text:
Some do call the norm an exception
No, sorry, I don't intend to devalue your motivating comment, as the one asking may well be able to find a great lab to work in, but I think reality is more shadowy than it looks like. This is not because science is broken or anything, but because of human nature. Without bad intend, people are prone to lie even to themselves. Get some nice stress put onto your back and see how unbiased your conclusions become!
Think about how many cases you've heard of, and then how man
On a side note, I am really disgusted by Slashdot. We ACs get hardly recognized ever, and rarely somebody responds
More on topic: You're spot-on, I was not only in mammals, but, even worse, in humans (neurology: memory formation). There's very tough competition in that field and, even worse, everybody knows everybody else, either as friend (thus promoting each other's findings), or as foe (thus busting "unacceptable" and "laughable" "research").
Poor me that I didn't get that gr
I know young scientists tend to be a bit in the dark about sex and suchlike, but really! Budding is not the way that mammals produce offspring.
Corruption happens, it happens on campuses, it happens in private facilities, it happens in cases where it is LIKELY to happen in fields it is LIKELY to happen in. For instance, Gov't. commissions a field study of global warming, I'd look for a few dollars to change hands. Tobacco industry commissions research on cancer, I'd bet on some careful wording and outright skewing. Physics? Ask yourself, is there anyone interested in outcomes, enough to pay for the outcome they want to come out of it all? If not, don't worry about it and if they do and it's a lot of money or license to breathe, we'll understand, not condone,not approve,but,hey, par for the course....
Corruption is not a problem in science. It's when there is a prior interest to the outcome of a study (e.g. paid by a company). Also, every scientist wants his analysis to be a success -- significant and relevant. The problem is choosing the wrong method for an analysis, and/or interpreting the results in a slightly off way. When every but one method tells you that the results are insignificant and that one method is chosen (file drawer effect [wikipedia.org]). If you're any use as a scientist -- got used to reading litera
The problem in the real-world is that a lot of 'science' is funded by people who HAVE an interest in the outcome. Studies with inconvenient conclusions are frequently submarined by corporations (and governments).
Scientists are no more or less human than anyone else. Some of them enjoy the success that a prominent work evokes and the attention it can generate. Ego can be involved here just like it is in other areas of endeavor.
Beyond that, scientists have to eat. And scientists can be as encumbered by legal
There is a fair bit of nasty backstaby fighting in some subfields, but maybe you could just avoid such subfields.
There is a much larger problem that real academic science jobs aren't nearly numerous enough accommodate the glut of PhDs. Anyone studying a STEM degree should plan on "selling out" to industry after their PhD or first post-doc. If possible, avoid the subfields that industry doesn't care about.
If you find yourself with a PhD in a not particularly applicable subfield, then you're basically faced
That's great for you but what can you say to young academics today who will find extreme difficulty in attaining such a position?
Not everyone will get such a position, of course, we understand that. But what can we do to improve the odds?
Just as in every other part of the economy, there isn't enough funding for all the potential grad students and certainly not enough professor jobs for them once they finish. To me there's a huge disconnect being pushed - politicians call for more students in science and engineering, but once the students are there, there's no place for them to go. And it's outrageous that this is the case - we could have a much stronger science and engineering base in this country than we do (not that it isn't already strong). I'm one of several advanced science degree holders in my circle of friends who can't find a relevant job and can't find a professor with funding for grad students to go back to school with.
I realize that you as a professor of twenty years are insulated from all that, but surely you've seen such issues in your department, with more well-qualified students applying than you have funding for, and students finishing PhDs and then not being able to find a position?
Hi Samantha. You answer one side, but I am curious what you are really looking at. The way people seem or their work under duress. In undergrad do you think classmates might have created data especially when their experimental data did not look so good and they wanted a good grade? Did you possibly see activity like that in graduate work? If so does it make you wonder if that type of thing will continue? Work that looked pretty but did not make sense? Would your current position allow you to raise a
Let no one else's work evade your eyes,
Remember why the good Lord made your eyes,
So don't shade your eyes,
But plagiarize, plagiarize, plagiarize -
Only be sure always to call it please 'research'.
here are my thoughts...
Let no one else's work evade your eyes,
Remember why the good Lord made your eyes,
So don't shade your eyes,
But plagiarize, plagiarize, plagiarize -
Only be sure always to call it please 'research'.
For anyone who hasn't encountered Mr Lehrer, I recommend a Youtube search for "Lobachevsky"
For anyone who hasn't encountered Mr Lehrer, I recommend a Youtube search for "Lobachevsky"
And just to clarify, the song is of course a work of fiction and parody. Nikolai Ivanovich Lobachevsky was in fact a real-life mathematician, but none of the things attributed to him in in this song are true. Lehrer himself stresses this in the album-notes of his recording.
No most people in science will only be concerned with funding.
They say that evloution can't be true because the bible says it. And that global warming must be wrong because they like driving an SUV, and because they know they are nice people they cannot be impacting the environment.
Bingo! Unfortunately, slashdot isn't immune to the loud, uninformed internet minions. That's the problem with anything on the internet. If you have a question and an answer in mind, then someone's already written up that answer somewhere on the internet with which ever opinion you have of it. So don't rely on internet sources.
Rely on the scientific method and peer-reviewed journals or sources (aka published professors/fellow students).
And *please* don't let anybody but yourself decide what makes you happy.
If it's what you want, go for it. You may struggle for a few years early on, very few jobs are awesome (pay wise) to start but over time it will get better. Also remember, you're never too old to try something new (with the exception of a few career fields like fighter pilot), if your dream job doesn't work out, you may be able to find another one that you enjoy but never realized existed (science majors have many more options open to them than say, business majors). Success is never guaranteed, but if you don't try, you'll never get anywhere.
I too would one day like to be an Academic Scientist, and maybe I will get there, I am just taking the extra long route right now
Best of luck to you.
if your dream job doesn't work out, you may be able to find another one that you enjoy but never realized existed (science majors have many more options open to them than say, business majors).
Seconded. I always thought I would be a scientist, and I got a master's degree in physics from a rather prestigious university. Since then I have started about 5 PhD projects, each one coming to a halt within a year, mostly due to problems with the supervisor and the department. In most of these cases I was simply unlucky, for example with one supervisor moving to another job. In another example, other people soon followed me as I left an incompetent supervisor. So my one advice would be, find a supervisor
Find great mentors. I recommend Richard Feynman.
You can't go wrong getting his perspectives on science (besides his actual science, which has some relevance to condensed matter physics). I don't know anyone who describes learning about nature better. If what he says doesn't resonate, you might consider leaving the field. If it resonates, you may find you don't care about other people's opinions as much and just enjoy the pleasure of finding things out.
There are many hours of videos of him online free.
It also helps to have living mentors.
Finding a good mentor or two is an excellent in any profession. I certainly owe quite a bit to mine.
Cheating and fraud is not rampant, and has never been. The vast majority of scientists never go close to any unethical line. Most cheating is likely found out too, sooner or later, and sooner the more flagrant and potentially important it is. Your career will not be affected in any way by the existence of fraud in the field.
