I completely agree. Customers are stupid, and those that rip them off the best make the most money. Microsoft and Apple are excellent examples of that.
He was probably inspired by today's CEOs and politicians who have no skills beyond lying, cheating and destroying things. Pro-tip: even these things require some level of skill...
Parenting is overrated. This kid is just an idiot and probably has poor impulse control. There is nothing that parenting can do to fix the former and little it can do to fix the latter. Stop looking for people to blame.
It is also this type of person who wil continue to be a problem as self-image and actual capabilities do not match at all.
Basic was so bad, I learned assembler. And then PASCAL, and C, and many more. As examples of really bad technology go, BASIC is a true gem!
Would not surprise me. He certainly did and does not have any reasonable engineering skills. On the other hand, inf the field of sabotaging competitors....
then nothing of this will materialize.
Utterly pathetic statement for an AC. You are just one of the multitude of Dunning-Kruger effect sufferers, "Incompetent and unaware of it". I had my scientific skills validated and confirmed in the real world. But you nicely describe your own problem. It is a start.
Really, you have no clue. "Looking reactionless" and being reactionless are two entirely different things. And pressure from radiation is a well-known and established physical principle and not reactionless at all.
If they had anything real, they would not demonstrate a drive, they would create a minimalistic, clear and reliable lab-setup that demonstrates the effect beyond all doubt and that could be recreated by other teams. Instead, they insist on a relatively complex set-up that cannot easily be recreated but can easily be manipulated. This is the hallmark of scientific fraud: Make grand claims and demonstrate them in a way that looks good but could be entirely due to measurement errors, hidden energy sources and effects, etc. and that cannot be validated by other teams.
Furthermore, if it violates established physics, it needs more than simple scientific proof (i.e. an experiment that other groups can repeat), it needs extraordinary proof. It does not even have simple scientific proof.
For some nice other fraud in this venue, look up the Rossi E-cat or centuries of perpetual motion machines.
Likely this paper was abysmal trash and the reviewer never anticipates his sarcastic remarks could have this effect.
The authors may have proudly declared to be both female and hence may have tried to curry favor.
As a reviewer, I think it is very likely this paper was utterly biased and did not meet sane scientific standards. While it is unprofessional for a reviewer to snap and put in sarcastic remarks like these, they will almost never be the result of sexism, but the result of the pure stupidity of the "research" presented. Also notice that a paper is never rejected based on just one review except in utterly crappy venues.
Personally, I have written reviews that suggested the authors read an undergrad book on the subject or that an undergrad semester thesis may not be the right base for publishing at a good conference. Yes, many, many submitted papers are really that bad.