PhD chemist here, just to give an idea of my work and complexity level. I do a huge variety of algebra regularly. I also do occasional trigonometry and a lot of statistics. Simple linear regressions are always important, and a certain amount of other curve modelling. Calculus? Never. Haven't touched it since grad school, but I did have some use for it then in error analysis studies (multi-variate derivatives to be specific). Then again, I think studying calculus helped me in algebra. It got used so often in manipulating the equations that it became second nature while the calculus remained more challenging.

When I taught, we had a fool proof way to stop illegal cheat sheets. Just let the students bring a cheat sheet. Of course, that made the exams a bit harder. They ended up being less regurgitation and more about comprehension. And proctoring became much easier, fewer things to look for (more time spent scanning for cell phones in use).

This has inspired me to follow through on my love of Modern Warfare into becoming a world class mercenary. I will then follow up with my love of WOW to a career as a successful blood elf. The future looks bright, and I look forward to proving myself right to so many people who told me my "hobbies" would never do me any good.

You know what really pays like crap? Teaching.

I have one of those fancy scientific degrees the parent mentions, and a good job to go with it. I enjoyed teaching in college (TA work in lab and lecture) and think I do pretty decently at it. But it will be a long time until I consider teaching because the pay stinks and I got me a load a debts to manage (thanks to my fancy education).

I guess I'm just stating a moderately true idea that it is often those who can't that teach. I can, so I am somewhere doing the higher paid option. I don't really love it every day, but the almighty dollar matters right now. Would I enjoy teaching more? I just might, particularly the sense of achievement that comes with improving our youth (also called getting to be smug about it). But that field can't afford me right now.

I concur with the view that this is kind of premature. The Nobel committee stated that this is early, and something to encourage future achievements. But I don't see that the man has done nothing to deserve it. I could at least consider that he has...

1. Completely altered and improved the worldview of the US, bringing down a lot of tension that had built up.
2. Reached out to Muslim nations and started a new era of improved relations.
3. Followed through on commitments to pull back from Iraq. He didn't start this policy, I know that, but he has stuck to it and the nation is far more autonomous now then when he took office.
4. Relieved tensions with Russia by taking back a completely silly missile defense site in Poland.
5. Completely changed the US policy on climate change and is working to try and make us actually do better. Which makes every other nation happy.
6. Actually brought Iran to the table and has them acting less crazy and agreeing to ship out portions or their uranium. Sure its not perfect, but it's not a bad start either.

I'm sure there is more, but I'm just saying that there are some achievements of note even at this point in his presidency.

If nothing else, it will be super fun to watch right wingers lose their minds over this. I would even consider watching Glenn Beck tonight, just for the entertainment value.

Just a thought, but the presence of so much good stuff (emitting their own smells/pheromones) in your big bowl of food may overwhelm and/or mask the the negative impact of the fatty acid system. Their experiments seem to be on far more simplistic model systems free from interference.

The device checks for disinfectant (Ag or I). That is neat and all, but I wouldn't go for a "breakthrough in water safety." Sure, disinfectant means fewer bugs in the water. I won't say that isn't one good indicator of safer drinking water. But there is a host of atomic and molecular toxins that the device does nothing about. The EPA regulates for about 20 different things, bacteria being only a small part of it.

A lot of microscopy like this will be done using very carefully prepared atomically smooth surfaces. A good example would be Cu(111). I haven't' dug in, but they might also work with something akin to the "depth of field" in optical work to largely exclude the effect of the background.

If you will recall, young Anakin spoke to his master Watto in his native language. So that makes 5,999,998 he can't understand. Since we are nitpicking here.

It is a widely accepted term in the field, well known to certain physicists/chemists. But Google might help you learn something new.

I've just got to say props to the subby for linking to the original scientific article. For once the link doesn't go to some inaccurate, short mainstream media "summary" of the work that tries to stretch this into a complete cure for AIDS. Seriously a good time to RTFA.

Has anyone given thought to remaking Duke Nukem?