Re:See who's publishing in your areas of interest
on
Finding a Research Mentor?
·
· Score: 5, Informative
I would add something to this. It's typically better to work with someone who is well-known in the field (i.e. someone who is probably doing higher quality research). That's almost impossible to tell if you are new to the field, but ISI Web of Knowledge also lists the number of times an article has been cited. It's not a perfect measure of the usefulness of the article to the field, but it's a good zeroth-order approximation. Start with the papers which have the most citations (keeping in mind that they will be a bit older) and work your way down.
In this same line, you should figure out if you want to work for an old, established professor, or a young, up-and-coming assistant professor. The methods/environments in the two situations can be quite different, and it's good to have an idea of what you're looking for.
"Piraattipuolue is a registered party, eligible to set up candidates in parliamentary, municipal and EU parliament elections. We have not participated in any elections yet but aim to participate in the Finnish parliamentary election of 2011."
Re:in other news, cementing the BP CEO has started
on
Gulf Oil Leak Plugged?
·
· Score: 1
The problem is, you're implying a false dichotomy. You seem to be saying that if one uses the slightest bit of oil, one has to accept drilling in risky locations, which is not true.
I think it's a completely valid argument to say, "I'm reducing my own need for oil, and therefore I don't support drilling in regions where there is a good chance of having a leak and it will be difficult to control." This is my position. I accept drilling for oil in a lot of places, but I don't think we need to be drilling everywhere. Let prices go up a little and give the economy a chance to adjust.
I, on the other hand, develop knee aches after a few months of running 3-4 times a week. Different bodies have different problems.
Because of this, I prefer yoga. Intense workout, but one in which you are taught to protect the joints (pain generally comes from incorrect posture...it's a good guide to if you're doing the correct movement or not). Not only do I increase strength and flexibility for my whole body (unlike running or biking), but I'll be able to continue it until I'm old.
DFT has all sorts of issues, and the only reason people like it right now is because it's shown to be easier to scale than molecular orbital-based methods (N log N scaling, if you're clever, as opposed to N^4 or worse).
The reason why theoretical chemistry is shifting focus to computational chemistry (I can think of very few theory people around now, although they're a little more common in statistical mechanics/liquid state theory than QM) is because the equations are essentially known (via quantum mechanics and stat mech): we just can't solve them exactly for any real system. So we end up coming up with approximations that we can solve for systems that we're interested in, from quantum Monte Carlo to molecular mechanics. New algorithms/more realistic approximations is where all the major progress is being made, and that's exactly where it needs to be made: you don't need M-theory to explain absorption onto a silica surface.
If you look in the literature, modern theorists generally make approximations in order to solve equations more quickly, in hopes that some extra insight in granted (and sometimes it is). In many cases, brute-force numerical calculations are more accurate and more flexible (you don't have to rework your equations with every system you study). I had dreams of being a theorist when I was growing up, but there's not been a high demand for them since the middle part of the last century, so now I find myself in algorithm development.
Some of this is what you said, but I felt it better to express it in a slightly different way. The line between theory and computation in modern chemistry is very blurred.
Have governments ever truly served the people? Go back to the days of Rome and the situation wasn't any better. The Senate gave bread and circuses to the Head Count only to prevent them from rioting and disrupting the lives/business of the elites, not because of any altruistic feeling. It was also expected that governors, senators, consuls, etc. used their position to increase their own wealth and status.
Government is a necessary evil, but it's best to remember that, in the end, a large part of what it does is work to keep its own power.
Perhaps it's not a question of public vs. private, but rather size. My bank has branches in several states, but not all across the country. I have a personal banker whom I can contact quickly and easily to clear up situations like that, and I have on several occasions. Quick, painless, and efficient.
I don't pay any extra for this service (my accounts don't have any fees on them), but it's the major reason why I'm still with them, despite not having lived near a branch for 10+ years. Piece of mind is worth the couple bucks that another bank charges me for ATM usage once every couple months (at least, when I was living in the US).
A small point to clarify, since many people seem to misunderstand this.
Do you know how many countries the US gives "most-favored nation" status to? Almost all of them. In 1998, it was renamed "normal trading relations", because that's exactly what it is: normal. It only means that the country has the lowest permissible tariffs on anything it exports to the US.
