On 20-2-2009 19:22, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> [A fact which our Java lecturer disputed. He was trying to claim that 
>>> the range of a single-precision float is "oh, more than the number of 
>>> atoms in the universe", and thus you don't really need 
>>> double-precision.]
>>
>> One of the reasons why I am happy that I did not know of CS when I 
>> started at uni. They started a year before and somehow that message 
>> did not reach me in time, otherwise I might have studied CS. While 
>> studying physics I did a few courses at the CS department and was 
>> invariably struck by the quality of the lecturers. Did I tell the 
>> story of the teacher that could not write down the equation for a 
>> straight line?
> 
> Heh. Well, I guess if what you happen to be doing doesn't involve that 
> equation, there's no particular reason to know it. 

He was giving a lecture where he needed it. Does that count?

> But yeah, generally 
> neither the students nor the lecturers, frankly, knew what they were on 
> about. [With some notable exceptions.]

That is why I advise people that are intelligent and interested in 
computers to study a real science, like physics or chemistry.

>>> I'm not quite sure how that's relevant here though.
>>
>> The number of atoms in a given volume of gas at standard pressure is 
>> constant, hence the weight of a volume of N2 is 7 times that of H2 and 
>> O2 8 times. So why did you expect a few percent?
> 
> Because oxygen is only slightly further down the periodic table than 
> hydrogen? I would therefore imagine one atom of oxygen is not "that 
> much" heavier.

So you can't compute 3x9 in your head *and* you have failed to 
understand the fundamental concept behind the periodic table. Your 
future in academia becomes bleaker every post. ;)

> 
> (I had also assumed that because they're slightly bigger, there'd be 
> slightly fewer of them per unit of volume...)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_radius (where the calculate radius 
of oxygen is even less than that of hydrogen)

And the radius of the atom is largely irrelevant for gasses as you could 
have known if you paid attention when the gas laws were introduced ;)

Post a reply to this message

>>> One of the reasons why I am happy that I did not know of CS when I 
>>> started at uni. They started a year before and somehow that message 
>>> did not reach me in time, otherwise I might have studied CS. While 
>>> studying physics I did a few courses at the CS department and was 
>>> invariably struck by the quality of the lecturers. Did I tell the 
>>> story of the teacher that could not write down the equation for a 
>>> straight line?
>>
>> Heh. Well, I guess if what you happen to be doing doesn't involve that 
>> equation, there's no particular reason to know it. 
> 
> He was giving a lecture where he needed it. Does that count?

...EPIC FAIL.

>> But yeah, generally neither the students nor the lecturers, frankly, 
>> knew what they were on about. [With some notable exceptions.]
> 
> That is why I advise people that are intelligent and interested in 
> computers to study a real science, like physics or chemistry.

Heh. Apparently in some places, "computer science" sees you studying 
Turing machines and the halting problem. I'm real glad I didn't end up 
doing *that*! o_O

> So you can't compute 3x9 in your head *and* you have failed to 
> understand the fundamental concept behind the periodic table. Your 
> future in academia becomes bleaker every post. ;)

Well, I did try to say... :-P

>> (I had also assumed that because they're slightly bigger, there'd be 
>> slightly fewer of them per unit of volume...)
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_radius (where the calculate radius 
> of oxygen is even less than that of hydrogen)
> 
> And the radius of the atom is largely irrelevant for gasses as you could 
> have known if you paid attention when the gas laws were introduced ;)

Uhuh. You realise that I've never been taught most of this stuff, right?

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

>>> My wife is a teacher (elementary students) I seriously don't 
>>> understand how she keeps from going homicidal. She's a very patient 
>>> person.
>>
>> ...so she teaches Boron and Lithium who to do their ABCs?
> 
> Err, no... kids. like 5 and 6 year olds.

So no Fire Elementals then? ;-)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
> > 1. I am insufficiently intelligent to actually acheive a PhD. (I nearly
> > failed my BSc as it is!)
>
>  Trust me - some of my fellow colleagues had trouble with elementary
> calculus - and they were in a field that uses it a lot. And many can't
> handle some of the stuff you've been posting here.

I've heard time and time again and have seen first firsthand that raw
intelligence, while useful to a point, is not the driving force behind a PhD.
Desire is what'll get you through it.

You are obviously quite capable of picking up material, learning it, and
communicating it.  Now you just need to transfer that skill from wikipedia to
google scholar.  Based on what you post here, if you had a hard time before, it
was probably because you were spending time learning what you really wanted to
be learning.

>  No one should have to pay for a PhD. Find funding options.

