I don't know if it's overconfidence so much as getting lazy.
Agreed - there's also the possibility of the classic grad student folly: understanding everything in the mind without having the mastered the nuances of technique...
You have no idea what you are talking about. Go get your degree in organic chemistry and then do at least a Master's thesis before you continue to pretend. "Fancy Shmancy?" You are a fucking idiot. I know I'm going to pay for that, but it needs to be said.
I agree with you... no labcoat would have protected her with something as nasty as t-BuLi...
Ms. Sangji was probably one lab coat away from being saved, and those are cheap.
A lab coat would have done little good with something that burns as hot and fast as t-BuLi - this was literally a case of inexperience and carelessness (she had a stopper in her syringe, as most safety protocols would dictate, but it somehow came out and splashed into the open air) combined with extremely volatile (splashed into the open air) heat juice.
there's either a loose connection or they are unrelated.
They are unrelated, with a loose connection being attempted through the quoted assertion.
It's also no mystery that the left primarily dominates the colleges
It's also no mystery where you get your information. The so-called "studies" that are cited to prove this presumption have sample populations skewed heavily toward the humanities, the (gasp!) "liberal arts." The rebuttals to these refuted pseudo-scientific studies (conducted by right wing think tanks) show that in most STEM disciplines (Science-Technology-Engineering-Math), the tilt is almost invisible.
How are you justifying your ideological rant (minimum wage, welfare, bawwww!) when the question here is one of experience? There's almost no connection between your assertion and the loose concoction of evidence you supply. Turning this into a two-sides infotainment panel discussion will do nothing but ensure stagnation where actual reasoned discussion is needed.
I agree - an accidental Google search can reveal some startling things that - a decade ago, before the mass digitization of the world had started to really archive stuff - would have no longer mattered. The problem is that instead of viewing information gleaned from mediated sources with a judicious, reasoned eye, we've become accustomed to playing "Gotcha!" -- even on those who are themselves ultimately inconsequential.
To anyone so very concerned about a loss of social status based upon decades-old infomation, as well as those who believe that the petty actions of a long-gone teenager define the character and worth of a fully grown and emotionally developed adult, I offer the following:
Choose a dozen random 18-20 year old American males. Place them two to a room in very close quarters, with little supervision by those they consider authority figures. Watch for a year and see how many have defaced or destroyed something extremely valuable, gotten into a fight, stolen things from public venues for fun, played laser tag with a nail gun, or done any of the other infinitely stupid things we've all heard friends talk about.
At that age, the tribal instinct is so strong that it really only takes one strong voice and the sight of more than one follower to begin a cascade of events leading to something asinine, dangerous, illegal, or all three. More interesting is that these young men are evolutionarily likely to bond best with one another precisely because they are engaged in a dangerous or arduous endeavor: they're at the same stage of development (albeit much farther along) as members of tribes from time immemorial who are kicked out to go kill stuff together until they're grown up enough to contribute more than dead animals.
Don't want your stupid college actions preserved forever? Don't do stupid things!
Thanks for your "insightful" words (great job, mods)! I'll be sure to relay that information to myself as a 19 year old the next time I'm twelve years in the past.
Oh dear god, kindly fuck off. Copyright is an amoral law that concentrates power over culture into the hands of profiteering publishers.
Copyright is based on precedent, one that originally promoted original art. Once upon a time, anyone with a printing press could take someone's work and make a book. Authors were getting screwed, particularly overseas authors: American publishers were printing Dickens without paying royalties and British houses were doing likewise to Melville (one reason he died a pauper - he was vastly more popular in Britain, but never saw a cent for his books printed there). Establishing Copyright and an international treaty made it possible for artists to make a buck. Like any law, it needs retooling, but to dismiss the concept of copyright as amoral is puerile.
Lawyers have really managed to convince the population at large that they their art is magic... when in fact they ultimately do something directly analogous to what I did in high school speech: do some research and present an opinion in a persuasive manner. Persuasiveness is much more important than having good evidence in both cases. Hardly something that makes one into a socially unquestionable demigod.
You know, you're partly right. A number of law schools hire prominent rhetoricians to teach logic and argument (it does make sense - the discipline of rhetoric evolved from Greek legal practices and the Sophists, who trained people how to argue for various public purposes).
Stanley Fish, who became fairly well known in academic circles for his contributions to English literary criticism, began applying his rhetorical methods to public policy and law, and eventually was hired as a professor of both English and Law at Duke. He has left English altogether now, becoming the Dean of the Law School at Florida International University. He does not have a law degree (only a Ph.D. in English) yet taught at one of the nation's top tier law schools (Duke). From what I gather, he's not the only one: law schools need people to teach a specialized brand of argument that can dissect and then repurpose the words of others.
Pascal is a language for children wanting to be naughty. -- Dr. Kasi Ananthanarayanan