You can keep the rest of your rant, but you really shouldn't use that point to support your argument, as it's not as special of a position as you make it out to be.
I know one problem that aged nukes have that aged Harriers don't: radiation. A big question in the U.S.'s nuclear arsenal now is how much that radiation changes the properties of the surrounding materials of the bomb, and if the bomb will still work as promised. This is why the DOE invests so much in computational power; since they can't perform actual explosive tests anymore, they're trying to simulate it all on the computer.
If this is something they're concerned about after 50 years, I can only imagine it's a bigger problem after 1000. If I had to bet, I'd put my money on the Harrier being more likely to work. Actually, I'd bet on neither of them working, but that doesn't make as good of a story.
all of which are reasonably ad-free and play stuff you won't find on popular radio. There are some really good songs on there that I would never have heard otherwise. (listening to Still - King Communicado, right now).
I used to like some of the stations on AOL radio, but they started blocking Finnish IP addresses, so I found these other stations. Their loss, not mine.
I see your point, but I think you may be overestimating its effect. Children generally only eat lunch at school, and breakfast and dinner at home (an exception would be children from low-income families who partake in school breakfast programs).
I'd be surprised if good nutrition for two meals a day and lousy nutrition for one could lead to obesity, especially in growing kids who need relatively high amounts of energy. Overweight children, perhaps, but when I hear "fat" I think "obese".
I happen to live in Helsinki at the moment, where it seems like a lot of families raise their kids in "silly" apartments. Works pretty well for them, too, and I don't understand why American families think this is an unreasonable option.
Now, if you told me that the school system was crap near your work and that's why you chose to buy a house almost 40 miles away...well, I'd be more willing to accept that. But the fact that you didn't want to raise your kids in an apartment seems like a bad reason to add 35+ miles to your daily commute.
"Food insecurity is limited or uncertain availability of nutritionally adequate and safe foods or limited or uncertain ability to acquire acceptable foods in socially acceptable ways."
Considering that junk food probably isn't "nutritionally adequate", I think that the GP could still be correct. I would say that there is also a significant difference between being food insecure for one week and being food insecure for 51 weeks. Of the most interest on that site (to this discussion, at least) is the number of homes that had "Very low food security", which is 5.7%. Not insignificant, but a lot less than 14.6%.
Having lived in central Africa for two years and also having spent time with urban poor in the U.S., I can say that the difference is quite striking in my experience. A major difference is variety. A poor person in the U.S. can vary their diet, thus getting better nutrition, while a poor person au village in Africa eats corn mush and bitter leaves fried in palm oil three meals a day.
I agree with the GP: you are atypical. I'm confused as to why you think that's a bad thing.
No matter how hard I work, I will never be able to run a four-minute mile. There are people who can do that, but it's a combination of working hard and having the innate ability, not just working hard.
Intellectual achievement is no different. I got where I am through hard work, but also because because I have a knack for what I do. Other people work as hard as I do (and harder), but they won't enjoy the success I've had, because I have some skill and I've been lucky. Such is life.
All people are not created equally. However, they should all be treated equally under the law. Big difference.
I'd be careful with raw vegetables, too. There's always a chance that local produce in tropical climates is fertilized with human waste, which is a nice transmission route for any number of intestinal diseases. Cooked veggies are usually okay (I know of one that can still be problematic, but I don't know if it's found in India or not), but avoid that salad, unless you know it's been soaked in a diluted bleach solution for a while (done properly, you won't taste the bleach, but all the bad stuff will be dead).
In my experience (based on living for two years in central Africa), this is both true and not true.
The vast majority of people were great, but the theives were worse. I seldom left my apartment at night because of theives in the neighborhood, and I wasn't in a big city. Add to that the risk coupe-de-routes while traveling, which even happened in the middle of the day in some areas, and the odds of getting your stuff stolen are higher than any place I've lived in the U.S., Europe, or Australia.
The nice thing is, most crime there was based on property: someone wants money. If you give them your money, they're generally happy and go away (I know people who've begged for moto fare home or the SIM card from their phone from a machete-wielding thief and have been happily obliged). Which means you don't have to worry about violent crime.
I feel that we keep the spelling of 'acre', 'massacre', and 'mediocre' the same in order to keep the pronunciation the same. If 'c' comes before an 'e' it's generally pronounced like an 's', so those three words would probably not be pronounced the same way if you invert the endings.
