Uhh... isn't the whole point of studying for a PhD because you want to remain in academia?
It used to be that you didn't need a high school diploma for most jobs, now you seem to need a college education to work at McDonalds.
I wonder if in 20 years, "just" having a PhD won't be enough. "The competitive applicant for the job of "tech who takes blood samples" has to have a PhD, an MD, and a beautician license."
So you're assuming the OP has already come down with at least one life threatening disease?
No he wasn't. The "next time" GGP comes down with a life-threatening disease could be the first, and he could still either turn down treatment and die, or be a hypocrite.
Clearly? Maybe here on earth. Who knows what natural processes exist elsewhere.
If we make unmanned probes and send them out, and one of our probes turns up CFCs in an atmosphere like our own, and we go there and find no life, then you'll have the right to say "I told you so."
... so I realize now that they're using a "technical" term and aren't talking about pot that goes into milkshakes, they're talking about stuff that gets too small to use. This still does not seem like much of a hurdle.
Indeed. Alcohol is sold by volume rather than weight, but I can't really see how that would change much on the software side of things. Take software for alchohol. Change the L to a G. You now have software that can be used for selling things by weight that evaporate, dry out, and go into shakes.
If you want to -really- make a pot application dazzle your customers, maybe think about putting in a module which will do a google search for "deep questions" and then randomly put one into the report.
"You have 20 kilos of pot left for the rest of the month to sell. Also, how old would you be if you didn’t know how old you are?"
"Okay, so we can net $3000 for the rest of the month, and whooooa duuuuude...."
This is either a phony message or a lie by Steve Jobs. Both are possible.
They're not mutually exclusive either, this could be a -phony- lie that didn't actually come from Steve Jobs, though I suppose that wouldn't really matter.
Why is there no outcry over the information that the mobile operators have?
Presumably because there's no smoking gun at the current moment. Same with how we know politicians are generally corrupt, but when you have video footage of a specific politician engaging in bribery, people still make a big deal about that.
Also "we" don't track anyone. It's more of a "they," they being the people who pay us money for your location. We only provide the numbers. Those numbers might have a high degree of correlation to your location, time, and social security number. You'd have to look do some type of analysis on those excel files with like google earth to actually "track" someone, and we -never- do that.
Too true. It's curiosity, not money, that drives most scientists. The answer to "Is science a good career choice" depends on your own standards, which vary from individual to individual.
I'd have to be making in the millions to willingly give up science. When "CEO of a large corporation" becomes a career choice, maybe science becomes the lesser option.
It isn't just that the science grads aren't good enough, its that the science itself it harder than it's ever been before. All the low hanging fruit that could be figured out by an individual or small team as already been done.
That's definitely not universally true if it's even true for any one field. Plenty of new tools are becoming available, opening up new trees with low hanging fruit to extend the metaphor. Genomic sequencing for example is fairly new. Sit down with a newly-sequenced genome or two and a computer, you can easily get low-hanging fruit. New microscopy techniques mean we can observe processes we couldn't before. Get access to a new super-resolution microscope, or start looking at cellular processes in time lapse, you will discover things not previously observed.
The smarter way to go about doing it of course is to look at what questions haven't been answered already and then look for new techniques to answer them. Maybe some fields like physics are devoid of such opportunities, but you can't get anywhere on, say, epigenetics without stumbling over hypotheses that have yet to be investigated.
Is it really that we have too many scientists, or just that we have too many mediocre science grads who don't realise that the quality of their degree comes nowhere close to matching that expected of the science graduate even two or three decades ago?
Sounds to me like the problem is the "mediocre," not the quality or numbers of degrees. If a student is bad at being a scientist, he should not be a scientist. He should instead be a doctor.
Think. Which job position will get outsourced more likely? Engineering or managing? Before you answer, consider: Managers make that decision.
Now yes, but a while back both seemed unlikely. Maybe 20 years from now, management of Indian tech firms will be taking advantage of cheap US engineers (just $2000 per hour... US DOLLARS TOO!) and tele-managing.
