Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment: Article asks an important question (Score 1) 45

by davidwr (#49616083) Attached to: No, NASA Did Not Accidentally Invent Warp Drive

From the article [numbers added for clarity]:

So let me ask you this, aspiring (or armchair) scientists: what would be the criteria you'd demand as the extraordinary evidence necessary to convince you that this is real? For myself, here's what Iâ(TM)d demand at minimum:

  • [1.] A detection of thrust that scaled with input power: the greater the power, the greater the thrust, in a predictable relationship.
  • [2.] A thrust that was at least many standard deviations above the measurement error.
  • [3.] An isolated environment, where atmospheric, gravitational and electromagnetic effects were all removed.
  • [4.] A reproducible setup and a transparent device design, so that other, independent teams can further test and validate the device/investigate the mechanism.
  • [5.] And finally, a detailed results report with the submission of an accompanying paper to peer review, and acceptance by the journal in question.

* I would certainly demand #4 - this combined with #3 (or a substitute - see below) is the gold standard for "there is really something here even if we don't know what it is".
* I would demand #5 or a similar process of independent peer review
* I would allow "enough reproductions over enough diverse environments to rule out environmental factors" as a substitute for #3.
* As for #2, the less the measurement error could lead to misleading results, the better, but a result that is "at least many standard deviations above the measurement error" may not be necessary to declare that we have an interesting, publishable result worthy of further study.

I would let #1 go: If the phenomenon was caused by something that did NOT scale with input power, it could still be interesting. It might not get us to space, but it would be worth publishing and studying.

Comment: Well, if you really want recent college grads... (Score 1) 317

by davidwr (#49615915) Attached to: Recruiters Use 'Digital Native' As Code For 'No Old Folks'

... create a job where the essential functions of the job really do require at least 30 clock-hours of recent (in the last 5 years) training OR equivalent on-the-job/volunteer/self-study experience in a broad list of non-technical courses typically taught in undergraduate programs AND which candidates who have not been in school the last 5 years likely won't have.

For example, most recent graduates who went to school full-time the last 4-5 years studied at least one semester of
* American history
* Writing or composition ("English 101")
* Differential Calculus

If you have a job that really does make use of these jobs - even if you've deliberately gone out of your way to engineer the job requirements so that someone without this knowledge would have difficulty doing the job - you should be alright.

Round out the list with "relevant" technical courses. For example, for a programmer position, structure the job so that it really does require that a candidate recently had 30 classroom hours of ALL of the following courses or had the equivalent experience or self-study in these areas:
* algorithm design
* computer hardware
* [list two programming languages that weren't in vogue 10 years ago here]
* [list another skill that is widely taught in school but which only a small fraction of "industry hires" will have more than a passing knowledge of here]

Then for good measure throw in things like "must have given at least 3 technical presentations of at least 15 minutes each in the last 5 years, at least one of which is to a non-lay audience."

Again, this will only work if the job really does require the knowledge and skills that the job description asked for. If a motivated candidate that lacks one or more of the requirements could reasonably be expected to "fill in the gaps" through self-study before he needed to use those skills between the time he started the application/resume process and the time he needed them on the job, then making them a job requirement could be seen as a sham and it could get you into trouble.

Here's a hypothetical "engineered" job designed specifically to require such skills:

Job posting: Web programmer Level I
Salary range: [keep it on the low end but not OMGTHISMUSTBEANHB1POSITION low]
Primary duties: Work under supervision to design, implement, and maintain web sites using [list 2-3 fairly new web-development environments]
Secondary duties: Give short talks about your projects to other teams in the company; attend short talks given by other teams and provide feedback; present papers at technical conferences
Non-technical duties: Represent company in college- and high-school outreach including participating in "adult vs. youth" contests like "Are you smarter than an 11th-Grade American History Student," giving talks to middle school students on topics such as "how to make a ripple-carry adder circuit from the things you find at home," and giving talks to high school Calculus students on topics like "not all computers are digital."

Now, Mr. Employer, I have to ask you:

Is it really worth re-jiggering your employees' job duties specifically so your typical industry hire would not be qualified but your typical recent B.S.-holding technical-degree-graduate would? Add to that the fact that more seasoned professionals bring certain hard-to-define qualities to the job that you typically just can't get from less-seasoned professionals and recent grads? Also, don't forget loyalty: People who have kids-in-tow or who have lived in the area for awhile are very unlikely to want to move to a new area once they hire on with you. While you can't ask about kids or length-of-current-residence in a job interview, you can generally assume that your average person over 30 is more stable/reliable and less likely to "jump ship" for more money or a minor on-the-job annoyance than someone under 25.

