Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #552004 > unrolled thread
| Started by | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-02-10 06:33 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-02-11 20:02 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 118 — 16 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Our brain has a spellchecker john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-02-10 06:33 -0800
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Sergio <imvalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-10 09:16 -0600
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-10 09:51 -0600
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Mike Duffy <Invalid@nosuch.com> - 2016-02-10 11:22 -0500
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-10 10:34 -0600
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Mike Duffy <Invalid@nosuch.com> - 2016-02-10 12:22 -0500
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-10 11:24 -0600
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-10 11:42 -0600
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-02-10 10:07 -0800
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-10 12:09 -0600
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-10 11:00 -0800
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Mike Duffy <Invalid@nosuch.com> - 2016-02-10 13:12 -0500
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-10 12:33 -0600
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-10 14:01 -0500
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-10 13:06 -0600
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-10 21:48 -0500
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-11 10:58 -0600
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-11 09:05 -0800
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-11 14:14 -0500
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-11 14:12 -0500
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-10 13:37 -0500
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-10 13:01 -0600
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-10 11:34 -0800
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-10 21:46 -0500
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-11 10:55 -0600
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-11 14:06 -0500
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-11 13:23 -0600
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-11 11:53 -0800
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-02-11 12:29 -0800
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-02-12 19:33 -0800
Text size of your posts Mike Duffy <Invalid@nosuch.com> - 2016-02-11 18:59 -0500
Re: Text size of your posts Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-11 16:14 -0800
Re: Text size of your posts jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-12 00:27 +0000
Re: Text size of your posts Mike Duffy <Invalid@no_such_domain.com> - 2016-02-11 19:51 -0500
Re: Text size of your posts Mike Duffy <Invalid@no_such_domain.com> - 2016-02-11 19:55 -0500
Re: Text size of your posts Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-11 17:10 -0800
Re: Text size of your posts Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-11 17:56 -0800
Re: Text size of your posts HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-11 18:43 -0800
Re: Text size of your posts Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-11 20:56 -0800
Re: Text size of your posts HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-12 01:38 -0800
Re: Text size of your posts Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-12 08:26 -0800
Re: Text size of your posts benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-11 22:38 -0500
Re: Text size of your posts Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-13 01:05 +0100
Re: Text size of your posts Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-12 16:28 -0800
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-11 19:33 -0500
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-12 07:09 -0600
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-10 10:38 -0600
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-10 13:31 -0500
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-10 12:52 -0600
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-10 11:09 -0800
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-10 21:52 -0500
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-10 14:14 -0500
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-10 14:16 -0600
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-10 16:24 -0800
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-10 22:13 -0500
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-10 22:06 -0500
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-11 11:19 -0600
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-11 14:21 -0500
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-11 13:54 -0600
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-11 19:48 -0500
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-12 07:12 -0600
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-02-12 07:12 -0800
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-12 09:50 -0600
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-12 10:11 -0600
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-12 14:46 -0500
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-12 14:36 -0500
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Mike Duffy <Invalid@nosuch.com> - 2016-02-10 14:40 -0500
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-10 20:51 +0100
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-10 14:56 -0600
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-10 13:49 -0800
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-11 00:13 +0100
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-10 17:19 -0600
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-11 00:38 +0100
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-10 20:35 -0600
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-10 22:15 -0500
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-11 11:20 -0600
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-11 09:33 -0800
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-11 14:23 -0500
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-11 15:15 -0600
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-11 19:49 -0500
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-11 08:02 +0100
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Mike Duffy <Invalid@nosuch.com> - 2016-02-11 02:33 -0500
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-11 11:28 -0600
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-11 19:53 +0100
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-11 20:22 +0100
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-11 15:12 -0600
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-11 16:26 -0600
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Mike Duffy <Invalid@nosuch.com> - 2016-02-11 19:25 -0500
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-12 08:21 +0100
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Mike Duffy <mqduffy001@bell.net> - 2016-02-12 18:17 -0500
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-12 07:06 -0600
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-12 10:54 -0800
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-12 13:05 -0600
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-12 11:36 -0800
