rather long diatribe on my part, but it saddens me when a simplistic statement is thrown out as a solution to what is a complex problem, with caus
Do the friggin study :
1)Get a few dozen lab rats (baby rats if you RTFA and are still worried),
2)Put them near a wi-fi base station for a few months
3)Dissect and observe if tumors have formed
4)Repeat as necessary, with other organisms if you wish (perhaps the uninformed media wh**es?)
Now tell me: where in that list is there ANY room for a bunch of moronic talking heads on an alarmist docudrama to offer their OPINION? Farking incompetent buncha loonies! Bah ...
Rants aside, people really need to grow up and get over this knee-jerk reaction they have with "radiation". In case it hasn't been said already, EVERYTHING emits radiation. Fancy names like gamma rays, xrays, alpha, beta, etc etc (ad nauseum) are just names that were given to things BEFORE we figured out the physical principles that governed them. Someone needs to construct an equivalent of the dihydrogen-monoxide parody for radiation methinks :P.
Anyway, I found a very nice website for laypeople that explains the behavior of water exposed to different parts of the EM spectrum (water is a good prototypical substance as it is so ubiquitous in our body): http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/vibrat.html.
A special focus on the microwave region (1mm to 30cm wavelengths) can also be linked from that page. A few seconds of Googling found the following articles:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20061212/080748.s html - A year ow wi-fi is equivalent to 20 minutes on a cell phone :P.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/he alth/features/article665419.ece - The original article. Notable quote:
IMO, the most comprehensive study was done recently by a Danish team: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20061205/170444.s html and this is what came out of it:
Especially note the lines I have highlighted in bold.
Here's the original story for the Danish study in the Guardian: http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/technology/archives/20 06/12/07/mobile_phones_dont_trigger_cancer_says_st udy.html
And just to assure the tinfoil pholks :P,
Well, parent was a lot funnier than grade school grandparent :P. "4 funny". ZOMG o_O
I for one welcome our SUV snorking overladies o.O
[sarcasm]
You know what? I'm a physicist, and I am seriously offended at people who show no curiosity whatsoever about the quantum mechanical theory of the semiconductor (which after all, is the basis of the whole shebang) when they use their computers every day.
[/sarcasm] Oh wait, that's rather stupid isn't it?
I have just as much contempt for this flavor of arrogance as I do for the macho idiots who sneer at you if you get an oil change at a shop rather than do it yourself :P.
[offtopic rant]
I have used the Linux commandline in numerous stages of my life (as also DOS and even VMS) and I wasn't impressed. Memorizing arcane commands to do simple things (vi as a text editor is an extreme example of its absurdity) is on par with memorizing Clebsch-Gordon coefficients :P. Above all, why it's become fashionable to run these tasks in your own personal RAM (*points to brain*) when the mindless computing machine in front of you can handle them quite easily is a mystery to me. It's all so...twentieth century... that I'm amazed that people actually consider that "advanced". I would rather have the workstation do the things it's supposed to do behind the scenes and spare me the irrelevant details so I can actually focus on the task at hand.
[/offtopic rant]
[sarcasm]
The last thing we need right now is old farts like Pat Robertson (and pretty much the entire religious right (globally, not just the US) whose mean age must be 150 :P) continuing to f*** up civilisation. It's a good thing their lifetimes are limited. Since earthly justice has never existed, perhaps the last great equalizer is the only thing saving our colective butts.
[/sarcasm]
As Captain Duv Galeni says in "Brothers in Arms" (Lois McMaster Bujold):
How fortunate that science hasn't cracked human immortality. It's a great blessing that we can outlive old wars. And old warriors.Finally, a country has the BALLS to do something novel in the public transport arena. Wish we had more people in the world like the Japanese who've actually gotten over themselves and are quietly progressing without any fuss.
I would like to see more "correct use" before I start caring about "fair use" in scientific blogging :P.
Also, considering the selective vision of \. (or /. :P) users, I'm not surprised that you missed my comment that it IS a problem and the solution is economic/political. It is NOT a moral problem and pseudo-patriotic Union horseshit like "buying American" is NOT going to solve it, simply because people aren't stupid when it comes to shopping around - as the whole Ford/GM vs. Toyota debacle shows.
