Forgot your password?

Comment: That totally won't work. (Score 1) 319

by tlambert (#47978389) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Finding a Job After Completing Computer Science Ph.D?

Motivation notwithstanding, I would also suggest that you consider consulting.

That totally won't work.

Consulting requires selling, and they've already demonstrated an inability to sell the one product that they're intimately familiar with, and that it's currently their *only* job to sell right now, which is themselves to an employer.

If you can't sell yourself to an employer, how much harder is it going to be to sell your services into the much smaller services market, if you are incapable of selling in the first place?

Comment: Re:Too be fair... (Score 1) 166

by drinkypoo (#47978211) Attached to: CDC: Ebola Cases Could Reach 1.4 Million In 4 Months

when your people are dying and people are coming in, risking their own lives to try and help you, and your response is to attack and kill them, trying to use the injustices of the past to justify the mass deaths of the present won't win you any friends

This isn't about justifying deaths or winning friends. This is about if you want to try to help people, you have to craft your message in a way that they are ready to receive.

Comment: Re:Your employer (Score 1) 177

by drinkypoo (#47977915) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Who Should Pay Costs To Attend Conferences?

Yes, we do know what kind of conference this is because the OP told us.

What. No, no they have not. They said it was specific to a technology, that's it. You then concluded that it was more along the line of "C# or Java: Haskell to the Rescue!". but it could easily be technology-related, for example automation controls. There's lots of reasons why someone in the public sector might have something to gain by visiting a conference being held in Vegas. It's just a common place to hold them for a broad variety of reasons. You don't know what the subject matter is, but you're sure you do. Why? The provided evidence is insufficient to jump to the conclusion you're now standing upon.

Comment: Re:Corporate taxes (Score 1) 227

All taxes are regressive. The rich (and Corporations) will spend money to avoid paying taxes, leaving those that can't to pay the lion's share. There is no way to avoid this scenario, because taxes are punitive in function (e.g. Alcohol, tobacco etc) if not in practice. And while I agree that we need some form of taxes, they should be voluntary contractual agreements between Citizens and the government.

Unfortunately, the government doesn't really care about citizens, which is why our tax system is so screwed up, and why Political leaders are willing to screw it up more to get elected.

The easiest solution is to tax the velocity of money. Similar to VAT tax, but applies to all monetary exchanges of all types, from bank transfers to buy a house. The lone exception would be all cash (real greenback) transactions. Every Month, banking institutions would send an IRS statement, for each person to write a check on the transactions they incurred. It would be easy, clean and affect everyone, yet be completely easy, transparent and as taxes go up, people notice.

Comment: Re: Read Slashdot (Score 2) 319

I started to hate ________, and I didn't want to. I did __________ (unrelated thing) for a few years to recharge. I miss it, and have been working to catch up on the last six years.

That is my exact story. I've been doing IT for 30+ years, and there is a six year (yup) period when I sold cars. People SHOULD take time off, or risk burning out. I'd rather have someone who took time off, than someone that is on the verge of burning out.

Comment: Re:How is that supposed to work? (Score 2) 85

by Archangel Michael (#47976245) Attached to: The Site That Teaches You To Code Well Enough To Get a Job

The hacker nature starts when a kid is six years old and takes apart a bicycle (or whatever). This is where the dad takes the kid and makes him put it back together. And then takes the bike apart, and does it again, only this time, letting the kid "modify" the bike. Hacker Nature is often drilled out (WTF are you doing, hope your happy, have fun not riding your bike because I am not helping you fix it) of kids by parents who are too busy to encourage it. I've seen plenty of parents ruin their kids with attitudes of "no".

Comment: Do you want to do research or be a programmer? (Score 2) 319

by AuMatar (#47975941) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Finding a Job After Completing Computer Science Ph.D?

A Phd is a researching degree. If you want to use that degree, you should be making very targeted applications at companies that are looking to hire people in your subfield. You should not be applying to general developer positions, you should be applying to very specific jobs you specialize in.

If all you want is a job as a developer, then you're going to get interviewed like a developer. Don't hide your phd, but don't expect it to mean anything. A Phd isn't going to help you write a webpage, or develop a standard business or phone app. The things they need aren't addressed in a phd program. They need programmers. So they're going to test that you can actually program. They're going to treat you just like any other applicant, whatever degree they have. That means starting with the "is this guy a complete fraud" test.

I've gotta ask- why did you get the Phd? If you got it because you wanted to work on a specific field, work in it. If you got it because you wanted to call yourself doctor or you thought more degrees the better, you should have done some research before spending 6 years of your life on it.

Comment: Re:The whole article is just trolling (Score 1) 728

by Alsee (#47975669) Attached to: How Our Botched Understanding of "Science" Ruins Everything

The article is kind of dumb.

Ad hominem.

You really shouldn't try to use fancy words you don't understand, trying to look smart. That was not Ad Hominem. That was his opening comment giving his opinion of the article (not the person). He then proceeded to follow up his opening opinion with perfectly valid arguments.

It's some guy who isn't a scientist and who doesn't really understand the scientific method arrogantly bitching about how everybody else doesn't really understand the scientific method.

Appeal to authority (arguing that the "authority" is unimpeachable).

You don't understand Argument From Authority either, nor do you understand when it is a fallacy and when it isn't.

