Science should be open to everything - including the unmeasurable and unexplainable.
While not a scientist, it is my understanding that science attempts to provide explanations (theories) backed up by measurements (experiments/observation) for things that are currently unexplainable. Thus science is very open to the unexplainable and has asked numerous questions that to this day are unresolved. On the other hand ID says there is something that designed life that you CANNOT explain or measure hence why it does not belong in a science classroom. Instead it should be part of a class on religion, philosophy, sociology and possibly one day only in a history class.
Well the years of study to be a doctor is not for me, so I didn't pursue it. You have to evaluate the options and decide what is important to you. He did get one thing right, there are a lot of options here in the US. Unfortunately our culture seems to cater to the lowest common denominator. There is no value in pursuing knowledge unless there is a high immediate dollar value attached.
I've been reading the comments and I can tell that here are not a lot of people interested in an engineering degree given the difficulty involved. I would say that the value that my Computer Engineering education gave me that I do not often find in graduates of the Business School Computer Science program is critical thinking skills and adaptability.
Exposure to multiple engineering fields early allows a student to see how what was learned in Calculus class can be used to model problems from Statics & Dynamics to Circuits. More than just learning a skill, you learn to use knowledge in ways that are different from the intended purpose.
I feel it is my engineering education more than my Computer Science specific courses that have allowed me to learn new technologies and solve problems more quickly now that I work in industry. My starting salary may not reflect this, but my relatively quick advancement in comparison to my Business Comp Sci counterparts and encouragement by my manager to pursue higher levels at our company I think does.
In an increasingly diverse country you need to get over an aversion to instructors of foriegn origin. I complained about some of my instructors in school, but I now work on a team where near half the members are foreign born. If it really bothers you, get that Phd and teach.
If you enjoy solving problems using mathematics and scientific reasoning, then I would encourage anyone to pursue some type of engineering field. Our country needs more problem solvers than it does more skilled labor.
The article said:
Despite a veto threat from President Bush, lawmakers voted 238-187 to block the part of the anti-terrorism law that allows the government to investigate the reading habits of terror suspects.
Possibly my own bias, but I read it as:
Despite a veto threat from President Bush, lawmakers voted 238-187 to block the part of the anti-terrorism law that allows the government to investigate the reading habits of citizens.
Aren't U.S. citizens supposed to be innocent until proven guilty in a court of law? It's not that I'm worried about them using these powers against terrorists; it's that there is no strong oversight to see that it isn't used by less scrupulous agents against ordinary citizens.
Slashdot Mirror
While not a scientist, it is my understanding that science attempts to provide explanations (theories) backed up by measurements (experiments/observation) for things that are currently unexplainable. Thus science is very open to the unexplainable and has asked numerous questions that to this day are unresolved. On the other hand ID says there is something that designed life that you CANNOT explain or measure hence why it does not belong in a science classroom. Instead it should be part of a class on religion, philosophy, sociology and possibly one day only in a history class.
This article seems to amount to: "Its not for me"
Well the years of study to be a doctor is not for me, so I didn't pursue it. You have to evaluate the options and decide what is important to you. He did get one thing right, there are a lot of options here in the US. Unfortunately our culture seems to cater to the lowest common denominator. There is no value in pursuing knowledge unless there is a high immediate dollar value attached.
I've been reading the comments and I can tell that here are not a lot of people interested in an engineering degree given the difficulty involved. I would say that the value that my Computer Engineering education gave me that I do not often find in graduates of the Business School Computer Science program is critical thinking skills and adaptability.
Exposure to multiple engineering fields early allows a student to see how what was learned in Calculus class can be used to model problems from Statics & Dynamics to Circuits. More than just learning a skill, you learn to use knowledge in ways that are different from the intended purpose.
I feel it is my engineering education more than my Computer Science specific courses that have allowed me to learn new technologies and solve problems more quickly now that I work in industry. My starting salary may not reflect this, but my relatively quick advancement in comparison to my Business Comp Sci counterparts and encouragement by my manager to pursue higher levels at our company I think does.
In an increasingly diverse country you need to get over an aversion to instructors of foriegn origin. I complained about some of my instructors in school, but I now work on a team where near half the members are foreign born. If it really bothers you, get that Phd and teach.
If you enjoy solving problems using mathematics and scientific reasoning, then I would encourage anyone to pursue some type of engineering field. Our country needs more problem solvers than it does more skilled labor.
The article said:
Despite a veto threat from President Bush, lawmakers voted 238-187 to block the part of the anti-terrorism law that allows the government to investigate the reading habits of terror suspects.
Possibly my own bias, but I read it as:
Despite a veto threat from President Bush, lawmakers voted 238-187 to block the part of the anti-terrorism law that allows the government to investigate the reading habits of citizens.
Aren't U.S. citizens supposed to be innocent until proven guilty in a court of law? It's not that I'm worried about them using these powers against terrorists; it's that there is no strong oversight to see that it isn't used by less scrupulous agents against ordinary citizens.