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-13 00:28 -0500
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-13 20:21 +0100
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-13 14:09 -0800
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-13 20:22 -0500
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-12 14:53 -0500
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-12 14:05 -0600
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-13 00:52 -0500
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-12 14:34 -0500
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-13 00:44 +0100
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Mike Duffy <Invalid@nosuch.com> - 2016-02-10 17:34 -0500
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-10 23:53 +0100
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-10 14:17 -0600
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-10 09:03 -0800
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-10 13:35 -0500
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-10 10:35 -0600
Our brain has a spellchecker HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-10 08:57 -0800
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-10 13:33 -0500
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-02-10 18:40 +0000
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-02-11 10:02 -0800
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-11 10:12 -0800
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-11 14:33 -0500
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-11 12:13 -0600
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-11 14:26 -0500
Re: Our brain has a spellchecker "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-02-11 20:02 -0800
Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Next page →
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-12 07:12 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n9klo4$9v3$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #552410 |
On 2/11/2016 6:48 PM, benj wrote: > On 02/11/2016 02:54 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 2/11/2016 1:21 PM, benj wrote: >>>> Which in technical disciplines SHIFTS, like ALL language does. Like >>>> "cool" and "hot" and "gay" and "queer" and "emoji" and "phablet" and >>>> "autotune" and "blazar" and "vaping". If you can't keep up with jargon, >>>> then that's YOUR fault, not anyone else's. The "rest of civilization" >>>> seems to keep up with new words and new meanings without a lot of >>>> difficulty, so what's all your bitchin' about? >>> >>> Jargon and fashion are your department Odd. That is all about emotional >>> responses out of nothing like all artists and writers. It's what HVAC >>> does. It's what you do. There is a place for those with liberal arts >>> training I supposed but in my experience it is NOT in science. >> >> Then you're experience is counter to what is testified to in science >> books. Jargon changes all the time in science. Some examples from this >> century: >> boson, fermion, quasar, blazar, quantum field, isotopic spin, weak >> hypercharge, Bose-Einstein condensate, Fermi surface, quark, color, >> meson, baryon, lepton, alpha radiation, positron, event horizon, >> wormhole, string, exogenesis, 4-momentum, decoherence, dark energy, >> magnetic monopole, invariant mass, compactified dimensions, branes. > > Wow Boinker. you know ALL the latest jargon. That sure makes you sound > smart! Everyone here is really impressed with how smart you sound. Only > wooden toys are LONG out of fashion. Don't you know you must always have > the latest version of software? Just addressing your false claim that changing jargon does NOT have a place in science, Ben. Not trying to paint you as stupid. Just trying to point out where simple facts show you to be WRONG. > >>> Language changes and has fashion. In science terms are expected to have >>> well-defined meanings that everyone understands. >> >> Everyone? No. If you want to know what "string" means in string theory, >> you're going to have to study and not everyone does that. Same for Fermi >> surface and event horizon. > > Everyone properly using the term. Guys like you and journalists > certainly don't count for anything. Among people working with the > concepts the exact meanings are known. It is not important that you have > no clue what they mean and just say them to sound "scientific". > >>> When "stories" and >>> jargon are inserted as you (and as is the popular mode in science for >>> political purposes) like to do, then this is no longer science but some >>> science-fiction novel. No more proof needed that watching people here >>> use terms from Star Trek as if they were real science. It's like trying >>> to explain to all the people gathered around the water cooler discussing >>> the events on their favorite TV program the night before that the people >>> and events on the programs are NOT real people or events. Needless say >>> that gets about as far as trying to explain science to you. >>> >> >> I know that the world of science is not cooperating with your view of >> how things SHOULD be. The question is whether science cares. Probably >> not. As evidenced by things happening in SCIENCE that you don't like. > > "Other people, he said, see things and say why? But I dream things that > never were and I say, why not?" Great. So this is your dream of science that never was. > GBS > > You are such a little man, Odd. (Read the book by (the kook) Wilhelm > Reich to learn more) > > > > > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-12 07:12 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <cd54cace-8e97-4007-be9b-6ebfdbf7cbd7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #552494 |
Odd wouldn't read Reich or Rife or anything not mainstream EVER
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-12 09:50 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n9kv0g$15cj$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #552516 |
On 2/12/2016 9:12 AM, john wrote: > Odd wouldn't read Reich > or Rife > or anything not mainstream > > EVER > That's simply not true, John. I do read some off-mainstream things. The question is whether I take what's written there as true. This is why I read a spectrum of things. It gives me a better grip on what's valid and what's not. What's also true is that some people are ONLY interested in reading fringe works, and really aren't interested in reading ANYTHING mainstream. Not interesting to them, you see. Hint: Stuff that's valid is marked by corroborated experimental support. Not anecdotal. Not subjective testimonies. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-12 10:11 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n9l07f$17cv$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #552516 |
On 2/12/2016 9:12 AM, john wrote: > Odd wouldn't read Reich > or Rife > or anything not mainstream > > EVER > How are you doing with the LIGO announcement, John? Anything you want to say about what a monstrous waste of money that project is? Do you want to offer any retrospective thoughts on whether you may have misjudged? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <none@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-12 14:46 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <9Eqvy.11969$NG6.5256@fx16.iad> |
| In reply to | #552523 |
On 02/12/2016 11:11 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 2/12/2016 9:12 AM, john wrote:
>> Odd wouldn't read Reich
>> or Rife
>> or anything not mainstream
>>
>> EVER
>>
>
> How are you doing with the LIGO announcement, John?