Indeed.  The way to go about this is not just to apply to random schools you
like or think you can get into, but to contact faculty you like or think you
could work with.  The web makes this very easy.  Go to random schools'
websites.  Look at what the faculty does.  If something looks interesting, find
out anything you can about the subject.  If possible, look up papers or topics
the person has worked on recently.  (If you really want to work in this area,
you should be genuinely interested, not just a sycophant.)  Then email or call
the person.  They'll probably tell you to get lost, but if they don't then
you're in luck.  If you convince them you could do a good job and they want you
there, then the application process is a formality.  This could possibly be more
true if your marks aren't as high, so that you can convince them from the start
that you're more than capable.  It's also possible to apply, get accepted, and
try to find something that interests you once you're there, but you might not
find what you're looking for.  Trust me.

>  In the US, if you have funding for a PhD, then you're paid to do one.
> And depending on the city, you can be quite comfortable with that income.

Just think of it as a couple full time jobs...

> > 4. It is *highly* unlikely that having a PhD will make any kind of
> > positive change to my employment situation.

Researching, innovating, writing papers, giving talks...  Seems that would look
great even if a job had little to do with your field of study.  Seems highly
*likely* to me.  I think you're looking at what difference a PhD would make in
your current job.  I've been told that while a PhD may close some doors, it
will open up a completely different set of opportunities.

>  For many companies, just that you have experience talking in public is
> a _huge_ plus.

And even if you hate public speaking, it gets much easier when you know the
topic very well.

> If you're dissertation topic interests you, you'll
> voluntarily do the work anyway, and it won't be considered boring,
> tedious work.
>  I'll be honest, though. All research topics will sound really boring in
> the beginning. You get over that and begin to enjoy it after you've been
> working on it for about a year.

Yes, and on the contrary, if you discover it doesn't interest you, you'll move
right along.  I got less than halfway through a PhD program and realized I just
couldn't force myself to care about the topic and dreaded waking up in the
morning.  So I quit.  It became clear when talking to a neighbor at the same
point in the same program.  He said he was working all day on the weekends, but
it didn't even seem like work because he just loved it that much.  I was having
a hard time even opening books or facing the tasks I had to do.  That was a
couple months ago, and I had the good fortune to be able to start over
elsewhere on a project I really enjoyed previously.  Of course I would NOT
recommend Monte Carlo sampling of grad school programs; the only point is that
it should be an opportunity to make a living doing what you'd like to be doing
anyway.

Not many people say, "Should I get a PhD?  I'm not sure, but I don't think so."
If you get that far, you should at least talk to people, apply, and consider
your options, even if you ultimately decide against it.

 - Ricky

Post a reply to this message

triple_r wrote:

> I've heard time and time again and have seen first firsthand that raw
> intelligence, while useful to a point, is not the driving force behind a PhD.
> Desire is what'll get you through it.
> 
> You are obviously quite capable of picking up material, learning it, and
> communicating it.  Now you just need to transfer that skill from wikipedia to
> google scholar.  Based on what you post here, if you had a hard time before, it
> was probably because you were spending time learning what you really wanted to
> be learning.

The whole module on project management *was* pretty boring, to be honest...

>>  No one should have to pay for a PhD. Find funding options.
> 
> Indeed.  The way to go about this is not just to apply to random schools you
> like or think you can get into, but to contact faculty you like or think you
> could work with.  The web makes this very easy.  Go to random schools'
> websites.  Look at what the faculty does.  If something looks interesting, find
> out anything you can about the subject.  If possible, look up papers or topics
> the person has worked on recently.  (If you really want to work in this area,
> you should be genuinely interested, not just a sycophant.)  Then email or call
> the person.  They'll probably tell you to get lost, but if they don't then
> you're in luck.  If you convince them you could do a good job and they want you
> there, then the application process is a formality.  This could possibly be more
> true if your marks aren't as high, so that you can convince them from the start
> that you're more than capable.  It's also possible to apply, get accepted, and
> try to find something that interests you once you're there, but you might not
> find what you're looking for.  Trust me.

Thus far, I haven't seen anything remotely interesting-looking.

On the other hand, it's not like I'm doing to do a PhD on the LZW 
algorithm. That's neither new nor innovative. The requirement that you 
have to do something "new" seems pretty hard to meet; almost everything 
has been done already. (Everything worth doing, anyway.) But we'll see. 
Maybe if I search around I'd find something...

>>> 4. It is *highly* unlikely that having a PhD will make any kind of
>>> positive change to my employment situation.
> 
> Researching, innovating, writing papers, giving talks...  Seems that would look
> great even if a job had little to do with your field of study.  Seems highly
> *likely* to me.

 From what I can tell, "most" employers won't look at it like that. I 
mean, you could argue that I spent an entire 6 years of my life in 
higher education, and that demonstrates a great deal of commitment (I 
didn't give up) and reliability (I didn't fail). But nobody appears to 
give a ****. They just want to know whether you have skill X. If you do 
not have skill X, not interested. Goodbye.

On that basis, I don't think it would make a difference. (Although I did 
manage to find *one* job that required a PhD. But that was working for a 
bank, which is obviously absurd.)