How does this advance the Republican goal of balancing the budget?
These aren't republicans, these are republican politicians. Their true goals are different, similar to how "democrats" in office don't share their constituent's views.
Their true goals:
Goal 1: Give taxpayer money to their supporters to pay back the support (in this case I'm guessing aerospace contractors)
Goal 2: Spend taxpayer money on anything that is not social welfare that helps out the peons (like health care or public education)
Goal 3: After goal 1 and 2 are accomplished, declare that there is no money left and that money will have to be cut from social welfare programs like Obama's health care, or social security, energizing their base and eventually freeing up more money for Goal 1.
Next time someone makes fun by shouting authentically "Fire! Fire! Run!" in a theater or some other 'suitable' place, and your relatives die there having been crushed by the panicking crowd trying to get out, maybe then you'll remember that there are certain situations where Freedom of Speech is limited
Oh man, I HATE it when that happens. Seems like every Tuesday, my relatives get trampled by crowds in theaters.
Wait a minute, no, that's such an extreme example and happens so rarely that it's absurd to talk about even OUTSIDE the context of the news. The news is a separate beast, and it's never so cut an dry as the scenario you bring up. Unrestricted news flow might lead to people evacuating areas when it wouldn't be optimal, sure. Most of us "free speech defenders" I think view that as an acceptable risk, and might point out that the government seems to have failed, causing the crisis, not the media.
Why would any sane person trust the government to suddenly have better judgment about what we should know than the media?
This treatment works by restricting a hormone that helps regulate our stress levels. Isn't it maybe a bad idea to go fucking around with that just because we want a full head of hair?
Could be, which is why they're testing this in mice and then will seek FDA approval, testing for bad side effects, rather than saying "Everybody go nuts with this." Even the slashdot headline included "may."
We do live a lot longer than nature seems to have intended. That hormone might have good effects in development, childhood, or as a young adult, but maybe once you become "obsolete" in evolution's eyes (past reproduction) it has a net negative effect instead, and turning it off would be better.
real scientists don't worry much about falisfiability and other philosophical concepts
That's because falsifiability is usually a given. It's kind of like how good citizens really don't think about the ethics of murder so much because they're not murdering people. Real scientists don't think about falsifiability because if they're doing actual science, that is not a consideration: their hypotheses can actually be tested.
Discrimination against people with tunapugiphilia. You should say "The applicant was Ben Stine, fell asleep during interview process due to extreme boredom, do not hire"
they are doing this to combat the abuses that Ben Stine discusses in his documentary, "Expelled".
The abuses were all Ben Stine's. All the horror stories of brave creationists standing up to a massive, evil, illogical conspiracy to preach evolution, who got fired as a result were actually all people whose careers were dead-ending for unrelated reasons. After all, it's less damaging to the ego to claim you were a victim rather than incompetent. I suppose the two might not be completely unrelated: if you're so dumb as to ignore all the evidence for evolution in favor of a simpleton's interpretation of your holy book, you probably aren't a very good scientist...
Anyway, the movie should have been called "Excused" rather than "Expelled" and if the great state of texas wanted to combat abuses related to that movie, they should be investigating Ben Stine for lying.
Well, except for "Isn't it interesting that social media and modern technology have done more for the desire for democratization than most of our cold-war efforts ever did?" That one is, for me, a definite "Yes."
I'd be worried if I were you: Sony is eventually going to try to claim you're guilty of "funding a conspiracy to commit electronic economic terrorism" or something. Then if a certain cable news network gets on board, who knows where you could end up?
Slashdot Mirror
Uhh... isn't the whole point of studying for a PhD because you want to remain in academia?
It used to be that you didn't need a high school diploma for most jobs, now you seem to need a college education to work at McDonalds.
I wonder if in 20 years, "just" having a PhD won't be enough. "The competitive applicant for the job of "tech who takes blood samples" has to have a PhD, an MD, and a beautician license."
So you're assuming the OP has already come down with at least one life threatening disease?
No he wasn't. The "next time" GGP comes down with a life-threatening disease could be the first, and he could still either turn down treatment and die, or be a hypocrite.