What is a concern, however, is the sheer amount of young researchers and the relative lack of positions for them. Academia is an up-or-out kind of system, and at every step of the career ladder you are competing with dozens or hundreds of other qualified people. To put it bluntly, do go into science as a career if that where your hearts desire lies, but also make sure you have some idea of what to do instead if it doesn't work out.
Agreed. My observation is that you can make a decent living doing ANYTHING IFF you are exceptionally good at it. That doesn't mean getting A's in the average watered-down school class - it means pursuing it with a passion and being recognized outside of school by "peers" who are already established in that industry. Now, that doesn't have to be something recognized as a "profession" per se in school - it could be a trade, or even just your ability to BS or play poker.
What you can't afford to do is be mediocre at just anything. There are fields you can make a survivable income on with mediocre performance, but science is definitely not one of them. In fact, I'm not sure a college degree is even a worthwhile pursuit for most of them - those incomes are much less survivable if you're repaying $50k in loans.
So, the important question to ask is just how good you really are. Being above-average in school just isn't going to cut it in most fields - there are no jobs just waiting out there for anybody who can apply and check the 4-year-degree box on. When I size up kids in high school with dreams I usually ask them what they're already doing to achieve them. If they think that the path to success is to do what their teachers tell them to and go to the right college, I inform them that they are in for a world of hurt. If they aren't already doing it outside of school, then chances are they'll never be doing it. Oh, sure, the NIH won't give you a job without so many degrees, but there are lots of "sciency" things you can do on your own time without anybody's permission - whether it be exploratory programs or just reading a lot of good books and interacting online.
Would-be programmers have no excuses at all - I wish I had half the access to online resources that kids have today when I was their age. There is no reason that a kid in high school can't be making very strong contributions to FOSS/etc. If they aren't, then good luck ever getting a job in the current market.
Quite frankly, my experience is different. I have seen a number of instances of fraudulent or at least massive misleading publications. Some of them get published, in part at "high-quality venues" (that really are only high-quality with regard to from). Quite a few more, I have seen as reviewer. And one of them, at a prestigious conference, held me back for almost two years, because my Ph.D. adviser was unable to understand my explanation on why that publication was bad. (I saw it in about 10 minutes.) Fort
The thing with physics is that it is a pretty open subject. Like the recent faster than light thing. I
The problem with the above statement is it completely ignores those lists at the end of every medical journal listing those researchers, Ph.D. students, and research scientists who have been officially censored, or placed upon a censure list, etc.
Today, the majority of a number of studies in specific categories, reported about daily in the myth-media, are performed not at valid R&D facilities or institutions, but by astroturf firms, etc.
While I can't provide much specific information, I can tell you some general advice.
Background: My father is an internationally prominent plant scientist and former air pollution researcher. He's also worked at several universities in important positions (department head, etc.). One things that he's mentioned repeatedly (if not often) is the fanatical importance that most scientists and university personnel seem to place upon what's "accepted." Bluntly, this is a pretty blatant problem of inflated egos (endemic to universities and such, in general), but highly educated people are also quite good at pretending they're being rational, rather than emotional about decision-making. The essence of the problem is that if you come up with an idea that's contrary to the current "status quot" belief, and if you promote it shamelessly (as you should), you'll prick the egos of others and be ostracized, criticized, and (if possible) discredited. Furthermore, the success of a scientist seems to be about 40% skill/talent and about 60% political adeptness. Of course, an ethical and self-aware scientist will put away his pride and fear and publish good work regardless of what others think--and sometimes that will pay off in the end. Below is how it might do so.
I can't provide specific examples of theory-based conflict off the top of my head, but I can illustrate the power of politics (i.e. university politics, scientific community politics, etc.) in science by noting that because my father was able to obtain more grant money than his superiors at UC Riverside, the university decided to close down the department that he headed: the air pollution research department. Of course, this meant a prolonged job hunt and a big move for my dad and his family (including me). (UC Riverside's leaders thereby got rid of the "troublemaker.") If you aren't aware, Riverside is about 60 miles outside of LA and obviously has air quality problems to rival nearly anywhere else. A lesson to be learned from this is that no matter how good a scientist you are, and no matter how good you are at procuring what you need to do good work, ultimately it's the ego of those who provide you with land, labor, and capital that will determine how successful you are. Therefore, it's proven extremely important to foster good will amongst those who can help you do good science. The ethical way to do this (as far as it's been demonstrated to me) is to use your science to help people with real-world problems as much as possible, and show others that helping you is in THEIR best interests.
My dad now works as a farm adviser (associated with UC Davis), and it's proven very useful to go out of his way to help his "client base" (farmers, primarily) see the value of what he does by helping them to increase their production, and thereby their personal wealth. Essentially, it's good to do a good job, but it's better to "go the extra mile" to bring your good work to those who can make profitable use of it. This strategy has seen my father summoned (from the US where he lives) to China, Italy, Chile, Brasil, Uruguay, Japan, and probably others that I don't recall. By inventing means to help farmers grow their crops cheaper and more reliably (including new methods of testing for nitrogen levels without a mass spectrometer), he's made himself indispensable to the industries and institutions (universities, etc.) that he serves. It hasn't made him "rich," but it has given him job security and a good living for his family.
So, the bottom line here is something like:
Do the best possible work you can, but make sure it's actively helping people who need it. That way, when you annoy the scientific community or your academic "superiors," you'll already have people to guard against you being politically maneuvered out of position, since losing you will also cost them money and other resources. Science for the sake of science is good and useful (eventually), but in order to keep it up, you have to provide others with very good reason to help you keep at it.
I hope that helps.
I can't provide specific examples of theory-based conflict off the top of my head
Here is a good example of a recent scientific conflict over a new theory. A scientist steps forward with physical proof (electron microscope images) of a new class of solids and is hounded as some sort of religious heretic and fired from his University for daring to point out something that goes against official scientific dogma.
An Israeli scientist who suffered years of ridicule and even lost a research post for claiming to
is the fanatical importance that most scientists and university personnel seem to place upon what's "accepted."
I have observed that as well, both with others and as response to my own academic work. Original ideas are actually the enemy of success as a scientist. Of course this means that most disciplines are carried forward (at glacial pace) by second and third-rated scientist, because the really good ones have already left in the face of this massive ignorance and incompetence. I have also observed a mass
Obviously I am very interested in doing real and useful science, but am worried that this could conflict with my ability to put food on the table.
Pick any one.
What if they research methods to have a table that grows food between meals? Would that cover all three?
"The squeaky wheel gets the most oil", and the words "The vocal minority" seem to apply here.
There are rare cases of scientific fraud which bring out the doomsayers who you'll find pessimistically posting in every article. The reality is there are hundreds of thousands of academics around the world doing real science that brings real benefits to our lives every day. Their results alone should be proof that you can make survive in that chosen industry.
This deserves more mod love.
