Absolutely. Also, as a consultant, do you have any downtime that's not being charged? This sort of competition is worthwhile and (if you like your job) fun.

Also, gamifying these problems gets lots of minds thinking about the problem that wouldn't otherwise. And the "competition" is a cost-free way of separating the wheat from the chaff.

Indeed, it sounds like these results should simply inform a better coefficient for expected real-world performance based on the standardized tests.

Not really*. It doesn't create layers in a step-wise fashion; there isn't a cure -> step -> cure -> step sequence. The piece is continuously moved, with curing taking place continuously over the region of the structure above the oxygen "dead zone", eliminating distinct layers. The resulting continuous structure lacks the weak interface regions generated by other 3D printing methods.

*Of course, the 3D modeler must make slices of some finite thickness; but for this process these can be arbitrarily thin. Cure rate is the limiting factor here, not the number of slices.

Only if programmers want to be hobbyists.

Yeah, 3-4 years is only MONTHS, man. Get some perspective.

The real usefulness of a technique like this (as I understand from the sepsis researchers that I've interacted with), is improved antibiotic stewardship -- preventing overuse of antibiotics and reducing the time the patient need be treated. These rapid assays can provide a better and more timely means to monitor a patient's response to treatment.

The talk about early diagnosis and saving lives is simply a lot more sexy and easier to sell than antibiotic stewardship. The grandstanding about this particular application aside, though, the technique itself is interesting.

and in violation of copyright.

Not that it would (or should) stop me or another author, but rules is rules -- best at least acknowledge them before we break them.

You are absolutely right in principle: networking (business-speak for "talking to people") is highly advantageous at all stages of one's career, nearly irrespective of field.

I'd clarify, though, that social skills are learnable to a large degree rather than exclusively an innate trait. I've found that those who stubbornly refuse to accept social skills as a valuable indicator of 'fitness' for employment/advancement are simply arrogant, immature, and/or suffer from a delusion of geek grandeur. Some of these people will go on to be extremely successful; others are content to wallow in envy and self-effacement. A key differentiating point is the time which the former group recognized accepted that relationships are necessary to accomplish something of value and put their effort into learning how to establishing those relationships.

There is no shortage of CEO's, actors, prominent scientists, or what-have-you, that describe their intense shyness and their efforts to overcome the detrimental effects to their career.

Dude: read the username.

Do you mean english (proficiency in the spoken english language) or English (historical and rhetorical knowledge of english literature)?

There would be justified criticism (though not, necessarily, uproar) about the former, but none about the latter in any region I've ever lived in.

And while we're at it: if you think teachers should be competent a significant portion of your job requirements, why are there 'computer professionals in a school district'? Would you, with your 'knowing a little about most things' be held responsible if you had incorporated incorrect chemical formulae on a school website provided by the chemistry teacher, or be sought after to serve as a replacement for him?

It's most absolutely desirable for every person to have general (or tangential) knowledge relevant to their field, but it is not their core proficiency. I certainly don't value my children's teacher's primarily for their computer skills.

I'm think that 'cell programming' has been about as open source as anything can be for a long, long time...

How strong is your vacuum?


I have a Dyson.

Consider the scenario where a similar product were coated with a substance toxic upon ingestion (unintentional of course)? "Correct" usage still has has no effect and promotes creativity -- I agree that these are great, stimulating toys. But I think few would argue seriously that the poisonous consequences of what ought to be trivial mis-use should be ignored.

If something is lethal when swallowed, I don't see why there's a difference between the effector being magnetic force or a biochemical cascade.

There is a potentially lethal and non-obvious route for accidental misuse. Why would anyone be against putting a warning making this risk more obvious, or making arguments that might persuade retailers to voluntarily stop carrying them? It IS in the governments purview to ensure that commercial products are honest about the risks involved in use -- this includes the risks involved in using them in improper, but anticipated, manners.

Indeed. Additionally, last year's 'ban' was not a ban on the product, but a ban on marketing it to children (under 13, if I recall correctly).

Probably the same reason it's the government's job to ensure that infant formula manufacturers don't spike their products with melamine. For example.