> Anything you want to say about what a monstrous waste of money that
> project is?
> Do you want to offer any retrospective thoughts on whether you may have
> misjudged?
How many people have repeated and verified these data? Same with Higgs.
How come you demand overwhelming proof of all nonmainstream findings,
but blindly accept without any question the FIRST bare announcement of
something that supports your atheist faith?
You are quite irrational.
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <none@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-12 14:36 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <gvqvy.7176$VJ2.343@fx15.iad> |
| In reply to | #552494 |
On 02/12/2016 08:12 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 2/11/2016 6:48 PM, benj wrote:
>> On 02/11/2016 02:54 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> On 2/11/2016 1:21 PM, benj wrote:
>>>>> Which in technical disciplines SHIFTS, like ALL language does. Like
>>>>> "cool" and "hot" and "gay" and "queer" and "emoji" and "phablet" and
>>>>> "autotune" and "blazar" and "vaping". If you can't keep up with
>>>>> jargon,
>>>>> then that's YOUR fault, not anyone else's. The "rest of civilization"
>>>>> seems to keep up with new words and new meanings without a lot of
>>>>> difficulty, so what's all your bitchin' about?
>>>>
>>>> Jargon and fashion are your department Odd. That is all about emotional
>>>> responses out of nothing like all artists and writers. It's what HVAC
>>>> does. It's what you do. There is a place for those with liberal arts
>>>> training I supposed but in my experience it is NOT in science.
>>>
>>> Then you're experience is counter to what is testified to in science
>>> books. Jargon changes all the time in science. Some examples from this
>>> century:
>>> boson, fermion, quasar, blazar, quantum field, isotopic spin, weak
>>> hypercharge, Bose-Einstein condensate, Fermi surface, quark, color,
>>> meson, baryon, lepton, alpha radiation, positron, event horizon,
>>> wormhole, string, exogenesis, 4-momentum, decoherence, dark energy,
>>> magnetic monopole, invariant mass, compactified dimensions, branes.
>>
>> Wow Boinker. you know ALL the latest jargon. That sure makes you sound
>> smart! Everyone here is really impressed with how smart you sound. Only
>> wooden toys are LONG out of fashion. Don't you know you must always have
>> the latest version of software?
>
> Just addressing your false claim that changing jargon does NOT have a
> place in science, Ben. Not trying to paint you as stupid. Just trying to
> point out where simple facts show you to be WRONG.
Boinker you wouldn't know "wrong" if it bit you on the ass.
>>>> Language changes and has fashion. In science terms are expected to have
>>>> well-defined meanings that everyone understands.
>>>
>>> Everyone? No. If you want to know what "string" means in string theory,
>>> you're going to have to study and not everyone does that. Same for Fermi
>>> surface and event horizon.
>>
>> Everyone properly using the term. Guys like you and journalists
>> certainly don't count for anything. Among people working with the
>> concepts the exact meanings are known. It is not important that you have
>> no clue what they mean and just say them to sound "scientific".
>>
>>>> When "stories" and
>>>> jargon are inserted as you (and as is the popular mode in science for
>>>> political purposes) like to do, then this is no longer science but some
>>>> science-fiction novel. No more proof needed that watching people here
>>>> use terms from Star Trek as if they were real science. It's like trying
>>>> to explain to all the people gathered around the water cooler
>>>> discussing
>>>> the events on their favorite TV program the night before that the
>>>> people
>>>> and events on the programs are NOT real people or events. Needless say
>>>> that gets about as far as trying to explain science to you.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I know that the world of science is not cooperating with your view of
>>> how things SHOULD be. The question is whether science cares. Probably
>>> not. As evidenced by things happening in SCIENCE that you don't like.
