The trick is networking. Several other posts have said the same thing.
Ever single job I've ever gotten, I've gotten through networking. Seriously. Even the first one when I was fresh out of school.
The problem is most geeks aren't good at networking. Networking is NOT calling up the people you know and asking them for a job. Here is how I do it when I'm really serious about it (i.e., want to find a new job NOW):
1. Spend some time and come up with a good 30 sec. explanation of what sort of job I want.
2. Contact people I know and say that I'm looking for XYZ type of job, and am wondering if they have any advice, or know of other people that might have advice. If they know of a job that you'd fit, they'll tell you now. Otherwise, the fact that you didn't make them feel uncomfortable by asking for a job will make them feel more comfortable referring you to their friends and colleagues.
The not asking for a job part is really, really important. I've been on the receiving end of these phone calls/e-mails, and I respond better when asked for advice and contacts than when asked for a job, too.
Also, I think e-mails are fine to use for an initial contact, particularly in tech fields. Just use the spell-checker.
3. Repeat, with the new list of contacts from step 2.
Of course, I have a good list of initial contacts because I go to industry group meetings and keep in touch with ex-colleagues. If you're starting from scratch, it will probably take more cycles before you get anywhere useful.
Last time I was laid off, I got sent to an outplacement service that taught these skills, as well as interviewing and resume-writing skills. At the time, I was already in discussions with the company that became my new employer, and I *still* found the class useful. I've been told that many county unemployment offices offer similar classes. I recommend them. Hey, you're unemployed: you've got the times!
An interesting idea... I am not a space nut, nor a materials science person. But I know a lot about proteins, so I'll tell you what I know on that front.
For the protein to exhibit its reflective properties it needs to be in the correct "fold", ot three-dimensional shape. Some proteins maintain thier fold better than others. I once studied a protein that could be boiled in urea and still not fully unfold. Other proteins will unfold if you look at them funny. Of course, you can use protein engineering to try to change the properties of the protein, but that is not as easy as it sounds. We don't fully understand protein stability, and while there has been some success in making proteins more stable, its certainly not easy. And asking for something that will be stable in space seems like asking a lot. Proteins in general are happiest in aqueous solutions.
Also, not all proteins assemble into larger structures. Some exist as monomers (single molecules) in solution. I suspect this particular protein assembles into some sort of larger structure, but there is nothing in the current Science article to say what that might be, and what its limitations are. There may be other "helper" proteins necessary to get the correct larger structure.
Even if you get all the necessary components, you presumably want to scale up the assembly many-fold. You probably want something bigger than the frisbee-shaped platelets in the light organ of a tiny squid. This may or may not be possible. In most natural biological assembly processes, there are size limiting control mechanisms.
I won't go on... in short, it may be theoretically possible, but it would be a very hard project. Certainly more than even the most optimistic grad student would take on!
Ah, but Science is the original source... i.e., it has published the article from the researchers describing their research. This article is peer-reviewed, and is what any other scientist in the field would want to read to really evaluate the research.
Scientific American, Ananova, and any other site, is summarizing the published research, and perhaps supplementing it with interviews with the researchers and others in the field. There's absolutely nothing wrong with using them as your source, but the Science article is still the original source.
I do... but I'm afraid its not much help for the question you ask. Here is all the Science article says on the subject:
"The Hawaiian bobtail squid Euprymna scolopes (Cephalopoda: Sepiolidae) (Fig. 1A) is similar to other cephalopod species that have been studied (6-9) in having both variably reflective tissues, such as the skin of the mantle, and statically reflective tissues, such as those associated with the eye, digestive gland, and light organ. The reflector of the bilobed light organ is a particularly well-developed tissue (Fig. 1, A to D) that modulates the luminescence produced by a population of the symbiotic bacterium Vibrio fischeri (10, 11). On each side of the adult light organ, symbiont-containing epithelial tissue comprises a core that is surrounded by the thick silvery reflector. Together with a muscle-derived lens, these dioptrics function to direct the bacterial luminescence ventrally (11). "
However, a quick Internet search turned up this old article, which seems to support the camouflage use of the organ. But it also sounds like we don't really know how the squid uses its light organ. Its not like we can just ask it! Like many things, it may have more than one use.
And here is Dr. McFall-Ngai's webpage, which summarizes her research and lists her other publications.
Indeed... most people working in these fields have PhDs. Those usually take 5 years or more to get in the US, sometimes less in other countries (where undergraduate education is more specialized).