Oh, and as for salary:
It's not like the 1990s, we, the "older tech workers," get it: We know that despite the benefits we bring to the table from our years or decades of technical experience, you are paying us to fill a specific role that does not require the benefits of our long experience. We get that we shouldn't expect any more pay now than the 22-year-old college grad who is also interviewing for the position and we get that unless we earn a promotion or change jobs internally, we won't be given any more in the way of pay raises than the 22-year-old will get if he gets the job. We accept this as an economic reality. If we wanted or needed more money, we wouldn't be applying for jobs that a 22-year-old with almost no "real-world" experience could do.

Comment: Re:It's all politics, all the time (Score 2) 163

Oh, one side always thinks the other side is worse. Actually, both sides think that way. And that is how you know you're on one side or the other side.

Here is my question, which is worse? Deleting 18.5 minutes of audio recordings or erasing an entire email server used by the Secretary of State for Official Purposes?

Both are equally wrong. For the same reasons. One guy had to resign in shame, the other is running for president and proud of her accomplishments. Which side is worse? Meh, I can't hardly tell them apart.

Comment: Re:Tech Savvy (Score 1) 317

I know plenty of people who know how to Google something, spew it forth as if it is some universal truth, only to be 100% wrong, because they don't know anything about anything. These are the people who know how to Google, but don't know enough to be able to tell the good vs the bad.

There are three kinds of people

1) People who don't know Google or how to use it
2) People who think they know something because they Googled it
3) People who actually know something, and use Google to enhance their information.

#3 people are the only ones who can have an engaging conversation about the topic without needing to use Google.

Comment: Re:Just Like the "Liberal Media" (Score 0) 163

It is easy to say science isn't political, however it is political if you want government funding.

I want research that says X, I get my buddies in the Y party to create a funding bill for research that says X. I can create science that says X, and get more funding, therefore I say X. If I say not X, I don't get any more funding, and have to find a new job flipping hamburgers at McD's.

Science isn't political ... noooooo

Comment: Re:It's all politics, all the time (Score 2, Interesting) 163

The IRS is politically motivated, which is why the likes of Lois Learner are the ones protected by the AG office from any sort of investigation.

1) I heard about it first on the news
2) I am angry and will get to the bottom of this!
3) Not a Smidgeon of evidence (no investigation either looking for said evidence)
4) Nothing but a Phony scandal
5) Old news.
6) ???
7) Profit!

My take on the whole thing, it is only a scandal with the OTHER side does it. Which is why I am a libertarian, both sides are corrupt, and saying X side is more corrupt than Y, is oversimplification (and not true)

Comment: Tech Savvy (Score 4, Insightful) 317

Fad Savvy more likely. Most of the "Tech Savvy" people I know are Google experts, meaning they know how to Google for an answer, and they think that makes them an expert. Take away their computer, and they can't have a Tech conversation with anyone.

They have no idea what it takes to get them their "Google". They aren't tech savvy, they are digital savvy illiterates.

Comment: Re:Actual facts about experience (Score -1, Troll) 405

Obama was a US Senator longer (3-Jan-2005 to 16-Nov-2008) that Palin was Governor of Alaska

Voting "present" if I recall was his biggest achievement in those years. Having no real accomplishments other than being elected is outstanding political work these days. It also is working for Hilary.

And obviously you think three years as senator makes one fully qualified to be President of the US.

Based on what?

Rose Law firm files
Taking China from the WH
Drug Dealer Scandal
Mail Server Scandal
Clinton Foundation scandal.

Of course, a lifetime of scandal should be enough to prevent her from running. At this point the DNC can't complain about anyone the GOP having "Scandals"

Comment: Re: "The Ego" (Score 0) 405

She crafted and presented a workable health care bill

She wasn't elected to do that. She wasn't even elected. If your best case scenario is this then go away.

She also served successfully as secretary of state in an essentially scandal free administration, no matter how much republicans wish it were otherwise.

Scandal Free? LOL

Successfully? LMAO The world is burning, and you call that success?

I'm a Lisp variable -- bind me!