>>
>> "Other people, he said, see things and say why? But I dream things that
>> never were and I say, why not?"
>
> Great. So this is your dream of science that never was.
Unless you and yours can put a stop to it. To quote Frank, some people
get their kicks stomping on a dream.
>> You are such a little man, Odd. (Read the book by (the kook) Wilhelm
>> Reich to learn more)
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mike Duffy <Invalid@nosuch.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-10 14:40 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <1b93v5kv12tvz$.10rowg9tou7nz.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #552053 |
On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 13:31:31 -0500, benj wrote: > ... any degree earned no matter how high is worthless after a few years Less relevant perhaps, but not useless. It does show a potential employer that one is able to follow a daily schedule for at least a few years and that one can understand instructions and follow through on committments.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-10 20:51 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <3061525.hL36MqGLvZ@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #552079 |
Mike Duffy wrote: > On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 13:31:31 -0500, benj wrote: >> ... any degree earned no matter how high is worthless after a few years > > Less relevant perhaps, but not useless. It does show a potential employer > that one is able to follow a daily schedule for at least a few years and > that one can understand instructions and follow through on committments. From my experience with earning my degree (and that of my fellow alumni, respectively), it also shows – which I think is more important than what you mentioned – that one is capable of autonomous research, structured thinking and writing, and independent thought. PointedEars -- Q: Where are offenders sentenced for light crimes? A: To a prism. (from: WolframAlpha)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-10 14:56 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n9g865$1844$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #552081 |
On 2/10/2016 1:51 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Mike Duffy wrote: > >> On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 13:31:31 -0500, benj wrote: >>> ... any degree earned no matter how high is worthless after a few years >> >> Less relevant perhaps, but not useless. It does show a potential employer >> that one is able to follow a daily schedule for at least a few years and >> that one can understand instructions and follow through on committments. > > From my experience with earning my degree (and that of my fellow alumni, > respectively), it also shows – which I think is more important than what you > mentioned – that one is capable of autonomous research, structured thinking > and writing, and independent thought. > > > PointedEars > Two additions to that good comment. First, the degree (even a PhD) does not necessarily demonstrate good discernment in research topics to apply those traits, at least not from what I've read. This is why most PhD students have their research at least guided by a faculty adviser, and why permanent positions in research physics are usually only offered to people in post-doc research positions who have demonstrated some of that discernment. Of course, being able to exhibit structured thinking and writing is not a sufficient condition for the other skills a PhD brings to the table. There are a lot of goofballs here who take great pride in their oratory skills, but that's about all they've got. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-10 13:49 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <8c507b52-21dc-4f34-8bd7-a7338062628e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #552092 |
On Wednesday, February 10, 2016 at 3:56:43 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 2/10/2016 1:51 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > > Mike Duffy wrote: > > > >> On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 13:31:31 -0500, benj wrote: > >>> ... any degree earned no matter how high is worthless after a few years > >> > >> Less relevant perhaps, but not useless. It does show a potential employer > >> that one is able to follow a daily schedule for at least a few years and > >> that one can understand instructions and follow through on committments. Like the Seven Year Itch, Corporations.com.gov@# have instituted a Seven Year Shelf Life Span Limit on the usefulness of any human from domians .edu, with or without a -- valid or otherwise -- SS#. Trump decides! > > From my experience with earning my degree (and that of my fellow alumni, > > respectively), it also shows – which I think is more important than what you > > mentioned – that one is capable of autonomous research, structured thinking > > and writing, and independent thought. > > > > > > PointedEars > > > Two additions to that good comment. PointedEars is no fan of anonymous posters. > First, the degree (even a PhD) does not necessarily demonstrate good > discernment in research topics to apply those traits, at least not from > what I've read. This is why most PhD students have their research at > least guided by a faculty adviser, and why permanent positions in > research physics are usually only offered to people in post-doc research > positions who have demonstrated some of that discernment. Odd Bodkin just insulted every PhD candidate ever born. This is why most Phd Physics graduates work in IT, SW, or their dreadful Walmarts. > Of course, being able to exhibit structured thinking and writing is not > a sufficient condition for the other skills a PhD brings to the table. > There are a lot of goofballs here who take great pride in their oratory > skills, but that's about all they've got. What do goofballs have to do with Phds? Odd you are structured like a blockHead. Adjust tilt asap. > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables -- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८”