The question is what alternative is there for a curious person?
and so risking repeating others, it seriously isn't that bad. There's a fashion for showing how cynical you are, and how the world's going to hell and everyone's on the make and blah blah blah. It really isn't particularly bad. What you do have is a *lot* of politics, which circles around getting funding if you're a professor, and circles around getting postdoctoral positions if you're not. This does lead to both a conservatism -- which, regardless of what people might tell you is the valid approach for science; something has to be tested to oblivion for people to believe it, even if that means you're likely risking your career doing something too whacky too young -- and to a regrettable amount of brown-nosing and nepotism. There's also a distressing focus on publishing and getting citations, so if you work in a field with a lot of interest but with relatively few people you'll struggle to attract as much attention as someone who picked an easier course. What I've found increasingly annoying recently is that my career is being judged by anonymous referees on journals who clearly just don't know what they're talking about -- I get the very strong impression that they're PhD students very early on in their PhDs -- and I find that offensive. But the point I would make is this is no different from any other field and any other job, and at least in academia you can be sure that the people you're working with are at least as smart as you are. Except some of the referees.
From my experience in academia -- ten years now since I started my PhD -- the people you'll encounter are very smart, dedicated, professional in their attitude to their work; but you'll have to play the game to a certain extent, attending conferences, networking, making sure the right people know who you are, work in fields which are attracting funding but which aren't glutted or flashes in the pan (in my field that was probably braneworld cosmology; it attracted enormous funding for about five years or so and then it died out, and people who focused exclusively on braneworlds during their PhD find it a bit tough to get new positions), and make sure you put a professional face on all your work, and that you can always defend every choice you've made and every bit of work you've done. So, no different from any other job you want to do well in.
As for money, no, this isn't the best-paid job, but I get extremely irritated when people complain about it, because it's also really not that badly paid, and we get fantastic benefits. Unless you're unlucky with your lab you have fairly flexible hours, you're doing a job you love (and you better had, because if you don't love it you'll be very much better off doing something else), and there's enormous opportunity for travel, which is fully funded. If you're lucky you get generous allowances while you're away, too. We got an absurd amount to visit Toronto when there was a conference there in the mid 2000s -- something like $60 a day to eat. So we ate cheap during the day and had plenty in the evenings for a big meal and some drinks. I think we even ended making money on it...
So basically I'd say it's no worse than any other field. It can be very political given the funding situation, but that happens anywhere and in any job, and generally you've got the advantage that your boss isn't a moron, which is sometimes hard to say if you pick other career options.
Also from a working physicist: Fraud is not an issue. Getting and keeping a job is. My degree is in experimental condensed matter physics, from a mid-tier US university, about 15 years ago. Unless you come from a top-five to top-ten research university (in cond matt physics that is), getting a professorship at a research university is exceedingly difficult. As a young scientist, you would be competing against the worldwide pool of physicists for any tenure-track position at a US university. Pick a
Most of these problems occur in "sciences" such as psychology or sociology. As a physicist, myou have little to fear.
. . . the state of Society, less so . . .
Actually, the state of science is in the state it always is . . . unknown. That is why we need scientists to at least be able to chip away at some pieces of the Grand Puzzle.
The amount of money you'll be able to get in academia depends vastly of where you are, who you work with, and what you do.
Assuming you're in the US, it will vastly depend on which university you are in. Try to get close to a team in a prominent university. Getting a good job in academia is mostly a matter of relations.
As a disclaimer, my undergraduate degree and PhD were in chemistry, rather than physics, and in the UK, not the US.
When I started my PhD I was planning on staying in academia. By the end of it I was desperate to leave it behind forever. Organic chemistry is somewhat notorious for having some very strange ideas about what constitutes an acceptable work/life balance. It's generally accepted (and emphasised most strongly by the more successful and/or ambitious groups) that as a PhD student or a post-doc, your work is your life. Six days a week is standard, and if you're not still in the lab by at least 7 o'clock in the evening then you're a slacker. As an aside, this leads to extremely poor time management practices, since the accepted solution to any perceived problem is "throw more lab hours at it"; this is partially due to the nature of the field and organic chemistry still being a touch unpredictable and requiring large amounts of experimental work to offset this, but it's an endemic part of the working culture. It also leads to people being in the lab just to be seen to be in the lab, rather than using their time productively. It's ridiculous.
There was a study commissioned by the Royal Society of Chemistry a few years back looking at why chemistry had such a poor retention rate of women. Physics has a low proportion of female academics, too, but then it has a relatively low proportion of female undergraduate students. Chemistry, on the other hand, has roughly equal male and female intake at undergraduate level, but the further up the ladder you go the further the ratio becomes skewed in favour of men. So what's up with chemistry? The conclusion was that the field fosters tribal attitudes to adversity (your PhD is a trial by fire!) and very masculine support systems, and that long term prospects are not very conducive to family life. I remember reading a related quote from a US professor which, to paraphrase from memory, said: "I can give you a list right now of all my former [chemistry] students who had a good handle on their career prospects. They're in my 'recommendation letters to medical schools' folder."
Funding is short for post-doc places and shorter for academics. But there's always industry jobs, right? Wrong. The jobs barely exist. Where they do exist, they're poorly paid, unstable and have poor promotion prospects. Anecdotally, when I was looking for jobs at the end of my PhD the going rate for an organic chemistry industry job (post doc experience preferred) was around £22-24k. That's less than what a sociology student going for any of the generic graduate schemes at a thousand different companies can expect to get straight out of their undergraduate degree, and with less opportunities for advancement to boot.
So if you want to have a life outside of your work, pursue hobbies or outside interests, start a family, buy a house, be relatively financially comfortable - a career in chemistry (I won't generalise to "science", that would be overreaching) is a very, very poor choice. It won't change, either, because there will always be someone who will be willing to work 12 hour days 6-7 days a week for the prospect of just one more publication. Is it worth it? That's obviously up for individuals to decide, but depressingly enough the smartest thing I could have done with 9 years of scientific training at world class research institutes was to use it as a springboard to get the hell out.
I'm much happier now.
I have to say time management is an issue in theoretical physics, too. There's a strong culture of extremely long hours, but when you look at how people are using those hours, they could be at least as productive (and most likely more so) if they just got into work at 9, left at 5 or 5:30, and applied themselves during that time. There's enormous amounts of time-wasting, goofing off, scanning the internet etc etc -- no different from many office jobs, I know, but unacceptable when you're judged on results a
Thanks, that's an interesting read. The RSC report I was thinking of is here:
http://www.theukrc.org/files/useruploads/files/the_chemistry_phdwomensretention_tcm18-139215.pdf [theukrc.org]
But I was made aware of it during a wider presentation on the topic, which touched on more of the stuff I mentioned above.
The working practices thing is interesting to me. I was fortunate in not having a supervisor who ascribed to those beliefs personally (he always thought applying extreme pressure was an excellent way to get falsified
Well, quite. I've found motivation is the hardest thing to keep up; the initial rush of the research has gone, but you're nowhere near finished, and you're looking at a three, four, five month slog - or more - before you'll even have any results, and then you need to start interpreting them. If you're properly motivated, you push on through it and get it cleared in that time. If you're *not*, and with no-one standing over your shoulder watching you the whole time it's easy not to be, you waste time... so th
Also on the theme of women being too smart and self-respecting for a career in science these days: http://philip.greenspun.com/careers/women-in-science [greenspun.com]
"What about personal experience? The women that I know who have the IQ, education, and drive to make it as professors at top schools are, by and large, working as professionals and making 2.5-5X what a university professor makes and they do not subject themselves to the risk of being fired. With their extra income, they invest in child care resources and help
Thanks for that, that looks very similar to the source material which I was recounting second hand and somewhat misattributing.