> I think you're looking at what difference a PhD would make in
> your current job.

Oh, I don't *care* about my current job. I'm just itching to find a way 
to get rid of it!

> I've been told that while a PhD may close some doors, it
> will open up a completely different set of opportunities.

Mm'kay...

> Yes, and on the contrary, if you discover it doesn't interest you, you'll move
> right along.  Of course I would NOT
> recommend Monte Carlo sampling of grad school programs;

LOL! What a way to live... Monte Carlo sampling of all possible fields 
of human exploration until you hit upon something interesting. :-D

Sorry, it has to be done now: http://www.xkcd.com/507/

> Not many people say, "Should I get a PhD?  I'm not sure, but I don't think so."
> If you get that far, you should at least talk to people, apply, and consider
> your options, even if you ultimately decide against it.

Heh. I'm only asking because everybody *else* seems to think I should! :-P

Still, I guess it merits further attention...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 16:51:57 +0000, Invisible wrote:

>>> ...and now I'm thinking about the "Ode to a lump of putty I found in
>>> my left armpit". :-S
>> 
>> A most excellent poem. :-)
> 
> It excells - but at *what*??

Being a piece of Vogon poetry, of course. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> The requirement that you
> have to do something "new" seems pretty hard to meet; almost everything
> has been done already.

I think the idea is that you find an advisor with a topic that interests you.
He/she has ideas that you implement and explore.  This leads to new ideas
(yours!) that you can explore.  Not many people can walk into a field with
fresh new ideas and no experience.

>  They just want to know whether you have skill X. If you do
> not have skill X, not interested. Goodbye.

As was pointed out, a few years of study in field Y should put you in touch with
people who also care about skill Y.

> On that basis, I don't think it would make a difference. (Although I did
> manage to find *one* job that required a PhD. But that was working for a
> bank, which is obviously absurd.)

I was using a computational fluid dynamics code written elsewhere by a grad
student.  I guess he now does stochastic modeling for a bank on Wall Street.

> > I've been told that while a PhD may close some doors, it
> > will open up a completely different set of opportunities.
>
> Mm'kay...

Maybe I should elaborate.  At a Q&A session, people were worried they would be
viewed as overqualified or not have experience in exactly the right field.  The
answer was that if that's the case it's probably not the right job anyway, but
there are certainly jobs out there that do match a different set of
qualifications.  Many of these jobs may carry more freedom and responsibility.

> LOL! What a way to live... Monte Carlo sampling of all possible fields
> of human exploration until you hit upon something interesting. :-D

This would lead to two possibilities: either everyone and everything else in the
world is boring, or...

> Heh. I'm only asking because everybody *else* seems to think I should! :-P
>
> Still, I guess it merits further attention...

Forgive me.  I'm not trying to convince you to do anything, only trying to
convince you that it's not an impossibility.  You obviously want a job that
gives you the freedom to explore and apply yourself.  Grad school is one way to
move in that direction, but certainly not the only way.

 - Ricky

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:

> 
> So no Fire Elementals then? ;-)
> 

Not unless one turns out to be a pyro ..
-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

>> So no Fire Elementals then? ;-)
> 
> Not unless one turns out to be a pyro ..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xuHumXoeV0

Sorry... couldn't resist.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

>> The requirement that you
>> have to do something "new" seems pretty hard to meet; almost everything
>> has been done already.
> 
> I think the idea is that you find an advisor with a topic that interests you.
> He/she has ideas that you implement and explore.  This leads to new ideas
> (yours!) that you can explore.  Not many people can walk into a field with
> fresh new ideas and no experience.

Well sure. But it seems it would take little old me a *long* time to 
travel all the way to the frontiers of knowledge to do genuinely new stuff.

OTOH, presumably that's what your supervisor is for? ;-)

>>  They just want to know whether you have skill X. If you do
>> not have skill X, not interested. Goodbye.
> 
> As was pointed out, a few years of study in field Y should put you in touch with
> people who also care about skill Y.

It has a flavour...

> Maybe I should elaborate.  At a Q&A session, people were worried they would be
> viewed as overqualified or not have experience in exactly the right field.  The
> answer was that if that's the case it's probably not the right job anyway, but
> there are certainly jobs out there that do match a different set of
> qualifications.

Sounds plausible at least.

> Many of these jobs may carry more freedom and responsibility.

I was under the impression that "freedom" and "responsibility" are polar 
opposites.

>> Heh. I'm only asking because everybody *else* seems to think I should! :-P
>>
>> Still, I guess it merits further attention...
> 
> Forgive me.  I'm not trying to convince you to do anything, only trying to
> convince you that it's not an impossibility.  You obviously want a job that
> gives you the freedom to explore and apply yourself.  Grad school is one way to
> move in that direction, but certainly not the only way.

Hey, I started this thread to gather opinions. (And practical data too.) 
So far it's working. ;-)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message