Also, I know from personal experience that the computational biology field has had layoffs recently, as companies struggle to find a business model that actually makes money. No one has really found it yet.
My personal employment system has been to be knowledgeable in more than one field, and to never turn down a chance to learn a new skill. This has allowed me to work in different specialties (all with in the computational biology/bioinformatics/bio-IT field), and although I have experienced the joy of being laid off, I did manage to find new employment before my financial situation got dire.
However, I recognize that people in other countries are just as smart and motivated as me, and that there is no guarantee that I won't eventually find myself without a job for longer than is comfortable. That's why I save my money now... because while the relocation of my kind of jobs may be personally painful, I can't bring myself to believe that I deserve the job simply because I happen to have been born in the US.
Only if all individuals in the population were cloned from the same individual, or from a small group of individuals. Actually, something similar to this happens in the wild. Its called the founder effect, and refers to the decreased genetic diversity in a population derived from only a few "founding" members.
You are correct that this will be a problem for the already extinct species, the Tasmanian tiger, if the suceed in cloning it.
However, this is not what they are doing to save the endangered species. The idea is to clone an individual that won't breed, and then introduce the clone into the captive breeding population. This adds diversity to the gene pool, by bringing in the genes from the non-breeder. Read the original link I posted for more info on this. Of course, this strategy assumes that there wasn't some genetic reason the original animal wouldn't breed in the first place. Perhaps he was shy? Or spent too much time reading slashdot? It seems to me that its likely he was just infertile. This is the biggest weakness of the strategy, in my opinion.
Actually, they do not need to find a young animal from which to clone. Dolly, the first cloned mammal, was cloned from an adult. The "cellular age" of the clone does not equal the age of the animal from which it was cloned. However, you are correct that there is still debate about whether clones age prematurely.
Also, there has already been work done on using clones to save endangered species (BBC story).
There is also a project in Australia to clone an extinct species, the Tasmanian tiger (BBC story).
There are many reasons for using cloning to save endangered species, rather than just having them mate. These include: some species are not mating fast enough to keep up, some species don't mate well in captivity, and the desire to increase genetic diversity (by cloning from a captive animal that won't breed).
The ethics of all of this may be debatable, but like it or not, the technology is going to make this a real possibility.
Slashdot Mirror
The trick is networking. Several other posts have said the same thing.
Ever single job I've ever gotten, I've gotten through networking. Seriously. Even the first one when I was fresh out of school.
The problem is most geeks aren't good at networking. Networking is NOT calling up the people you know and asking them for a job. Here is how I do it when I'm really serious about it (i.e., want to find a new job NOW):
1. Spend some time and come up with a good 30 sec. explanation of what sort of job I want.
2. Contact people I know and say that I'm looking for XYZ type of job, and am wondering if they have any advice, or know of other people that might have advice. If they know of a job that you'd fit, they'll tell you now. Otherwise, the fact that you didn't make them feel uncomfortable by asking for a job will make them feel more comfortable referring you to their friends and colleagues.
The not asking for a job part is really, really important. I've been on the receiving end of these phone calls/e-mails, and I respond better when asked for advice and contacts than when asked for a job, too.
Also, I think e-mails are fine to use for an initial contact, particularly in tech fields. Just use the spell-checker.
3. Repeat, with the new list of contacts from step 2.
Of course, I have a good list of initial contacts because I go to industry group meetings and keep in touch with ex-colleagues. If you're starting from scratch, it will probably take more cycles before you get anywhere useful.
Last time I was laid off, I got sent to an outplacement service that taught these skills, as well as interviewing and resume-writing skills. At the time, I was already in discussions with the company that became my new employer, and I *still* found the class useful. I've been told that many county unemployment offices offer similar classes. I recommend them. Hey, you're unemployed: you've got the times!
An interesting idea... I am not a space nut, nor a materials science person. But I know a lot about proteins, so I'll tell you what I know on that front.
For the protein to exhibit its reflective properties it needs to be in the correct "fold", ot three-dimensional shape. Some proteins maintain thier fold better than others. I once studied a protein that could be boiled in urea and still not fully unfold. Other proteins will unfold if you look at them funny. Of course, you can use protein engineering to try to change the properties of the protein, but that is not as easy as it sounds. We don't fully understand protein stability, and while there has been some success in making proteins more stable, its certainly not easy. And asking for something that will be stable in space seems like asking a lot. Proteins in general are happiest in aqueous solutions.