For the past 15 years I've had an, let's call it unusual, job working in the astronomy department at the University of Arizona. First as a student employee (research assistant) and now for a private start-up, though my "office" unofficially remains on campus.
So, I've seen a lot of the goings on in the department, and while I'm certainly not plugged into the faculty grapevine, I see what goes on.
Fraud? No. It's a friendly and cordial place to work really. If there has been any fraud, it has been either very minor or done by people who weren't around very long. But, astronomy is not like physics or biology. Sure, the grants are still very competitive, but it is expected that you will be looking for the unknown, so somewhat fanciful ideas aren't immediately shunned. Maybe you wont get to use your first choice 10m telescope, but there are many others available.
The state of astronomy is changing, though. I had a lengthy chat with my boss about this recently. He's about to turn 80, so he's been at this since the Apollo days. Back then, space research got a lot of funding, but that's not true any more. Often, to get a grant you need to try to show how this idea of yours could conceivably help industry. The problem is that a lot of astronomy falls into the fundamental research category. You just want to see how the universe functions. It is a lot harder to get money for that these days. There are subcategories where it is easier, though. I work in the adaptive optics part of the department and this has obvious uses for, among others, the military. This means you can potentially get funding from the defense department, they get something they want, and you still get to do astronomy.
Having said all of that, do read what a lot of others have posted about the scarcity of jobs for scientists in academia. It's not good. My position is somewhat unique (in both good and bad ways that I wont get into here), so I haven't had to deal with this yet. And perhaps astronomy is somewhat more fortunate than regular physics in that there are fewer students trying to get PhDs, but getting a permanent job still isn't easy.
Just one little point...getting a permanent job isn't easy. I don't care what the field is in! Landing a career was difficult 50 years ago and it's much more so now. Why single science out as a special case when it's clearly not?
My advice is to be a good student, and start talking to your professors as soon as you can while in college. They'll help you understand the material, of course, but they'll eventually be who helps you find work or take the next educational step. Try to get internships in whatever f
Recently I've noticed some alarming pessimism among Slashdotters about the state of science
So, you are going to make career decisions based on the mindset of a subset of the slashdot readership? For actual advice I would say do what you love and the rest will work itself out.
People don't do advanced degrees like a PhD for the money (which isn't that great) or the recognition (which is hard to come by) but because they love the work.
Basically, if you love doing it, do it. If you hang in there, things will probably work out. If not, find something else to do with your life. A while ago I summed up in a blog post my thoughts on doing a PhD: http://computational-intelligence.blogspot.com.au/2011/11/hang-in-there.html [blogspot.com.au]
Just my $0.02.
You will see sciences ugly side eventually, and, if your successful, you will see it often. Put your big boy pants on and suck it up.
Just go for a PhD and think about an academic career again once you are in your last year. In my experience, you will be disillusioned about science within 4-6 months. Most projects don't work and most PIs have unrealistic expectations and no time for supervision. Salaries suck and long-term career prospects suck, in all fields. There is a lot of jobs in competitive fields but cut-throat competition and no jobs in the other fields. Also I think that fraud is more widespread that a lot of academics would like to admit but it remains anecdotal and it will certainly not have any impact on your career prospects if you are honest. This being said, this is I think the best and most stimulating job in the world (or at least one of them). And I personally work from 9.30 till 9.00 every weekday and some hours over weekends.
My best advice is to consider it as seriously as you would any other job. It helps to have a clear career plan and know where you are going. Too many students start thinking it will just happen. Once you know in which field you want to work, seek advice about the best labs and apply there. Visit as many labs as you can. Don't be afraid about moving to other countries/states and if an excellent opportunity presents itself outside of what you initially considered, take some time to think about it. The most important things are (1) that you choose a project that you like, (2) that the lab where you work is full of nice people and (3) that your boss is really famous in his field, not necessarily in that order. Don't go for second grade universities, it is not worth it. If you want your academic career to be full of opportunities, you need to do your PhD in one of the top 50-100 best universities of the world and in a really good lab for your field. That will keep most doors opened and put you in the most stimulating environment. This is not to say that good research is not done outside of these but simply that you are guaranteed to get maximal exposure to foreign ideas and people.
Now, I am in a different field, but I think I can give some hints.
First of all, people often want to see things as fraud/not fraud. But that is rarely true. Scientific work has different degree of rigidity depending on who does it and what the goal is. You can see the scale as something like "Fraud", "Criminal negligence", "Bad study", "Meh", "Good study", "Impressive study" and "This should be in nature/science/what-ever-the-top-publication-of-your-field-is". You have to consider the whole scientific proce
fraud is rampant and that people honestly trying to do science are less likely to be recognized and obtain tenure
Dr. Weatherman PhD here. The above is mostly rubbish amplified by the media and those philosophers in Insane Clown Posse.
The first thing you need to realize is that all universities are different, and the requirements for obtaining tenure vary dramatically from place to place. I would presume for condensed matter physics you're not going to be at a small liberal arts college, teaching a heavy loa
Money is a bitch of a self-replicator with little regard to its hosts. At some point it'll change from useful symbiont to pathological menace in whatever field you go into.
So go do what you love best.
I'm midway through a graduate program and here are the things I wish I was told before I started:
With that said, don't let the naysayers get you down. There are good people in academia and always room for a few more. Good luck!
Like getting an MBA. You can make way more money through fraud with an MBA than a Phd. Phds are a waste of time.
Fraud has really taken over. At least here at MIT, I know of 3 profs in the physics department who got their tenure by fraud, and that's just the ones I know for sure, the actual numbers no doubt are worse.
It's a dirty little secret that the media does not like to talk about.
Simply put, offshore workers are much cheaper. Expect to be forced to train your H-1B replacement.
http://science.slashdot.org/story/12/04/06/139231/majority-of-landmark-cancer-studies-cannot-be-replicated [slashdot.org]
http://www.thelocal.se/39070/20120213/ [thelocal.se]
So far, around 150 children in Sweden have developed narcolepsy from the Pandemrixswine flu vaccine, but that number could rise, according to Tomas Norberg, chair of the Swedish Narcolepsy Association (Narkolepsiföreningen).
http://dangerousprescriptiondrugs.weebly.com/flu-vaccine--narcolepsy.html [weebly.com]
http://www.ex [exxonsecrets.org]
Q: How many IBM CPU's does it take to execute a job? A: Four; three to hold it down, and one to rip its head off.


text:
Lamb's richness and versatility delight the palates of foodies all over the world, but only if the right method of cooking is applied to the right cut of meat. Keller de-mystifies the art of cooking with lamb with a slow-cooked shank steeped in the flavors of France, followed by a cumin-scented rack of lamb. Braised Lamb Shank Provencal; Cumin-Scented Rack of Lamb in a Honey-Red Wine Sauce.