So thats why they call that vacuum a Dyson ball.
Learn something new and important every day.
Clearly? Maybe here on earth. Who knows what natural processes exist elsewhere.
If we make unmanned probes and send them out, and one of our probes turns up CFCs in an atmosphere like our own, and we go there and find no life, then you'll have the right to say "I told you so."
I was motivated enough to do a google search for "dried out weed" and came up with a digg discussion, the first few posts indicated it wasn't as good. I'm not going to read that for very long, so I'm concluding that it makes it bad if it's dried out too much. http://www.reddit.com/r/cannabis/comments/a9b4y/does_weed_get_better_the_longer_its_dried/
... so I realize now that they're using a "technical" term and aren't talking about pot that goes into milkshakes, they're talking about stuff that gets too small to use. This still does not seem like much of a hurdle.
Indeed. Alcohol is sold by volume rather than weight, but I can't really see how that would change much on the software side of things. Take software for alchohol. Change the L to a G. You now have software that can be used for selling things by weight that evaporate, dry out, and go into shakes.
If you want to -really- make a pot application dazzle your customers, maybe think about putting in a module which will do a google search for "deep questions" and then randomly put one into the report.
"You have 20 kilos of pot left for the rest of the month to sell. Also, how old would you be if you didn’t know how old you are?"
"Okay, so we can net $3000 for the rest of the month, and whooooa duuuuude...."
This is either a phony message or a lie by Steve Jobs. Both are possible.
They're not mutually exclusive either, this could be a -phony- lie that didn't actually come from Steve Jobs, though I suppose that wouldn't really matter.
Why is there no outcry over the information that the mobile operators have?
Presumably because there's no smoking gun at the current moment. Same with how we know politicians are generally corrupt, but when you have video footage of a specific politician engaging in bribery, people still make a big deal about that.
Also "we" don't track anyone. It's more of a "they," they being the people who pay us money for your location. We only provide the numbers. Those numbers might have a high degree of correlation to your location, time, and social security number. You'd have to look do some type of analysis on those excel files with like google earth to actually "track" someone, and we -never- do that.
Too true. It's curiosity, not money, that drives most scientists. The answer to "Is science a good career choice" depends on your own standards, which vary from individual to individual.
I'd have to be making in the millions to willingly give up science. When "CEO of a large corporation" becomes a career choice, maybe science becomes the lesser option.
It isn't just that the science grads aren't good enough, its that the science itself it harder than it's ever been before. All the low hanging fruit that could be figured out by an individual or small team as already been done.
That's definitely not universally true if it's even true for any one field. Plenty of new tools are becoming available, opening up new trees with low hanging fruit to extend the metaphor. Genomic sequencing for example is fairly new. Sit down with a newly-sequenced genome or two and a computer, you can easily get low-hanging fruit. New microscopy techniques mean we can observe processes we couldn't before. Get access to a new super-resolution microscope, or start looking at cellular processes in time lapse, you will discover things not previously observed.
The smarter way to go about doing it of course is to look at what questions haven't been answered already and then look for new techniques to answer them. Maybe some fields like physics are devoid of such opportunities, but you can't get anywhere on, say, epigenetics without stumbling over hypotheses that have yet to be investigated.
Is it really that we have too many scientists, or just that we have too many mediocre science grads who don't realise that the quality of their degree comes nowhere close to matching that expected of the science graduate even two or three decades ago?
Sounds to me like the problem is the "mediocre," not the quality or numbers of degrees. If a student is bad at being a scientist, he should not be a scientist. He should instead be a doctor.
Think. Which job position will get outsourced more likely? Engineering or managing? Before you answer, consider: Managers make that decision.
Now yes, but a while back both seemed unlikely. Maybe 20 years from now, management of Indian tech firms will be taking advantage of cheap US engineers (just $2000 per hour... US DOLLARS TOO!) and tele-managing.
How does this advance the Republican goal of balancing the budget?