I moved to Helsinki a few months ago, and that's something people constantly comment on: how expensive the trains are. People keep telling me they might as well fly outside the country for holidays as as opposed to taking the train for a few days up north, since the price difference isn't all that great.
There are some good reasons for a treadmill. When you live in Minneapolis and it's the middle of winter, for example (snow, ice, and cold temperatures are not ideal running conditions for most people). Or even if you live in the middle of the city and get tired of dodging traffic/waiting for the light to change.
Or even if you're just starting out as a runner and are still a little self-conscious. If buying a treadmill will help you start working out, more power to ya, mate.
Can I ask which quantum theories? In my experience, when people talk about orbits and atoms it's more like, "Picture the solar system model of an atom if you like, but realize that it's completely wrong."
The differences between electrons occupying orbitals and planets in well-defined orbits are pretty significant, and I've never heard of astronomical models being used for more than that. You can say that one inspired the other, but the similarities now seem completely superficial.
Clinton sold out to China? I hope you're not talking about MFN status. Reagan granted China MFN in 1980, and Bush continued it without question (even after Tiananmen Square). What Clinton did was make it conditionally renewable, depending on advances in human rights. One can argue whether that was a good idea or not (it never seemed to be enforced), but that's not quite "selling out". In case you're curious, "MFN" trade status is normal (something like 170 countries have MFN with the U.S.).
Of course, it's possible that you know all of this and are referring to something else. It wouldn't surprise me if Clinton sold out in another way.
'As for amps, it has always amazed me that people *love* the ones that introduce distortion and claim the accurate ones are "cold" and "technical."'
On a slight tangent, I've noticed the same effect in film. I shot a waterfall with Kodachrome 64 and Fuji Velvia 50 a few years back. I thought the Veliva looked much nicer. Exactly one week later, I was at the same waterfall at the same time of day. It looked exactly like the Kodachrome (colder, almost Techni-color). Sometimes reality is not what people want.
Slashdot Mirror
I would add something to this. It's typically better to work with someone who is well-known in the field (i.e. someone who is probably doing higher quality research). That's almost impossible to tell if you are new to the field, but ISI Web of Knowledge also lists the number of times an article has been cited. It's not a perfect measure of the usefulness of the article to the field, but it's a good zeroth-order approximation. Start with the papers which have the most citations (keeping in mind that they will be a bit older) and work your way down.
In this same line, you should figure out if you want to work for an old, established professor, or a young, up-and-coming assistant professor. The methods/environments in the two situations can be quite different, and it's good to have an idea of what you're looking for.
Are you sure about that? From their website:
"Piraattipuolue is a registered party, eligible to set up candidates in parliamentary, municipal and EU parliament elections. We have not participated in any elections yet but aim to participate in the Finnish parliamentary election of 2011."
No no, General Goat was 7.10.
Oh, gloat. N/m.
The problem is, you're implying a false dichotomy. You seem to be saying that if one uses the slightest bit of oil, one has to accept drilling in risky locations, which is not true.
I think it's a completely valid argument to say, "I'm reducing my own need for oil, and therefore I don't support drilling in regions where there is a good chance of having a leak and it will be difficult to control." This is my position. I accept drilling for oil in a lot of places, but I don't think we need to be drilling everywhere. Let prices go up a little and give the economy a chance to adjust.
I, on the other hand, develop knee aches after a few months of running 3-4 times a week. Different bodies have different problems.
Because of this, I prefer yoga. Intense workout, but one in which you are taught to protect the joints (pain generally comes from incorrect posture...it's a good guide to if you're doing the correct movement or not). Not only do I increase strength and flexibility for my whole body (unlike running or biking), but I'll be able to continue it until I'm old.
DFT has all sorts of issues, and the only reason people like it right now is because it's shown to be easier to scale than molecular orbital-based methods (N log N scaling, if you're clever, as opposed to N^4 or worse).
The reason why theoretical chemistry is shifting focus to computational chemistry (I can think of very few theory people around now, although they're a little more common in statistical mechanics/liquid state theory than QM) is because the equations are essentially known (via quantum mechanics and stat mech): we just can't solve them exactly for any real system. So we end up coming up with approximations that we can solve for systems that we're interested in, from quantum Monte Carlo to molecular mechanics. New algorithms/more realistic approximations is where all the major progress is being made, and that's exactly where it needs to be made: you don't need M-theory to explain absorption onto a silica surface.