Visit the Website: www.hubertkellersecretsofachef.com
Episode #204 / Length: 28 minutes

subset: commoncrawl


text:
NEW YORK -- The musical festival and drag racing event known as ?Drag Mania? created by the entrepreneur and singer Don Omar for the enjoyment of speed enthusiasts and the whole family comes to Palm Beach International Raceway, March 1-3, 2013. Drag Mania will feature three days of drag racing, car show and a concert headlined by reggaeton artist, Don Omar.
Don Omar proved himself as a producer of special events in September 2011, after leading facilities in Englishtown, NJ (Raceway Park) the biggest deployment of exotic cars of the year with the festival that brought Live singers such as V?ctor Manuelle, Tito Nieves and Los Hermanos Rosario, to "DragMania".
This time, Don Omar announced the return of this musical and drag racing event, following the success in 2011 with his release. Attendees will enjoy a "show" consisting of several activities involving the world of auto racing combined with the music of such highly successful performers from Latin America: Arcangel "La Maravilla" Plan B, Zion & Lennox, RKM & Ken-y, and Lobo, who will be performing the ?La Formula? concert 8:00 p.m. on Sunday March 3. Don Omar will join in on the musical festivities by performing along with his artists ?Syko? and ?Natti Natasha? at 10:00 p.m. on Saturday March 2, 2013.
Arcangel "La Maravilla" Plan B, Zion & Lennox, RKM & Ken-y, and Lobo, otherwise known as the "Super Formula" of the entrepreneur Raphy Pina, will perform onstage the final day of the event, Sunday, March 3, 2013 in the celebration that will take place in Palm Beach International Raceway (Jupiter), Florida. Go to RACEPBIR.com to purchase advance discounted tickets. Pricing listed below.
Copyright ©2018 AUTOSALES INC, dba Summit Racing Equipment
Ready to take your order at 1-800-230-3030 | Customer Service 1-800-517-1035


text:
Course Catalog
ELED3020 - Differented Instruc Inclus Clm
Summer 2013
Today's teachers are often challenged by the wide variety of student's ability levels and backgrounds in inclusive elementary classrooms. Many educators strive to differentiate instruction to address their studnets' individual interests, ability levels, and learning profiles. They attempt to adapt their content (what will be taught), process (how it will be taught), and the product (the assessment of the content through culminating projects). Teachers who differentiate instruction engage in curriculum and instruction which considers each student's learning strengths and needs in order to maximize the learning capacity of all the studnets. This course will teach practical strategies for aspiring classroom teachers to differentiate lessons in order to meet the needs of all students which includes students with exceptional needs to students who are English Language Learners (ELL students). Some of the differentiated instruction strategies that will be taught will include; flexible grouping, RAFTS, WebQuests, anchor activities, tiered instruction, and learning contracts. The current special education legislation, utilizing the Individualized Education Plan (IEP), technology for differentiating, and techniques to make modification in specific content area classes will be taught as well.
Prerequisite: ELED3050
3 Credits
Schedule Book for All Active and Available Future Terms, Course starting with ELED3020
No Courses Found


text:
Set of 6 all-natural grooming essentials that smell like a man ought to smell
4-oz. Slick Liquid Shave Soap for a smooth shave
4-oz. Soothing Post-Shave Cream with sting-free aloe vera
Spicy Sandalwood Deodorant – works as hard as you do
16-oz. Walnut Shell Hand Scrub that cleans grimy hands without harsh chemicals
Learn More & Buy
Email Address
U.S. Zip Code (optional)
Your email address is never shared.
View privacy Policy.


text:
Aside from the fact that the Apple logo alone will have people lined up outside of Apple stores across the country to buy this thin, I'm inclined to ask what this watch actually DOES (aside from the obvious "tells time").
The screen is going to be way too small to type on. And if Apple claims that Siri won't run on even older iPhones, it seems unlikely that it's going to run on this watch. So that leaves only the simplest of input options.
And the screen is going to be crazy small for much output, not that it will have much CPU or memory to do much anyway (unless the form factor is HUGE).
The only thing I can figure is that this is going to be a blutooth front-end for an iPhone, but in that case, having a full iOS install seems like overkill.
Has anyone actually seen a working prototype of this thing in action, who could maybe clue us in?
Most assuredly paired up over Bluetooth with a prerequisite iOS update to make it all work seamlessly.
It displays information in bright green on its black 5" x 3" screen. It can record sound and video footage for later playback. It uses a simple but elegant form of sonar and satellite tracking (where service is available) to map out areas where its user travels. Though input is slow, a user can also hand-enter and edit text messages on their iPip
The AppleCo iPIP also has a built-in radio and Geiger Counter, a built-in health monitor, motion sensor, and a unique program creating and editing tool, a light that illuminates the area around the user, (allowing them to see better in the dark), and also features a biometric lock that can only be opened by either the user or a skilled technician.
Coming soon! The AppleCo iPIP-Pad is an experimental tablet-sized version of the AppleCo iPIP series.
Aside from the fact that the Apple logo alone will have people lined up outside of Apple stores across the country to buy this thin, I'm inclined to ask what this watch actually DOES (aside from the obvious "tells time").
I can tell you one thing it doesn't do, as of this writing:
I probably doesn't do a very good job of actually keeping time, either.
I don't know why it would, given that Apple devices in general are terrible at time.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2011/01/apple-iphone-4-alarm-problems-worldwide-clock-app-alarm-broken-3-days-in-a-row.html [latimes.com]
But what I want from an iWatch is the ability to access Siri, control music, and receive haptic alerts (since I often don't feel my phone vibrate in my pocket.) Two of those three are available on the Metawatch or Pebble, though the music control is really not great AFAICT.
It will, if instead of or addition to crystals keeping time, it is using the Atomic clock radio signal.
Apparently, lots of people believe it does, in a lab... Does that count?
It'll be one of those retro-active existence I guess...
And the screen is going to be crazy small for much output
You can bet that won't stop them from including HD for the iWatch 2, though. All glorious 1.5" of it. For use with iCokebottleglasses.
biometric device to keep track of your pulse, blood pressure. why buy the single use devices from the drug store?
bike computer for biking
the functions of the Nike fuelband and similar devices
remote control for iphone while you are running/biking to skip songs, change playlist, etc
it will probably be for people who see the light of day outside of cold basements and 24x7 staring at computer screens
The screen is going to be way too small to type on. And if Apple claims that Siri won't run on even older iPhones, it seems unlikely that it's going to run on this watch.
Product tying. It will require an iPhone to work, and I think it's pretty safe to assume the protocol for interacting with it will be locked down such that you can't use it with other devices.
The only reason the iPhone was as successful as it was is because the total cost in the US was concealed inside phone plans. If it had been for sale at the full price of $800-$1000 that carriers were paying it would have been a commercial failure in the US.
The US market is highly price sensitive, a do everything product that everyone wants might not sell at all because it's $50 outside people's price threshold.