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-11 00:13 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <3579130.X9tsy6ADaB@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #552092 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 2/10/2016 1:51 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> Mike Duffy wrote: >>> On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 13:31:31 -0500, benj wrote: >>>> ... any degree earned no matter how high is worthless after a few years >>> Less relevant perhaps, but not useless. It does show a potential >>> employer that one is able to follow a daily schedule for at least a few >>> years and that one can understand instructions and follow through on >>> committments. >> From my experience with earning my degree (and that of my fellow alumni, >> respectively), it also shows – which I think is more important than what >> you mentioned – that one is capable of autonomous research, structured >> thinking and writing, and independent thought. > > Two additions to that good comment. > > First, the degree (even a PhD) does not necessarily demonstrate good > discernment in research topics to apply those traits, at least not from > what I've read. This is why most PhD students have their research at > least guided by a faculty adviser, and why permanent positions in > research physics are usually only offered to people in post-doc research > positions who have demonstrated some of that discernment. Are you speaking out of your experience with earning your degree, or are you just referring to what you have heard about the process? Because I did have an adviser for my B.Sc., but it was not their job to give me recommendations in favor or against a research topic, and not even to present possible research topics or let me find one for myself (which I did), but to assist in giving the work that I had chosen the proper basic structure, and to give moral support. Also, I find it highly questionable to label research topics with fuzzy tags like “good” and “bad”. ISTM that the best topic to choose is one that you are very interested in, no matter what other people think about it, because that is the topic you are going to put in the most effort researching it. Indeed, I think that a topic that has almost not been researched before, provides the best incentive for one to give one’s very best. BTW, we are off-topic here, and are feeding the troll. PointedEars -- Q: Who's on the case when the electricity goes out? A: Sherlock Ohms. (from: WolframAlpha)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-10 17:19 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n9ggik$1n4r$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #552128 |
On 2/10/2016 5:13 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Are you speaking out of your experience with earning your degree, or are you > just referring to what you have heard about the process? Because I did have > an adviser for my B.Sc., but it was not their job to give me recommendations > in favor or against a research topic, and not even to present possible > research topics or let me find one for myself (which I did), but to assist > in giving the work that I had chosen the proper basic structure, and to give > moral support. Per your request, we won't discuss *you* *here*, nor will we discuss *me* *here*. > > Also, I find it highly questionable to label research topics with fuzzy tags > like “good” and “bad”. ISTM that the best topic to choose is one that you > are very interested in, no matter what other people think about it, because > that is the topic you are going to put in the most effort researching it. > Indeed, I think that a topic that has almost not been researched before, > provides the best incentive for one to give one’s very best. Well, that's all well and good unless you are very interested in flubber. While I agree with the general sentiment, part of the art of being a good physicist is to have a talent for identifying something that one *should* be very interested in, and being interested in it as a result. This is why people who gain good reputations are cited by a lot of other physicists -- because the topic being chased is interesting to a lot of people. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-11 00:38 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <17994779.Dd2ec1dJqa@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #552131 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 2/10/2016 5:13 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> Are you speaking out of your experience with earning your degree, or are >> you just referring to what you have heard about the process? Because I $ >> did have an adviser for my B.Sc., but it was not their job to give me >> recommendations in favor or against a research topic, and not even to >> present possible research topics or let me find one for myself (which I >> did), but to assist in giving the work that I had chosen the proper basic >> structure, and to give moral support. > > Per your request, we won't discuss *you* *here*, nor will we discuss > *me* *here*. What a cheap way of evading the question. Probably you are just a wannabe after all, never having earned a degree, only parroting hearsay. PointedEars -- A neutron walks into a bar and inquires how much a drink costs. The bartender replies, "For you? No charge." (from: WolframAlpha)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-10 20:35 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n9gs1u$5gk$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #552134 |
On 2/10/2016 5:38 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 2/10/2016 5:13 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>> Are you speaking out of your experience with earning your degree, or are >>> you just referring to what you have heard about the process? Because I $ >>> did have an adviser for my B.Sc., but it was not their job to give me >>> recommendations in favor or against a research topic, and not even to >>> present possible research topics or let me find one for myself (which I >>> did), but to assist in giving the work that I had chosen the proper basic >>> structure, and to give moral support. >> >> Per your request, we won't discuss *you* *here*, nor will we discuss >> *me* *here*. > > What a cheap way of evading the question. Probably you are just a wannabe > after all, never having earned a degree, only parroting hearsay. Well, if we can't talk about your Star Trek fanboyness, then why would we talk about my degree? (I do have one.) > > > PointedEars > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <none@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-10 22:15 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <E1Tuy.14881$Jv5.1132@fx23.iad> |
| In reply to | #552158 |
On 02/10/2016 09:35 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 2/10/2016 5:38 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/10/2016 5:13 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>> Are you speaking out of your experience with earning your degree, or
>>>> are
>>>> you just referring to what you have heard about the process?