If you look in the literature, modern theorists generally make approximations in order to solve equations more quickly, in hopes that some extra insight in granted (and sometimes it is). In many cases, brute-force numerical calculations are more accurate and more flexible (you don't have to rework your equations with every system you study). I had dreams of being a theorist when I was growing up, but there's not been a high demand for them since the middle part of the last century, so now I find myself in algorithm development.
Some of this is what you said, but I felt it better to express it in a slightly different way. The line between theory and computation in modern chemistry is very blurred.
Have governments ever truly served the people? Go back to the days of Rome and the situation wasn't any better. The Senate gave bread and circuses to the Head Count only to prevent them from rioting and disrupting the lives/business of the elites, not because of any altruistic feeling. It was also expected that governors, senators, consuls, etc. used their position to increase their own wealth and status.
Government is a necessary evil, but it's best to remember that, in the end, a large part of what it does is work to keep its own power.
Perhaps it's not a question of public vs. private, but rather size. My bank has branches in several states, but not all across the country. I have a personal banker whom I can contact quickly and easily to clear up situations like that, and I have on several occasions. Quick, painless, and efficient.
I don't pay any extra for this service (my accounts don't have any fees on them), but it's the major reason why I'm still with them, despite not having lived near a branch for 10+ years. Piece of mind is worth the couple bucks that another bank charges me for ATM usage once every couple months (at least, when I was living in the US).
A small point to clarify, since many people seem to misunderstand this.
Do you know how many countries the US gives "most-favored nation" status to? Almost all of them. In 1998, it was renamed "normal trading relations", because that's exactly what it is: normal. It only means that the country has the lowest permissible tariffs on anything it exports to the US.
You can keep the rest of your rant, but you really shouldn't use that point to support your argument, as it's not as special of a position as you make it out to be.
I know one problem that aged nukes have that aged Harriers don't: radiation. A big question in the U.S.'s nuclear arsenal now is how much that radiation changes the properties of the surrounding materials of the bomb, and if the bomb will still work as promised. This is why the DOE invests so much in computational power; since they can't perform actual explosive tests anymore, they're trying to simulate it all on the computer.
If this is something they're concerned about after 50 years, I can only imagine it's a bigger problem after 1000. If I had to bet, I'd put my money on the Harrier being more likely to work. Actually, I'd bet on neither of them working, but that doesn't make as good of a story.
I've been reading /. for years, and this is the first time I've seen a Goats reference. Kudos to you, sir. It's the first thing I thought of, too.
My favorite places are
Icarus
SomaFM
The Current 89.3
all of which are reasonably ad-free and play stuff you won't find on popular radio. There are some really good songs on there that I would never have heard otherwise. (listening to Still - King Communicado, right now).
I used to like some of the stations on AOL radio, but they started blocking Finnish IP addresses, so I found these other stations. Their loss, not mine.
I see your point, but I think you may be overestimating its effect. Children generally only eat lunch at school, and breakfast and dinner at home (an exception would be children from low-income families who partake in school breakfast programs).
I'd be surprised if good nutrition for two meals a day and lousy nutrition for one could lead to obesity, especially in growing kids who need relatively high amounts of energy. Overweight children, perhaps, but when I hear "fat" I think "obese".
I happen to live in Helsinki at the moment, where it seems like a lot of families raise their kids in "silly" apartments. Works pretty well for them, too, and I don't understand why American families think this is an unreasonable option.
Now, if you told me that the school system was crap near your work and that's why you chose to buy a house almost 40 miles away...well, I'd be more willing to accept that. But the fact that you didn't want to raise your kids in an apartment seems like a bad reason to add 35+ miles to your daily commute.
From the USDA:
"Food insecurity is limited or uncertain availability of nutritionally adequate and safe foods or limited or uncertain ability to acquire acceptable foods in socially acceptable ways."
Considering that junk food probably isn't "nutritionally adequate", I think that the GP could still be correct. I would say that there is also a significant difference between being food insecure for one week and being food insecure for 51 weeks. Of the most interest on that site (to this discussion, at least) is the number of homes that had "Very low food security", which is 5.7%. Not insignificant, but a lot less than 14.6%.