Say what? Exactly what was totally new about the ipod?
I suppose you could say the design of the case was new, but MP3 players were out before the iPod.
As in it will be marketed like crazy, overpriced to make it seem "high tech", and almost no one in the media will give it the legitimate criticism it deserves for being a copycat?
When the iPod was introduced most portable music players stored about ten tracks. The iPad had enough capacity to store 1000 tracks. When everyone else was using slow USB 1.1 connections, the iPod used a fast FireWire connection.
Yeah, totally overpriced.
Exactly what was totally new about the ipod?
It worked out of the box, as intended and easily for everyone from soccer moms to geeks and everything in between. It looked slick, the marketing campaign was tight and most importantly it fulfilled the needs of 'the majority' of consumers better than any other product on the market. Bash Apple all you want, but if you deny that I'd assume you're being deliberately obtuse.
Nope. Not obtuse at all.
It was a great product, but it was not "totally new".
It was "totally new" in terms of being the first commercially viable product of its kind. There were flash-based players that held a few songs, laptop-drive based players that held more music but were not pocketable, and even MP3-capable CD players with the same problem. And then there was the issue of connectivity - the iPod used a much faster 1394 connection which made it feasible to sync. Even the similarly-sized Toshiba that came out shortly after the iPod - using the same drive - used a horrid DRM that made the device extremely painful to use. It was not a new idea, but then neither was the first airplane, telephone, or lightbulb.
However that does not make the device in question totally new.
Why do you care so much whether a device is subjectively new, or subjectively not new. Do you have some "NEW DEVICE" stickers you need to distribute or something?
What matters is if it's a good device that people want. THAT would be something new in the history of smart watches.
It worked out of the box
Not really. You had to install iTunes and connect it to a Firewire port. Then you had to carefully tag all your music because it didn't understand directories and file names.
There were better products on the market, but no-one could match the Apple hype machine.
Not really. You had to install iTunes and connect it to a Firewire port
The first Mac was Mac only, and Macs already had iTunes on. So you're wrong there.
As music is ripped by iTunes, it gets the track list from an online DB. I didn't have to enter ANY tags. Clearly you did something stupid. Like perhaps ripping your music with an inferior music app that didn't do tags. Or stealing the music from others.
There were better products on the market, but no-one could match the Apple hype machine.
Bullshit. The iPod was an amazing and high quality machine. There was nothing like it on the market when it launched. And no "iPod Killer" ever caught up.
Say what? Exactly what was totally new about the ipod?
I suppose you could say the design of the case was new, but MP3 players were out before the iPod.
The interface and simplicity were new especially after they launched iTunes, I have a love hate relationship with iTunes. MP3s were really just solid state cassette players. iPods do have a different feel. In truth I never owned one until the Touches came out. 50% for me was being able to play movies. Watching my own choice of movie changed flying for me. The watch is risky. It's a little like when they started seeing how small they could make calculators. They hit insanity with calculator pens that needed
Say what? Exactly what was totally new about the ipod?
I suppose you could say the design of the case was new, but MP3 players were out before the iPod.
Seeing as how I was looking for an MP3 player at the time I'd say that's simple. Firstly the iPod had a proper interface, not some crappy LCD screen where you could hardly see more than the first few letters of the track name or simply no display at all just a set of buttons. Secondly it had storage space, lots and lots and lots of storage space. Competing players that were generally available where I was living at the time could hardly handle more than a few CDs. With the iPod had 5 and 10GB you could rip
Secondly it had storage space, lots and lots and lots of storage space.
I have it on very good authority [slashdot.org] that the iPod had less space than a Nomad.
Important relative to entry into the watch market, one new thing about the original iPod was convincing a large portion of the population to consider a $300 portable music player a must-have accessory (when previously a $100 CD-walkman was a stretch). Apple entering the watch market could mean that a whole lot of people --- who previously wore no watch, or a $30 Casio --- would start thinking it was "normal" to spend $250 on a watch that they will throw away in a few years for a newer model.
No way. Watches died for me twenty years ago. They should invent something with very different functionality (they probably will) which doesn't have to be worn around wrists. Maybe something I keep in a pocket. Oh wait, my smartphone!
Disclaimer: I know one person is not a statistical sample, I just hate things that wrap wrists and I know that Apple can sell anything to their cultists
Exactly what was totally new about the ipod?
The user experience.
Apple isn't the company that comes out with the first primitive gizmo, that doesn't work right and nobody wants. Apple comes out with the first gizmo that does it right, and people want.
w/ an ever-increasing number of people just pulling out their cell phones as a latter-day pocketwatch.
Not sure what functionality Apple can come up w/ to reverse this --- I really can't see people doing the Dick Tracy thing....
Came to say this.
What we need is an iPocketwatch. Make it fit into old gold watch cases and work as a cell phone.
I wouldn't buy one, but every suit in the world would be all over it. Hipsters perhaps, depends on how that herd stampedes next.
Came to say this.
What we need is an iPocketwatch. Make it fit into old gold watch cases and work as a cell phone.
I wouldn't buy one, but every suit in the world would be all over it. Hipsters perhaps, depends on how that herd stampedes next.
You woke up a few neurons I was trying to kill with alcohol.
Apple products position themselves as trendy, luxury items that you can't live without, right? Isn't the trendy luxury watch market already crowded by fancy five-figure watches? I expect the iWatch to take as much of that market as the digital watch did.
Honestly, it seems like the 'analyst' pulled the number straight out of his ass even by financial analyst standards.
Aside from the problem you note(today's watch spending is heavily skewed toward overpriced jewelry and 1$ quartz cheapies by the metric ton, which doesn't tell you how big the market for a 'far more expensive than a cheapie, far more powerful and less purely aesthetic than jewelry' product would be), why the focus on revenue?
Apple doesn't give a damn about revenue, never has, they care about profit(so, theoretically, do all for-profit corporations; but Apple is particularly aggressive about simply ignoring segments whose margins don't excite them).
In terms of Apple's ability to make a profit on watches, today's watch market tells us essentially nothing: the cheap seats tell us nothing because Apple would never hit those price points, the expensive seats tell us nothing because Apple doesn't do jewelry. As it stands, the market for 'smart watches' is vanishingly small, almost wholly irrelevant to the watch market generally.
>Honestly, it seems like the 'analyst' pulled the number straight out of his ass even by financial analyst standards.
Came in here to say this.
traditional watches are really more of a jewelry piece
iDevices are to some extent jewellery too. All the way back to the white headphones that came with the original iPod and all the posers with their original iPhones or talking to Siri in Starbucks.
(Posting AC because I'm at work)
Look, I'm a huge Apple fanboy, believe me, but come on! We're posting articles from FINANCIAL ANALYSTS now? When these nimrods have something valuable to say, it'll already have been old news for several months. His entire job is built on speculation and generating (or deflating) interest in a company. He does NOTHING OF VALUE! And we're going to put stock in his thoughts?
Come on. I know the Slashdot of yesteryear is gone and dead but let's not post commentary from financial analysts, even if it is about Apple.
And we're going to put stock in his thoughts?
