...get into bioinformatics, computational biology, and do your CS as a minor. At least, that's what I'd do if I were gonna start over.
The tough thing about entering the compbio world, specifically in industry, is that truly engineering style gene programming type jobs (what the previous poster is alluding to) are few for now. I have a biotech degree from an engineering school and focused on compbio as my specialty. After 4 years (short I know...) in the discovery sector I have seen a few of the junctions of computing and bio come and go. Most notable of these would most likely be gene expression analysis. A few years ago simply running a dozen gene chips and doing a simple clustering analysis was enough to get a pub. Now you *MUST* follow up with functional analysis of your work.
My recommendation to those interested in computational bio is certainly to pursue your dream; just keep in mind that when you actually get out there the nexus between bio and computers is embryonic, and for the most part dominated by biologists. Hard core soft-eng types may find a slower moving, less structured environment for pursuing their goals of writing the first biological computer than they envision.
Personal responsibility...
on
Shocking Clothing
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
"You might run into some problems if it shocked the person wearing it" (...attorney Margot Barg, a product liability specialist...)
Spoken like a lawyer... If there are inherent preventable flaws in this jacket there will be solid grounds, legally and ethically, for taking the manufacturer/designer to court. I am certain it would happen. I am equally certain that if someone chooses to encase herself in an electrical field she should be prepared for the occassional accidental discharge.
But alas, the jacket will be dropped in the mud, thrown in the washer, dryed in the dryer, its protective rubber cracked, and someone who gets shocked will sue the makers without having truly contemplated the potential dangers of owning the device in the first place.
That's what legislatures are supposed to do with the system we've got, as opposed to the one we might wish we had. That's what they are doing here.
You are indeed correct in all of what you said. Many people don't understand the depth of the contradictions built into the Constitution, devices in place to strive to reach an ideal in a real world.
Your citation of the Voting Rights Act is an excellent example of where, evidently, my previous bias would come out strongly. It took a protective law to enforce a fundamental right that otherwise was not supported the the majority white community. It would have been ideal for the citizenry to pick up that responsibility themselves, and that's what I would have pushed for...of course, that's why IANAP (I Am Not A Politician)!
Forgive my short memory, but I believe one of the Founders wrote in a letter, or spoke in general assembly, something to the effect of a Constitutional Republic only succeeding if the people were of strong ethical/moral fibre. I think we are...but you are right, the reality is that given the intrinsically contradictory, balancing nature of our form of government the protection/recognition of freedoms is good thing.
infrequent that we see lawmakers making laws to PROTECT our freedoms rather than remove them
IMHO this is not a good thing. One of the problems Americans face today is the presence of so many laws reducing explicit or implied freedoms, as you noted. Yet explicitly stating in statute tangible freedoms contradicts the Constitutional notion of preexisting rights fundamental to the human condition. The goal of the Constitution is to recognize freedom, protect it, and limit rights only to the extent necessary to support the common good.
At first blush you are right, its about time we had freedoms recognized by politicians. But I would much rather see them tear down thousands of bad laws and restrictions, and get a couple of really good, common sense ones in there, and enforce them. I don't want to start to have my freedoms enumerated by a Congress, Court, or Executive.
P.S. This is all without respect to political affiliation. Wireless, RIAA, M$ monopolies, Guns, Abortion, Environment...all these issues may have different sides, and all need applicable laws, but I am just saying that the laws should not state a freedom and protect it, only restrict abuses contrary to the will of the Constitution, the people, and the common good.
A great challenge of educational games has been to flexibly respond to the differing skills of the learners in the rapid manner that a teacher can. If you look at the games my 3 year old plays, the challenge level adjusts automatically to her ability. Yet if she goes in an unanticipated direction, my presence is necessary to answer the questions that the games cannot.
Prensky's take on children (even adults:>) expecting the software to teach you (software is supposed to teach you how to use it) speaks to the need for new design ideas...not that we can know what will work well in advance. For now combined approaches (such as those being worked on by history game company MuzzyLane) hopefully will keep us moving in the right direction for kids and for adults.
I agree, and would add that in a multiplayer game you had expanded economic activity from allied/enemy players spending cash on your goods. You could practical cripple an ally's/opponent's economy by pledging out more money on flags than your opponent could. Unlike most RTS games you could inflict fiscal pain on someone to pressure them to fall in line without actually having to spend tons of money flagging their palace.
"No decision to go ahead with an experiment... should be made unless the general public is satisfied..."
An interesting question is not simply the scientific realities of dooms-day science but the implied obligation of all people to the worldwide community. It seems as the years pass we get closer to having a serious discussion, as citizens of our individual nations, as to whether our responsibilities lie with our own flag or a "global" identity.
Slashdot Mirror
Didn't you read the review? Typesetting! Style! Composition! You should have used:
My THAC0 isn't low enough to read this article...
