I have a "double asshole" theory of traffic accidents. Usually one person being an asshole (talking on phone, putting on makeup, eating, daydreaming or being otherwise distracted) will be compensated for by road neighbors who are relatively on top of things. When two assholes are adjacent, accidents are highly likely. Theory not proven, but very plausible, I think...
And what, pray tell, are the "upper or even middle echelons of academia"? Tenured positions and assistant professorships?
Smells like "job security".
I believe that personal satisfaction comes from following one's interests. Unless you're very, very lucky, that won't make you rich, but it can at least make you feel superior.
If *I* were hiring, I'd consider evidence of heavy FBing and tweeting as indicating that the person under consideration had nothing better to do and would likely not be a very good employee. In fact, I'd tend to look at *any* current interwebz presence as an indication that the person has an agenda other than the one I'm hiring for.
Yes, it's pretty amusing to RTFA and read between the lines. The calculation of ROI from tax dollars is predicated on no other investment from private sources, even though they mention in passing that there's been substantial private input.
I'm all for funding science, but this sort of hype is just propaganda for the proles and members of congress.
Yes, this is what I see reported a lot, and I think you've expressed it better than many.
Unless, I'm misunderstanding, though, I find your interest in online shooters really curious since it seems like such a stereotypically male genre. What is it about shooter gameplay that attracts you, but wouldn't induce you to trash talk back when you run into the attitudes you describe?
I'm wondering if this could lead to a new sub-genre or a previously undiscovered demographic...
what I see reported as the biggest turn-off to most women is the perception that tech work, computer science in particular, is "geeky", whatever that might mean.
Proposed solutions always seem to involve changing geek culture to be more welcoming and sensitive, but I don't see that happening.
To me, geekiness is inherent in the field and can't be avoided. Where's the value proposition in trying to attract women to a situation that they are likely to find ultimately distasteful?
Seems to me that people follow their interests. What's the advantage of misdirecting these interests in the name of some abstract goal of "diversity"?
Unfortunately, government funded research also is short sighted, but sometimes not as short as that which is commercially funded.
Note that it usually has to be sold to Congress (the actual funders) as having some societal good - witness the brain project being touted as maybe leading to cures for Alzheimers.
Basic research (that is with no obvious commercial potential) usually follows free market principles - there's no market for it so it has to be done for free.
I don't see this changing anytime soon, and maybe it shouldn't...
Maybe two decades or so ago, I recall seeing movies of scanning electron micrographs (SEM) of microchips (CMOS?) strobed with periodic inputs of fairly high frequency. By making slight changes in the input frequency, it was possible to see individual signals (electron charges) travel across the traces on the chip. I've been waiting to see this sort of visualization technique available for biological neural networks. The temporal resolution isn't quite there yet, but it appears to be coming.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd never noticed the "Search tools" before. Looks to be quite useful. Thanks.
Fully agree.
I have a "double asshole" theory of traffic accidents. Usually one person being an asshole (talking on phone, putting on makeup, eating, daydreaming or being otherwise distracted) will be compensated for by road neighbors who are relatively on top of things. When two assholes are adjacent, accidents are highly likely. Theory not proven, but very plausible, I think...
And what, pray tell, are the "upper or even middle echelons of academia"? Tenured positions and assistant professorships?
Smells like "job security".
I believe that personal satisfaction comes from following one's interests. Unless you're very, very lucky, that won't make you rich, but it can at least make you feel superior.
pronounced shi-TAWN ?
Whoever modded this "funny" isn't paranoid enough.
If *I* were hiring, I'd consider evidence of heavy FBing and tweeting as indicating that the person under consideration had nothing better to do and would likely not be a very good employee. In fact, I'd tend to look at *any* current interwebz presence as an indication that the person has an agenda other than the one I'm hiring for.
Depends on the details, though.
Yes, it's pretty amusing to RTFA and read between the lines. The calculation of ROI from tax dollars is predicated on no other investment from private sources, even though they mention in passing that there's been substantial private input.
I'm all for funding science, but this sort of hype is just propaganda for the proles and members of congress.
If you ask me, the *union* of those two sets is pretty empty. Well, vacant anyway...
I believe there's a Japanese proverb that goes something like: The nail that stands up gets hammered down.
nice boldface.
Oooooh. Analog hole? You make it sound so dirty.
What is this language? Forth?
We be jokin', mon? Or weesa justa Apple fangoy?
InVitroBurger is PEOPLE ! ! !
'nuff said?
Wow. Project much?
Yes, this is what I see reported a lot, and I think you've expressed it better than many.
Unless, I'm misunderstanding, though, I find your interest in online shooters really curious since it seems like such a stereotypically male genre. What is it about shooter gameplay that attracts you, but wouldn't induce you to trash talk back when you run into the attitudes you describe?
I'm wondering if this could lead to a new sub-genre or a previously undiscovered demographic...
tired.
what I see reported as the biggest turn-off to most women is the perception that tech work, computer science in particular, is "geeky", whatever that might mean.
Proposed solutions always seem to involve changing geek culture to be more welcoming and sensitive, but I don't see that happening. To me, geekiness is inherent in the field and can't be avoided. Where's the value proposition in trying to attract women to a situation that they are likely to find ultimately distasteful?
Seems to me that people follow their interests. What's the advantage of misdirecting these interests in the name of some abstract goal of "diversity"?
Am I missing something?
Ooooh, I like it. Is this real (ref please) or did you make it up?
And so does WiFi.
I'm tired of this terminology and on a half-hearted campaign to change it.
I'm in the old-school camp where "hacker"s are clever and not necessarily malicious.
"cracker" has the much-noted redneck connotation.
"jacker", partially from hijacker, is preferable. I guess I'd be satisfied with "cracker-jacker", too.
Unfortunately, government funded research also is short sighted, but sometimes not as short as that which is commercially funded.
Note that it usually has to be sold to Congress (the actual funders) as having some societal good - witness the brain project being touted as maybe leading to cures for Alzheimers.
Basic research (that is with no obvious commercial potential) usually follows free market principles - there's no market for it so it has to be done for free.
I don't see this changing anytime soon, and maybe it shouldn't...
Maybe two decades or so ago, I recall seeing movies of scanning electron micrographs (SEM) of microchips (CMOS?) strobed with periodic inputs of fairly high frequency. By making slight changes in the input frequency, it was possible to see individual signals (electron charges) travel across the traces on the chip. I've been waiting to see this sort of visualization technique available for biological neural networks. The temporal resolution isn't quite there yet, but it appears to be coming.
Science has answered the age-old question: Which came first: the chicken or the egg?
In evolutionary terms, it was definitely the egg, just not a chicken egg.