Also, I notice that the tired old cliche that "the american government has not worked at the behest of the people in almost 40 years" has arisen again. I am well aware of that fact and perhaps when you can change that, things might actually change. And before the flood of "BBbut the US is the strongest democracy in the world today" posts begin, I can assure you that I am on board with that :P.
hell, microsoft recently built r&d labs offshore. Hmm, I guess I could always emigrate to those countries and live that lifestyle. Wouldn't kill meThe worst act of the labor Unions that just turned around my view of them as a positive force in the corporate structure was when they started spewing all that moral outrage over the sweatshops as if they really gave a shit about the oppressed workers. If they can stoop so low and hijack a genuine human rights problem for the LESSER purpose of saving their workers' jobs, I can't imagine what else they're capable of.
In passing, a tidbit that will give you vicarious thrill no doubt (or at least a dubious pleasure :P): Labor force complacence is a generic problem that eventually afflicts ALL markets. As a result, (and as is already the case), the lowest tier jobs are already being further outsourced away from India. It won't be long before Indians are making the same tired old jokes about Bangladeshis or some other small country on the subcontinent. Also, the IT boom in India has led to massive inflation as the newly emancipated upper middle class throws money around like confetti.
Coming back to the thing that started all this, do I think that racism in jokes is a sufficient reason to dub them unfunny? Not at all. Lack of intelligence and creativity in humor IS. And if nothing else, the moderators' assignment of "funny" points to these hoary old cliches that I have seen on /. (or is it \. ?) for the past YEAR simply speaks of the frustrations (probably legitimate) of the IT community here. Sorta like a bunch of schoolgirls.
The income from these jobs is sufficient for a middle class family in India to live quite well, if not in the lap of luxury. Of course, they probably won't be able to afford a big house with a lawn, annual vacations, flying everywhere and maintaining their children in the extravagant lifestyle that American kids are accustomed to. Oh wait, that's not a "living on highway 1" lifestyle, that's a non-idiotic lifestyle. When the American middle class learns how to live within their means, perhaps they will realize just how the American worker has priced himself/herself out of the global workforce.
Also, if you claim to be living in a democracy, perhaps you'll explain why the Government has done absolutely nothing about a problem that allegedly undercuts the majority of the American population.
By the way, the most wicked irony of all this is that the US pressured India a few decades ago to open up its market and when the (then socialist) Indian Govt. resisted this in order to protect the Indian manufacturing sector, India was reviled as anti-capitalist by the same class of people who today have their bile up in self-righteous fury over the sheer moral OUTRAGE of it all! Well, India finally bowed to the will of the US and voila, it actually did them good and the people who could dish it out in those days obviously can't take it now. Labor unions especially seem to have a short memory in this respect :P.
Sure you're entitled to feel angry about it all. Who wouldn't? Just don't degrade yourselves by calling this a moral problem. It's straight up economics and it ain't gonna be solved by sappy platitudes. When you take a moral stand that you won't work for a company for less than a certain amount, that's very heroic. Just don't complain if that job goes overseas and your moral outrage goes unnoticed.
I should mention in passing that I am NOT an IT person and don't have an iota of personal stake in the whole issue. I do feel the racism thing is a valid point as NO ONE and I mean NO ONE in the US could get away with racially mocking African Americans over, say the Affirmative action issue. Try some jokes about athletic scholarships and see how fast you get IMUS-ed :P. The simple fact is that the racist Indian jokes exist here and elsewhere because you can get away with them. Hell, I find them just as amusing as any American because there's nothing more foolish than underestimating an entire nation by stereotyping them as is usually done. They're the ones laughing all the way to the bank :P.
Also, there is a hidden assumption with people today that every field necessarily always has something new to discover. That is just wishful thinking. Fields do die out in terms of innovation and are superseded by other realms of enquiry. What works for science works for the IT world as well. To my mind, the field of wordprocessors has become sterile in terms of innovation. Sure you can add bells and whistles and html editors and whatever. However, that is hardly a wordprocessor feature. Sometimes, things really are simple and you can indeed predict the final set of core features that you will be left with in a piece of software.