>>>> Because I $
>>>> did have an adviser for my B.Sc., but it was not their job to give me
>>>> recommendations in favor or against a research topic, and not even to
>>>> present possible research topics or let me find one for myself (which I
>>>> did), but to assist in giving the work that I had chosen the proper
>>>> basic
>>>> structure, and to give moral support.
>>>
>>> Per your request, we won't discuss *you* *here*, nor will we discuss
>>> *me* *here*.
>>
>> What a cheap way of evading the question. Probably you are just a
>> wannabe
>> after all, never having earned a degree, only parroting hearsay.
>
> Well, if we can't talk about your Star Trek fanboyness, then why would
> we talk about my degree? (I do have one.)
I got $20 that says his "degree" is a BA in Comparative English
Literature. HVAC can hold the money. We all know how honest he is.
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-11 11:20 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n9ifs0$qhb$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #552170 |
On 2/10/2016 9:15 PM, benj wrote: > On 02/10/2016 09:35 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> Well, if we can't talk about your Star Trek fanboyness, then why would >> we talk about my degree? (I do have one.) > > I got $20 that says his "degree" is a BA in Comparative English > Literature. You lose. > HVAC can hold the money. We all know how honest he is. > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-11 09:33 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <be1fe43c-230e-4547-a90f-fc834b712329@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #552256 |
On Thursday, February 11, 2016 at 12:20:06 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 2/10/2016 9:15 PM, benj wrote: > > On 02/10/2016 09:35 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > >> Well, if we can't talk about your Star Trek fanboyness, then why would > >> we talk about my degree? (I do have one.) > > > > I got $$20 that says his "degree" is a BA in Comparative English > > Literature. > > You lose. Actually you Odd Loser wouldn't be granted any degree in English either. > > HVAC can hold the money. We all know how honest he is. > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables -- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: Then Obomba's Drones Surveilled...”
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <none@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-11 14:23 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <Rc5vy.15291$4I5.9958@fx19.iad> |
| In reply to | #552256 |
On 02/11/2016 12:20 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 2/10/2016 9:15 PM, benj wrote:
>> On 02/10/2016 09:35 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
>>> Well, if we can't talk about your Star Trek fanboyness, then why would
>>> we talk about my degree? (I do have one.)
>>
>> I got $20 that says his "degree" is a BA in Comparative English
>> Literature.
>
> You lose.
>
>> HVAC can hold the money. We all know how honest he is.
>>
>
>
OK. I knew it had to be Art History! (Darkness at Noon)
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-11 15:15 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n9itlf$1ji2$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #552316 |
On 2/11/2016 1:23 PM, benj wrote: > On 02/11/2016 12:20 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 2/10/2016 9:15 PM, benj wrote: >>> On 02/10/2016 09:35 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> >>>> Well, if we can't talk about your Star Trek fanboyness, then why would >>>> we talk about my degree? (I do have one.) >>> >>> I got $20 that says his "degree" is a BA in Comparative English >>> Literature. >> >> You lose. >> >>> HVAC can hold the money. We all know how honest he is. >>> >> >> > OK. I knew it had to be Art History! (Darkness at Noon) Now you're down $40. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <none@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-11 19:49 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <L_9vy.17339$Lg6.17151@fx28.iad> |
| In reply to | #552354 |
On 02/11/2016 04:15 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 2/11/2016 1:23 PM, benj wrote:
>> On 02/11/2016 12:20 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> On 2/10/2016 9:15 PM, benj wrote:
>>>> On 02/10/2016 09:35 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Well, if we can't talk about your Star Trek fanboyness, then why would
>>>>> we talk about my degree? (I do have one.)
>>>>
>>>> I got $20 that says his "degree" is a BA in Comparative English
>>>> Literature.
>>>
>>> You lose.
>>>
>>>> HVAC can hold the money. We all know how honest he is.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>> OK. I knew it had to be Art History! (Darkness at Noon)
>
> Now you're down $40.
>
>
Prove it! :-)
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web