Also, not all proteins assemble into larger structures. Some exist as monomers (single molecules) in solution. I suspect this particular protein assembles into some sort of larger structure, but there is nothing in the current Science article to say what that might be, and what its limitations are. There may be other "helper" proteins necessary to get the correct larger structure.
Even if you get all the necessary components, you presumably want to scale up the assembly many-fold. You probably want something bigger than the frisbee-shaped platelets in the light organ of a tiny squid. This may or may not be possible. In most natural biological assembly processes, there are size limiting control mechanisms.
I won't go on... in short, it may be theoretically possible, but it would be a very hard project. Certainly more than even the most optimistic grad student would take on!
Ah, but Science is the original source... i.e., it has published the article from the researchers describing their research. This article is peer-reviewed, and is what any other scientist in the field would want to read to really evaluate the research.
Scientific American, Ananova, and any other site, is summarizing the published research, and perhaps supplementing it with interviews with the researchers and others in the field. There's absolutely nothing wrong with using them as your source, but the Science article is still the original source.
I do... but I'm afraid its not much help for the question you ask. Here is all the Science article says on the subject:
"The Hawaiian bobtail squid Euprymna scolopes (Cephalopoda: Sepiolidae) (Fig. 1A) is similar to other cephalopod species that have been studied (6-9) in having both variably reflective tissues, such as the skin of the mantle, and statically reflective tissues, such as those associated with the eye, digestive gland, and light organ. The reflector of the bilobed light organ is a particularly well-developed tissue (Fig. 1, A to D) that modulates the luminescence produced by a population of the symbiotic bacterium Vibrio fischeri (10, 11). On each side of the adult light organ, symbiont-containing epithelial tissue comprises a core that is surrounded by the thick silvery reflector. Together with a muscle-derived lens, these dioptrics function to direct the bacterial luminescence ventrally (11). "
However, a quick Internet search turned up this old article, which seems to support the camouflage use of the organ. But it also sounds like we don't really know how the squid uses its light organ. Its not like we can just ask it! Like many things, it may have more than one use.
And here is Dr. McFall-Ngai's webpage, which summarizes her research and lists her other publications.
Indeed... most people working in these fields have PhDs. Those usually take 5 years or more to get in the US, sometimes less in other countries (where undergraduate education is more specialized).
Also, I know from personal experience that the computational biology field has had layoffs recently, as companies struggle to find a business model that actually makes money.
No one has really found it yet.
My personal employment system has been to be knowledgeable in more than one field, and to never turn down a chance to learn a new skill. This has allowed me to work in different specialties (all with in the computational biology/bioinformatics/bio-IT field), and although I have experienced the joy of being laid off, I did manage to find new employment before my financial situation got dire.
However, I recognize that people in other countries are just as smart and motivated as me, and that there is no guarantee that I won't eventually find myself without a job for longer than is comfortable. That's why I save my money now... because while the relocation of my kind of jobs may be personally painful, I can't bring myself to believe that I deserve the job simply because I happen to have been born in the US.
Only if all individuals in the population were cloned from the same individual, or from a small group of individuals. Actually, something similar to this happens in the wild. Its called the founder effect, and refers to the decreased genetic diversity in a population derived from only a few "founding" members.
You are correct that this will be a problem for the already extinct species, the Tasmanian tiger, if the suceed in cloning it.
However, this is not what they are doing to save the endangered species. The idea is to clone an individual that won't breed, and then introduce the clone into the captive breeding population. This adds diversity to the gene pool, by bringing in the genes from the non-breeder. Read the original link I posted for more info on this. Of course, this strategy assumes that there wasn't some genetic reason the original animal wouldn't breed in the first place. Perhaps he was shy? Or spent too much time reading slashdot? It seems to me that its likely he was just infertile. This is the biggest weakness of the strategy, in my opinion.
Actually, they do not need to find a young animal from which to clone. Dolly, the first cloned mammal, was cloned from an adult. The "cellular age" of the clone does not equal the age of the animal from which it was cloned. However, you are correct that there is still debate about whether clones age prematurely.
Also, there has already been work done on using clones to save endangered species (BBC story).
There is also a project in Australia to clone an extinct species, the Tasmanian tiger (BBC story).
There are many reasons for using cloning to save endangered species, rather than just having them mate. These include: some species are not mating fast enough to keep up, some species don't mate well in captivity, and the desire to increase genetic diversity (by cloning from a captive animal that won't breed).
The ethics of all of this may be debatable, but like it or not, the technology is going to make this a real possibility.