Having lived in central Africa for two years and also having spent time with urban poor in the U.S., I can say that the difference is quite striking in my experience. A major difference is variety. A poor person in the U.S. can vary their diet, thus getting better nutrition, while a poor person au village in Africa eats corn mush and bitter leaves fried in palm oil three meals a day.
I agree with the GP: you are atypical. I'm confused as to why you think that's a bad thing.
No matter how hard I work, I will never be able to run a four-minute mile. There are people who can do that, but it's a combination of working hard and having the innate ability, not just working hard.
Intellectual achievement is no different. I got where I am through hard work, but also because because I have a knack for what I do. Other people work as hard as I do (and harder), but they won't enjoy the success I've had, because I have some skill and I've been lucky. Such is life.
All people are not created equally. However, they should all be treated equally under the law. Big difference.
I'd be careful with raw vegetables, too. There's always a chance that local produce in tropical climates is fertilized with human waste, which is a nice transmission route for any number of intestinal diseases. Cooked veggies are usually okay (I know of one that can still be problematic, but I don't know if it's found in India or not), but avoid that salad, unless you know it's been soaked in a diluted bleach solution for a while (done properly, you won't taste the bleach, but all the bad stuff will be dead).
In my experience (based on living for two years in central Africa), this is both true and not true.
The vast majority of people were great, but the theives were worse. I seldom left my apartment at night because of theives in the neighborhood, and I wasn't in a big city. Add to that the risk coupe-de-routes while traveling, which even happened in the middle of the day in some areas, and the odds of getting your stuff stolen are higher than any place I've lived in the U.S., Europe, or Australia.
The nice thing is, most crime there was based on property: someone wants money. If you give them your money, they're generally happy and go away (I know people who've begged for moto fare home or the SIM card from their phone from a machete-wielding thief and have been happily obliged). Which means you don't have to worry about violent crime.
So as I said: both true and not true.
I feel that we keep the spelling of 'acre', 'massacre', and 'mediocre' the same in order to keep the pronunciation the same. If 'c' comes before an 'e' it's generally pronounced like an 's', so those three words would probably not be pronounced the same way if you invert the endings.
I moved to Helsinki a few months ago, and that's something people constantly comment on: how expensive the trains are. People keep telling me they might as well fly outside the country for holidays as as opposed to taking the train for a few days up north, since the price difference isn't all that great.
I was going to ask who gave you the $0.02, but then I realized it was probably everyone. There are quite a few armchair critics out there.
There are some good reasons for a treadmill. When you live in Minneapolis and it's the middle of winter, for example (snow, ice, and cold temperatures are not ideal running conditions for most people). Or even if you live in the middle of the city and get tired of dodging traffic/waiting for the light to change.
Or even if you're just starting out as a runner and are still a little self-conscious. If buying a treadmill will help you start working out, more power to ya, mate.
Can I ask which quantum theories? In my experience, when people talk about orbits and atoms it's more like, "Picture the solar system model of an atom if you like, but realize that it's completely wrong."
The differences between electrons occupying orbitals and planets in well-defined orbits are pretty significant, and I've never heard of astronomical models being used for more than that. You can say that one inspired the other, but the similarities now seem completely superficial.
Clinton sold out to China? I hope you're not talking about MFN status. Reagan granted China MFN in 1980, and Bush continued it without question (even after Tiananmen Square). What Clinton did was make it conditionally renewable, depending on advances in human rights. One can argue whether that was a good idea or not (it never seemed to be enforced), but that's not quite "selling out". In case you're curious, "MFN" trade status is normal (something like 170 countries have MFN with the U.S.).
Of course, it's possible that you know all of this and are referring to something else. It wouldn't surprise me if Clinton sold out in another way.
'As for amps, it has always amazed me that people *love* the ones that introduce distortion and claim the accurate ones are "cold" and "technical."'
On a slight tangent, I've noticed the same effect in film. I shot a waterfall with Kodachrome 64 and Fuji Velvia 50 a few years back. I thought the Veliva looked much nicer. Exactly one week later, I was at the same waterfall at the same time of day. It looked exactly like the Kodachrome (colder, almost Techni-color). Sometimes reality is not what people want.