Notice use of "0" in place of "O"...come on, people!
...get into bioinformatics, computational biology, and do your CS as a minor. At least, that's what I'd do if I were gonna start over.
The tough thing about entering the compbio world, specifically in industry, is that truly engineering style gene programming type jobs (what the previous poster is alluding to) are few for now. I have a biotech degree from an engineering school and focused on compbio as my specialty. After 4 years (short I know...) in the discovery sector I have seen a few of the junctions of computing and bio come and go. Most notable of these would most likely be gene expression analysis. A few years ago simply running a dozen gene chips and doing a simple clustering analysis was enough to get a pub. Now you *MUST* follow up with functional analysis of your work.
My recommendation to those interested in computational bio is certainly to pursue your dream; just keep in mind that when you actually get out there the nexus between bio and computers is embryonic, and for the most part dominated by biologists. Hard core soft-eng types may find a slower moving, less structured environment for pursuing their goals of writing the first biological computer than they envision.
"You might run into some problems if it shocked the person wearing it" (...attorney Margot Barg, a product liability specialist...)
Spoken like a lawyer... If there are inherent preventable flaws in this jacket there will be solid grounds, legally and ethically, for taking the manufacturer/designer to court. I am certain it would happen. I am equally certain that if someone chooses to encase herself in an electrical field she should be prepared for the occassional accidental discharge.
But alas, the jacket will be dropped in the mud, thrown in the washer, dryed in the dryer, its protective rubber cracked, and someone who gets shocked will sue the makers without having truly contemplated the potential dangers of owning the device in the first place.
That's what legislatures are supposed to do with the system we've got, as opposed to the one we might wish we had. That's what they are doing here.
...BTW, your reply was a pleasure to read.
You are indeed correct in all of what you said. Many people don't understand the depth of the contradictions built into the Constitution, devices in place to strive to reach an ideal in a real world.
Your citation of the Voting Rights Act is an excellent example of where, evidently, my previous bias would come out strongly. It took a protective law to enforce a fundamental right that otherwise was not supported the the majority white community. It would have been ideal for the citizenry to pick up that responsibility themselves, and that's what I would have pushed for...of course, that's why IANAP (I Am Not A Politician)!
Forgive my short memory, but I believe one of the Founders wrote in a letter, or spoke in general assembly, something to the effect of a Constitutional Republic only succeeding if the people were of strong ethical/moral fibre. I think we are...but you are right, the reality is that given the intrinsically contradictory, balancing nature of our form of government the protection/recognition of freedoms is good thing.
infrequent that we see lawmakers making laws to PROTECT our freedoms rather than remove them
IMHO this is not a good thing. One of the problems Americans face today is the presence of so many laws reducing explicit or implied freedoms, as you noted. Yet explicitly stating in statute tangible freedoms contradicts the Constitutional notion of preexisting rights fundamental to the human condition. The goal of the Constitution is to recognize freedom, protect it, and limit rights only to the extent necessary to support the common good.
At first blush you are right, its about time we had freedoms recognized by politicians. But I would much rather see them tear down thousands of bad laws and restrictions, and get a couple of really good, common sense ones in there, and enforce them. I don't want to start to have my freedoms enumerated by a Congress, Court, or Executive.
P.S. This is all without respect to political affiliation. Wireless, RIAA, M$ monopolies, Guns, Abortion, Environment...all these issues may have different sides, and all need applicable laws, but I am just saying that the laws should not state a freedom and protect it, only restrict abuses contrary to the will of the Constitution, the people, and the common good.
A great challenge of educational games has been to flexibly respond to the differing skills of the learners in the rapid manner that a teacher can. If you look at the games my 3 year old plays, the challenge level adjusts automatically to her ability. Yet if she goes in an unanticipated direction, my presence is necessary to answer the questions that the games cannot.
:>) expecting the software to teach you (software is supposed to teach you how to use it) speaks to the need for new design ideas...not that we can know what will work well in advance. For now combined approaches (such as those being worked on by history game company MuzzyLane) hopefully will keep us moving in the right direction for kids and for adults.
Prensky's take on children (even adults
I loved how that economy worked...
I agree, and would add that in a multiplayer game you had expanded economic activity from allied/enemy players spending cash on your goods. You could practical cripple an ally's/opponent's economy by pledging out more money on flags than your opponent could. Unlike most RTS games you could inflict fiscal pain on someone to pressure them to fall in line without actually having to spend tons of money flagging their palace.
"No decision to go ahead with an experiment... should be made unless the general public is satisfied..." An interesting question is not simply the scientific realities of dooms-day science but the implied obligation of all people to the worldwide community. It seems as the years pass we get closer to having a serious discussion, as citizens of our individual nations, as to whether our responsibilities lie with our own flag or a "global" identity.