Why do you assume that? I would agree that it is hard to imagine anyone with a strong technical background only knowing Fortran in this day and age but, should such an individual exist, I would not see it as a barrier to hiring them. During my time as a student and a postdoc I taught myself Matlab, Perl, C, C++, Python, Alpha CPU assembler, SQL, ROOT and an interesting variation of BASIC which ran on an old Caviar CAMAC crate controller from the late 1980s! Learning a new language when you already know how to program probably takes a day for basic proficiency and a bit longer to get fully up to speed. It's far more important that you have someone who understands the science and has a strong technical background: if you have that the language is easy to add, if it isn't then you do not have someone with a strong technical background.

You are absolutely correct. I laughed when I read the line in the article which said:

since it shows how clueless the author is about programming languages in science. When I am hiring a postdoc I could not care less which programming language they have used: if I am looking for someone with technical skills all I care about is that they have experience programming. The delay in learning whatever specific languages and packages we use is minimal so long as they have a strong technical background.

This is only ever true if you happen to live precisely on the meridian for your time zone. Given that almost nobody does and that timezones often are determined more by politics than science most people on the planet are already living out of sync with the strict astronomical definition of time by many tens of minutes if not hours.

If we can handle timezones which are an hour wide then we can handle being an hour off between astronomical time and legal time and so if should be fine to buffer the changes until they make up an hour which will take ~7,200 years if the rate is one second every ~2 years (a period longer than any human calendar has ever remained in use for).

Actually it is true for speaking as well. I agree that accent-wise it is far easier for us to pronounce German than French but that accent does not usually hinder comprehension. However not knowing the vocabulary because it is completely different can significantly hinder comprehension. There is also the issue with the very different, and very strict, word order in German which can be hard to get right for an English speaker.

Just curious but how do you actually choose whether or not to believe in something? Generally I find it is a process of listening to the evidence and then making up my mind whether or not something is true. That 'belief' can be changed by evidence, thoughts or ideas - either ones I come up with or ones others share in a discussion - but it never seems to me to be a conscious decision about whether or not I want to believe something: either something seems correct or it doesn't.

This is what I find fascinating about an argument like this. You can certainly act like you believe in $deity but can you really make yourself actually believe in something (or not believe) by making a conscious decision to do so? I'm not sure that I could in which case such arguments become utterly invalid since your belief, or lack of it, is not something you really control.

Yes the critical universe was always rather improbable but the early supernova data pushed us into eternal expansion (before it was realized that it was actually accelerating) which ultimately is the same thing: heath death.

I don't buy the religious input at all though. The reason for assuming a steady state universe was simply because the local universe appears relatively constant and unchanging i.e. in a steady state. It is only when you look at the largest possible scales that you realize that things have changed very significantly and that has only been possible in the past century. Indeed one of the strongest proponents for the 'steady state' universe was Fred Hoyle (he actually coined the term Big Bang to deride that theory) who was a lifelong atheist.

You are comparing apples with oranges. Our common, everyday words are far more like German than French: bruder=brother (vs. frere), Ich war = I was (vs. j'étais) etc. However our more complex words are largely from French e.g. economics=economiques (vs. Wirtschaft).

One of the things which makes French so much easier than German to speak for an Englishman is that if you don't know the word (which usually means rarer vocabulary) you can often get away by picking a suitable English word and saying it with a French pronunciation (it does not always work but it is worth a try). With German you cannot do that since the overlap is with the simple, everyday words that you learn when you learn the language. This makes it far harder to both speak and to understand since you have to relearn every word in German whereas with French not so much.

Not really. Before we had Dark Energy the ultimate fate of the universe was to expand up to a finite size and sit there for ever until all the stars died and the Black Holes evaporated leaving and empty, dead universe going on forever.

Now we have an unknown fate since we have no idea what will happen when the Dark Energy density causally disconnects points at the Planck-length, the so-called "Big Rip". I'll take the unknown over permanent, eternal heat death any day.

...and right up until the invention of the transistor computers would never be smaller than a large room or a small house. I would not be so sure about there being no clever idea possible unless there is a mathematical proof to support it. Until recently there was no need to go parallel now there is a growing need to be able to program in parallel and necessity is the mother of invention. While parallel does incur an overhead as CPUs become more parallel and less serial this will presumably eventually overcome the cost of the parallel algorithm.

You might be right but I'm far less certain of it. The problem we have is that further shrinking of silicon makes it easier to add more cores than to make a single core faster so there is a strong push towards parallelism on the hardware side. At the same time the languages we have are not at all designed to cope with parallel programming.

The result is that we are using our computing resources less and less efficiently. I'm a physicist on an LHC experiment at CERN and we are acutely aware of how inefficient our serial algorithms are at using modern hardware. What we need is a breakthrough in programming languages to be able to parallel program efficiently, just like object oriented programming allowed us to scale up the size of programs. Until this happens I agree than not much will change but if there is some clever CS researcher/student out there with a clever idea for a good parallel programming language the conditions are right for a revolution.

Making one program free while the rest remain expensive (all subjects should be free like they are in school) is not a good way to motivate students to take a STEM degree. You will end up with lots of poorly motivated students who cannot afford to take the subject they really want. The best way to ensure that students want to take STEM is to ensure that there are lots of well paid jobs waiting for them. This provides monetary incentive to people planning to make a career in STEM which is what you want.

The problem with society today is that STEM is viewed as hard by most students and leads to a job which is ok but requires real work. Compare that to the view of subjects like business studies or law where the view is that you can get a well paid job and have to do far less actual work to get the same (or even better) salary. That's not to say that there are a lot of really hard working lawyers and MBAs out there but the general perception is that you can get by doing far less work if you want to and still get a better salary than a STEM worker at least based on my interactions with prospective students.

The other reason he doesn't stand a chance is because of Hollywood accounting which ensures that even major blockbusters never make a profit so there will be no profits to capture.

Physically perhaps but in terms of internet presence I would doubt it. As a non-American I'd think this was an entirely appropriate response if it were the US. It has the beauty of being non-violent, extremely humiliating and very effective at preventing them from engaging in further cyberattacks. This should send such a clear message that hopefully even their insane government can understand it. Indeed if anything it seems so well thought out and proportionate that it seems unlikely to be the US government given their previous record.

Really? Since the neolithic was later than the paleolithic what did people do that dropped the life expectancy so much? I realize that the number is heavily skewed by a large infant mortality rate and that those surviving to adulthood lived a lot longer than the average but still to drop 10 years while technology was improving seems very strange - how robust is the data supporting this huge drop?

What happened to stimulating the brain via the old fashioned method by having an exciting, provocative story populated by diverse and interesting characters? Have Hollywood fallen so far that the only way they can stimulate people's brain now is by the direct application of voltage?