That's the *actual* scientific method.

No-true-Scotsman fallacy.

Not only did you get No True Scotsman wrong, you actually have it backwards. It was the author of the "kind of dumb article" that committed the No True Scotsman fallacy. It was the article author who fallaciously tried to exclude science-he-didn't-like as not being "true science".

Controlled experiment may or may not come into it at all.
Look at where it says "Testing".

I suggest you look at where it says "Testing": Astronomers do experiments, searching for planets around distant stars.
Astronomers, geologists, paleontologists, climatologists, and countless other fields of science are testing scientific theories when they engage in measurements and observations of the real world, which test the predictions of those theories.

But I would like to thank you for pointing out that Wikipedia section. I can see how you could read that section and overlook the example illustrating that observations-testing-predictions are a form of scientific experiment. That section should definitely be more clear. I'll leave a comment to that effect on the Talk page. ~~~~


Comment: Re:The whole article is just trolling (Score 1) 728

by Alsee (#47975099) Attached to: How Our Botched Understanding of "Science" Ruins Everything

I think he's saying that we shouldn't be using evolution as a talking point when we want to say "see science works!" because we have no proof that evolution indeed works as Darwin described.

(1) Actually he's doing the standard right-wingnut attack on any science they don't like, primarily evolution and climate, and every field of science that supports them.

(2) Setting aside the poor choice word "proof", I think you underestimate what we've got backing up evolution. We literally have mathematical theorems proving the information-creating process of evolution. Evolution is an applied science, used somewhere or other by a majority of Fortune 500 Companies. (Specifically, software genetic algorithms that evolve "digital DNA". It's a field of programming that can solve categories of Hard Problems that are effectively impossible to solve by any other means.) We also have a continuous and complete fossil record of tens of millions of years of evolution covering much of Phylum Foraminifera. Foraminifera are tiny aquatic animals, most smaller than the period on this sentence. They live in the oceans in vast numbers, continually dying and raining down into sea floor sediment. 1970's deep sea oil exploration started bringing up long drill-cores from the deep seabed. Each core is filled with thousands of perfectly layered Foraminifera fossils. We have an effectively limitless supply of these fossils. And it's not merely every transitional form species. We can continuously trace the transitional forms along a ~150,000 year transition as one species splits into two. The only limitation on time-resolution is the small amount of vertical-mixing caused by living animals which disturb the sediment surface.


Comment: Re:The article is more extreme than the summary (Score 1) 728

by Smidge204 (#47975073) Attached to: How Our Botched Understanding of "Science" Ruins Everything

And no I will not define those as they are of no concern or interest to science, that is philosophy.

But you have to define them in order to justify the assertion that science isn't concerned with it.

You are making a distinction between "general truth" and "Absolute Truth" - and you need to back that up or you have no argument beyond "because I say so."

Comment: Re:So in the future ... (Score 1) 143

by Rei (#47974841) Attached to: The UPS Store Will 3-D Print Stuff For You

Really, shipping bulk raw materials is equivalent to shipping finished goods, in your world? Finished goods are usually predominantly waste space, are full of packaging, have to be handled gingerly, and need to be distributed to individuals in different locations. Raw materials are packed together as densely as possible, little to no packaging, can be thrown around, and go straight to just a couple manufacturers. And when import taxes come into play, it's even more extreme, since those are generally based on the price of what you're importing.

Comment: Re:The whole article is just trolling (Score 1) 728

by Alsee (#47974721) Attached to: How Our Botched Understanding of "Science" Ruins Everything

Which "AGW denying bit" would that be? It can't be the part about observation because it hasn't gotten any warmer for the past 18 years, so there would be no warming to be observed.

When one activist website tell you that the earth is warming, and another activist website tells you that the earth isn't warming, it's a good idea to check the actual scientific data to determine which activist website is getting the facts wrong. Here's an 18 year graph. The earth has in fact been warming over the last 18 years.

Here's the 50 year graph. That's a neat website that lets you generate graphs over any date range. If you want to play with it, just be sure to update the year-values for both series 1 (the red graph) and series 2 (the green graph).

There was also an unexpected surge in heat being pulled from the atmosphere into the deep ocean. This has recently pulled a vast amount of heat off of the typical graphs of surface-level atmospheric temperature. This is why air-temperature-graphs gives a false impression of somewhat slower warming the last few years.

Air is extremely low density. Very little of the global heat resides in the atmosphere, and what does show up in the air is extremely variable as heat shifts between the air and the land&sea. In fact the atmosphere only accounts for 2% of global heat content. The land surface temperatures are about 8%. The massive oceans account for 90% of the planet's heat content. Here's a graph of ocean heat over the last 50-odd years. The vast majority of heat ultimately goes into the oceans. That graph shows that there has been absolutely no slowing in the rate of global heat increase. Global warming hasn't paused. Global warming hasn't stopped. Global warming hasn't slowed.

There doesn't exist ONE scientific body of national or international standing that still denies man-made global warming. The last national or international scientific body to dissent was, comically, the American Association of Petroleum Geologists back in 2007. Yep, even the oil geologists stopped denying it seven years ago.


"There is hopeful symbolism in the fact that flags do not wave in a vacuum." --Arthur C. Clarke