It's all about increasing his shares...
iWatch? 6 billions a year? I mean, seriously? Or is it some crazy Apple shareholder wanting to jump a ship and spamming like crazy all channels to get price up "back where it belongs"?
Apple is history as supergrowth company. Niche products. No amount of hype will save it from fall. And this show screwed logic of public companies in US - it's all about "supergrowth", not profit.
Share value from present valuing vapor profits is, sometimes, not vapor.
This could be really cool if they were able to pack the functions of an iPhone into a stylish looking watch.
However, until they've got the tech that well established, it's going to be a hard sell for most of us: we replaced our watches will cell phones and, in the interest of not carrying duplicate expensive devices, rely on the phone exclusively to tell time.
This could be really cool if they were able to pack the functions of an iPhone into a stylish looking watch.
However, until they've got the tech that well established, it's going to be a hard sell for most of us: we replaced our watches will cell phones and, in the interest of not carrying duplicate expensive devices, rely on the phone exclusively to tell time.
Watch sales are nearly $20 Billion, annually, so yes, ``someone still uses a fucking watch.'' http://www.fhs.ch/en/statistics.php [www.fhs.ch]
Yeah, but most of that comes from one sale of the $15 billion "Rolex God" to a Saudi prince.
Most of them I would believe are either status symbol for elegant and rich people, or are presents which no one wears actually. iWatch don't fall in either of these categories.
General public have really abandoned watches.
I love watches: mostly purely mechanical (automatic) watches. I have a couple of them: ranging from hundreds of dollars to $2,000. I think they're great, and love the mechanical nature. I have a couple of digital ones because I think they're neat, but I don't wear them that often. The digitals are also cheap so when I wear them when I travel or something.
That being said: I can't imagine myself getting this one. Sure, on one hand I guess it's interesting... but no.
As it stands, a watch is pretty much just jewelry now-a-days... clocks are everywhere and most of us already have cellphones to check the time. Now to put an iOS device on your wrist instead of your pocket. No thanks.
I mean, I could see wanting to get the Google Goggles more than this thing and THAT's saying something.
If every number I made up turns out to be true, this product I know nothing about could represent $6BN in revenue for Apple.
Seriously, it's speculation built on top of more speculation... Oh, wait, it's slashdot, never mind.
Apple's UI? Palm Pilot style grid of icons? Outdated home button?
Maybe you mean multitouch? Yeah, that'll work great on a 1.5" display... How will use use Apple's very poorly designed suite of gestures? The laughably-bad four-finger swipe on a watch is going to take some impressive contortions! Will it come with sandpaper so users can file-down their fingers?
I'm just going to go ahead and guess that you haven't put much thought in to how the UI will actually work, but assumed that Apple would come up w
I still wear a watch, old habit perhaps but it's also just a glance away when I'm in a hurry to catch the bus or whatever. With the current trend of smartphones growing to 4-5 inches they're soon approaching mini tablets at 7 inches, maybe people feel they want something smaller and more convenient again? I don't know, but I think you're being far to pessimist. If Apple can provide me with something that's more convenient because it's on my wrist than in my pocket, maybe something smaller that complements t
every chance I get. Is that going to cost me now?
Nobody wears watches anymore! We carry smartphones with time displays in our pockets. Or are those iPocketWatches?
Hmmm let's see
Step 1) Sell iPhone, with clock.
Step 2) People stop wearing wristwatches, use iPhone to tell time.
Step 3) Sell iWatch, with phone. No one carries iPhone anymore.
Step 4) Sell iPocketWatch. It's just like the iWatch, but bigger! And goes in your pocket!
Step 5) Go to step 3. Head assplodes.
I can see a market for these, but in this case it's not me. It would have to replace my phone to be "worth it". I wear a watch - it's a time piece, not quite jewelry. I'm particular about how my watch looks as a reflection of my style, but not in a way that is statusy. Quite the same for my phone - which does happen to be an iPhone - which I got because at the time I bought it it was easy to use, comfortable to hold and store, and had the apps I needed when other phones did not.
It seems like a sol
I'm curious how this will be all that much different than an ipod nano mounted on a permanent wrist band. Outside of playing music and maybe voice based services such as maps or Siri (assuming cell data)I don't see the point over an actual iPhone based on screen size. Something that fits a wrist is not going to be great at reading text efficiently.
Maybe they can ship a free iMonocle with it.
Sony does have an Android watch [sonymobile.com] that is been out for a year or more.
But history will be rewritten so that Steve Jobs would be the pioneer of smart watches, and even doing so from his grave too
Until Apple gets sued over the two-way wrist radio [wikipedia.org] similarity.
What is really needed is not an explicit watch, but an approximately nano-sized device that runs full iOS, and that can also couple to a bigger iOS device like a tablet or a phone, and is sold waterproof and you're not turning to some third party for a special coating. And an official Apple watchband for it, of course, as well as an armband, and anything else to which you might conceivably attach the thing.
I, too, think that the $6 billion figure for the possible size of an iWatch market to be completely fictional. Not going to happen, but I'd really like some of whatever these guys are smoking to come up with a number like that.
As others have already said, a lot of people no longer wear watches because they now carry cell phones. Still others only wear watches as jewelry. Yes, I take the point others have made here that many/most/all Apple products are fashion statements, so you could argue an iWatch would still be jewelry, but in the world of watches, there seems to be generally two categories of "fashion" watches: watches that are "traditional jewelry" meaning that they are gold/silver/titanium, or made from other "traditional" jewelry materials, and watches that have an interesting/modern design (think the original "Swatch".) An iWatch can't compete against the traditional jewelry market and still have a touch screen. The two designs are pretty orthogonal -- I have a hard time thinking that the watch's function as something pretty/shiny/classic can be shared with something with a usable touch LCD screen and not fail at both. I can see how it might be possible to go after the modern/interesting style of "jewelry" watch with a stylish simple/elegant design -- again, think "Swatch" only with some ipod/iphone features included. (I realize the Swatch group now owns many luxury brands. I'm referring to the primarily plastic modern-looking watches like the original Swatch that came out in the 1980's) Anyway, a modern-styled plastic-case iWatch sounds really workable to me, but will that capture 10% of the market? Not bloody likely. Look at watch sales. Where is all the money being made? At the low-end plastic watches? Nope. The highest sales and margins are in the traditional jewelry-type watches. Something I can't see Apple competing with.
So, if Apple is going for an iWatch, they can't target the high-end jewelry watch market, so that's out. They can't target the low-end quartz or digital watch market, because that is already saturated with low-margin products. Their only hope is to define a new market somewhere in the middle with enough margin to make money. So, what is this watch going to *DO* that will garner more than a yawn from the general population (certain Apple fanboys excepted.)
You've got to do more than tell time. A cheap quartz watch will do that, and do it more stylishly.
So, okay, add in an MP3 player, stop watch, and maybe GPS, and other features runners/cyclists might want.
Yes, an iPhone/Smartphone can do those things, but they aren't as small/compact/portable. That's really all an iWatch might have going for it. -- size. Target the sports crowd so that you don't have to take your iPhone running with you. Otherwise, the crowd that already stopped wearing watches because they have a smart phone won't give it a second look.