These aren't republicans, these are republican politicians. Their true goals are different, similar to how "democrats" in office don't share their constituent's views. Their true goals:
Goal 1: Give taxpayer money to their supporters to pay back the support (in this case I'm guessing aerospace contractors)
Goal 2: Spend taxpayer money on anything that is not social welfare that helps out the peons (like health care or public education)
Goal 3: After goal 1 and 2 are accomplished, declare that there is no money left and that money will have to be cut from social welfare programs like Obama's health care, or social security, energizing their base and eventually freeing up more money for Goal 1.
Next time someone makes fun by shouting authentically "Fire! Fire! Run!" in a theater or some other 'suitable' place, and your relatives die there having been crushed by the panicking crowd trying to get out, maybe then you'll remember that there are certain situations where Freedom of Speech is limited
Oh man, I HATE it when that happens. Seems like every Tuesday, my relatives get trampled by crowds in theaters.
Wait a minute, no, that's such an extreme example and happens so rarely that it's absurd to talk about even OUTSIDE the context of the news. The news is a separate beast, and it's never so cut an dry as the scenario you bring up. Unrestricted news flow might lead to people evacuating areas when it wouldn't be optimal, sure. Most of us "free speech defenders" I think view that as an acceptable risk, and might point out that the government seems to have failed, causing the crisis, not the media.
Why would any sane person trust the government to suddenly have better judgment about what we should know than the media?
This treatment works by restricting a hormone that helps regulate our stress levels. Isn't it maybe a bad idea to go fucking around with that just because we want a full head of hair?
Could be, which is why they're testing this in mice and then will seek FDA approval, testing for bad side effects, rather than saying "Everybody go nuts with this." Even the slashdot headline included "may."
We do live a lot longer than nature seems to have intended. That hormone might have good effects in development, childhood, or as a young adult, but maybe once you become "obsolete" in evolution's eyes (past reproduction) it has a net negative effect instead, and turning it off would be better.
real scientists don't worry much about falisfiability and other philosophical concepts
That's because falsifiability is usually a given. It's kind of like how good citizens really don't think about the ethics of murder so much because they're not murdering people. Real scientists don't think about falsifiability because if they're doing actual science, that is not a consideration: their hypotheses can actually be tested.
Can we encourage Texas to consider secession?
I find that thought appalling and unethical! With our budget deficit, it would be -criminal- not to sell it back to Mexico.
I will publicly eat my copy of Hitchens' "God is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything" and renounce Pastafarianism.
Whoa whoa whoa, you'd turn your back on his noodly appendage based on a boat? And a broken one at that? Oh ye of little pasta faith.
Discrimination against people with tunapugiphilia. You should say "The applicant was Ben Stine, fell asleep during interview process due to extreme boredom, do not hire"
they are doing this to combat the abuses that Ben Stine discusses in his documentary, "Expelled".
The abuses were all Ben Stine's. All the horror stories of brave creationists standing up to a massive, evil, illogical conspiracy to preach evolution, who got fired as a result were actually all people whose careers were dead-ending for unrelated reasons. After all, it's less damaging to the ego to claim you were a victim rather than incompetent. I suppose the two might not be completely unrelated: if you're so dumb as to ignore all the evidence for evolution in favor of a simpleton's interpretation of your holy book, you probably aren't a very good scientist...
Anyway, the movie should have been called "Excused" rather than "Expelled" and if the great state of texas wanted to combat abuses related to that movie, they should be investigating Ben Stine for lying.
The answer to all of them is "We don't know."
Well, except for "Isn't it interesting that social media and modern technology have done more for the desire for democratization than most of our cold-war efforts ever did?"
That one is, for me, a definite "Yes."
a girl who hangs out on 4chan and watches anime is not capable of seducing anybody
I'm pretty sure that first part, "girl" qualifies as "capable of seducing" at least a few engineers.
I donated $50.
I'd be worried if I were you: Sony is eventually going to try to claim you're guilty of "funding a conspiracy to commit electronic economic terrorism" or something. Then if a certain cable news network gets on board, who knows where you could end up?