Could they pack the ability to make phone calls into a watch? Maybe. Generally the two things that eat power on a smartphone are wifi and the display. Take out wifi (or turn it off) and make the screen much smaller, and you might be able to shrink a cell phone into a watch. That might make an iWatch attractive. However, the nice thing about having a smartphone is all the other things you can do with it --things that are going to be hard on a watch (texting, web browsing, e-mail, playing games, etc.) So, if you buy an iWatch that can make calls, do you also keep your smartphone? Do you have two cellphone contracts? If that's the case, I'd rather just have one device and use (or not) a regular watch. The trend in smartphone screen size is going bigger, not smaller. So, the iWatch as a cellphone replacement doesn't seem to make sense.
Really, the only market opportunity I can see for an iWatch is as a wearable ipod with more features (like GPS, maybe have it sync with your iPhone calendar to alert you to appointments, etc.) That could actually be kinda cool. Would I buy one? No. Will it grab 10% of the watch market? Um... probably not.
If you suspect a man, don't employ him.


text:
Listen to today's episode of StarDate on the web the same day it airs in high-quality streaming audio without any extra ads or announcements. Choose a $8 one-month pass, or listen every day for a year for just $30.
You are here
More Moon and Jupiter
One person's static is another's scientific treasure. This series of crackles, pops, and whooshes, for example, reveals that the planet Jupiter has a magnetic field. It also reveals something about the strength of the field and how it's affected by one of Jupiter's moons.
Layers deep in Jupiter's interior rotate at different speeds, creating a dynamo effect, like an electric generator. Electrical currents produced by this effect generate a magnetic field that forms a gigantic magnetic "bubble" around the planet. It's far stronger than any other magnetic field in the solar system except the Sun's.
As the field rotates, it sweeps up charged particles from the Sun, and from Jupiter's volcanic moon Io, which belches tons of material into space every day. These particles spiral through the magnetic field, producing radio waves.
The waves come in two forms: long waves, which sound a bit like waves washing across a beach, and short waves, which sound like a popcorn maker. They're formed in slightly different ways, but they both carry a treasure: information about the solar system's largest planet.
Look for Jupiter well to the right of the Moon at first light tomorrow. The planet looks like a brilliant star -- and with the right radio equipment, it sounds like one, too.
Script by Damond Benningfield, Copyright 2011


text:
4. Tottenham - £65m spend
Tottenham have an excellent net spend record considering their ascent from mid-table finishers for most of the Premier League era to top four contenders since 2005/06 under Martin Jol.
Spurs have a relatively low record transfer fee compared to some of their more illustrious rivals, but haven't been afraid to splash the cash on the likes of David Bentley, Luka Modric, Darren Bent and Mous Dembele - all of whom cost over £15 million.
However chairman Daniel Levy knows how to extract the very best price out of his assets and secured high fees for Michael Carrick, Dimitar Berbatov and Luka Modric, all seemingly without impacting his side's chances of Champions League qualification.
Do YOU want to write for GiveMeSport? Get started today by signing-up and submitting an article HERE: https://www.givemesport.com/writeforgms


text:
Published: 2013/02/22
Victor Wooten, Dumpstaphunk, Papadosio and More Added to Summer Camp
Victor Wooten, Dumpstaphunk, Papadosio, Reverand Peyton's Big Damn Band, Future Rock, Floodwood and more have been added to the lineup for the 2013 Summer Camp Music Festival. As previously reported, these artists will join moe., Umphrey's McGee, Trey Anastasio Band, STS9, Thievery Corporation, Lettuce, Cornmeal, Taj Mahal, The Avett Brothers, Yonder Mountain String Band, Big Boi and Tea Leaf Green, among others. Tickets to the festival are currently on sale for $182.30. This year's Summer Camp will take place May 24-26 in Chillicothe, IL. You can check out some great photos from last year's event here.


text:
2013-07-11 / Enterprise
Tax Holidays Would Benefit Putnam's Economy
The proposed sales tax holiday on clothing and footwear for 2013 has hit a snag, apparently because some in the State Assembly fear it would cause competition between neighboring counties as opposed to attracting business into the state from outside.
The full version of this story is available only to subscribers. Subscribe now to access to full versions of news stories in our archive of over 12,000 stories going back to 1999.


text:
Japanese rescuers found five charred bodies in a highway tunnel that collapsed yesterday, crushing cars, triggering a blaze and sparking fears of another cave-in.
At least seven people were missing inside the nearly 5km-long tunnel. Witnesses spoke of terrifying scenes as at least one vehicle burst into flames, sending out clouds of blinding, acrid smoke.
For several hours rescuers were forced to suspend their efforts to reach those believed trapped under the more-than 1 tonne concrete ceiling panels that crashed from the roof as engineers warned more debris could fall.
Emergency crews who rushed to the Sasago tunnel on the Chuo Expressway, 80km west of Tokyo, were hampered by thick smoke billowing from the entrance.
Dozens of people abandoned their vehicles on the Tokyo-bound section of carriageway and ran for one of the emergency exits or for the mouth, where they huddled in bitter winter weather.
Emergency crews equipped with breathing apparatuses battled around one-third of the way into the tunnel, where they found 110m of concrete panels had come crashing down, crushing at least two vehicles.
Hours after the collapse, engineers warned the structure could be unstable, forcing rescuers to halt their work as a team of experts assessed the danger.
It was during this inspection that accompanying police officers confirmed the first deaths.
"What we found resembled bodies inside a vehicle, they were blackened. We have visually confirmed them, but have yet to take them out for closer examination," an official said.
Japan's Fire and Disaster Management Agency later confirmed there were five bodies, adding another vehicle had also been burned.
One man who fled the tunnel told the Jiji Press news agency he had watched in horror as concrete crashed down onto a vehicle in front of him, leaving little more than a mound of dust and debris.
Voices cried out "Help" and "Anyone please help" from the pile before a young woman emerged with her clothes torn, he was reported as saying.
She could not stop trembling as he asked her how many had been inside the vehicle, he told the agency.
"She said: 'All of my friends and my boyfriend ... Please help them,'" said the man, adding that the flames were too strong.
Footage from security cameras in the late afternoon showed large concrete panels in a V shape, apparently having collapsed from the middle, with teams of men in protective gear scrambling over them.
A fire department official said workers were still trying to reach a van in which at least one person was believed to be trapped.
Chikaosa Tanimoto, professor emeritus of tunnel engineering at Osaka University, told broadcaster NHK the concrete panels are suspended from pillars.
"It is conceivable that the parts connecting the ceiling panels and pillars, or pillars themselves, have deteriorated, affected by vibrations from earthquakes and passing vehicles," he said.
An official from highways operator NEXCO said material degradation was a possibility, adding that the risk of further collapse remained. His colleague said the ceiling had undergone its regular five-yearly inspection in September.
The tunnel, which passes through hills near Mount Fuji, is one of the longest in Japan.
A man in his 30s, who was just 50m ahead of the caved-in spot, recounted details of the terrifying experience.