>> I guess I'm still smarting from that guy yelling at me because I keep 
>> asking how rank-2 types work and I still can't get my head around it.
> 
> You need to sit down interactively with someone. There were a handful of 
> things I just couldn't grok until I got someone more expert to give me a 
> clue, then it all fell into place.  (LISP being one of those, for example.)

Yeah, well... not much danger of that. ;-)

>> Actually, I'm still not really comprehending why double-entry book 
>> keeping is really relevant to a computer science degree, but still...
> 
> It's as relevant as anything else. Computer science (such as it is) 
> doesn't solve any problems on its own. :-)

See, I don't give a **** about solving real-world problems. I only care 
about solving "interesting" problems. ;-)

This is possibly why I'm so unemployable... :-/

>> is another qualification going to be different?
> 
> Because in getting that qualification, you get introduced to all the 
> people working in the fields that interest you.

I don't think anybody is "working" with Haskell. (As in, getting paid 
money to use it.) I could be wrong, but it seems pretty rare.

>>> and will have many more employment options once you are done.
>> I currently doubt this one.
> 
> OK, put it this way...  So what? You're not finding any good jobs now. 
> After, if you still don't find any good jobs, what did you lose?

Several thousand pounds in debts? Several years of my life? Possibly my 
sanity? :-} (Did you *see* the links I posted?)

>> I'm thinking I might make a list of cool stuff just for the hell of 
>> it, actually. :-D
> 
> You definitely should.

Meh. I tried making a list of cool things, and it ended up having 
entries like "complex numbers. Because you can calculate stuff with 
them!" Pretty retarded, eh?

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

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Well, I guess it depends on finding a good subject.

First decide what subjects you'd be interested in working on.

Then find someone working on those subjects.

Then go to the school where that person is.

4 - Profit!

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Ouch ouch ouch!"
   "What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
   "No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."

Post a reply to this message

> First decide what subjects you'd be interested in working on.
> 
> Then find someone working on those subjects.
> 
> Then go to the school where that person is.
> 
> 4 - Profit!

I'd settle for break-even, BTH.

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

Post a reply to this message

On 20-2-2009 23:06, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> 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?
> 
> You studied physics and you're confusing atomic number with atomic mass?

yip, not paying attention and writing mail while trying to concentrate 
on sets of cubic coordinate transformations. Not a good Idea.

Reconstruction: N2 is about 7x2x2 times as heavy as one H. I know I 
corrected one factor 2 for H2, but I don't know which any more.

> <insert asshole PhD comment here>

ok: Thanks for pointing out.

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 13:54:57 -0800, Darren New wrote:

>> 3. I don't think I can spare the time. (I have a job to do, sucky as it
>> is.)
> 
> Go where they'll pay for you.  You can't reasonably do a PhD while
> you're holding down a full-time job, IMO.

Agreed.  I've got a few friends who got their PhD's and one of them made 
a little money on the side playing the stock market (risky, but Tim's an 
outstanding maths guy and good at research - and he took quite a while to 
get his doctorate, at that), but generally it was a full-time job paid 
for by grant money, like you said.

>> I seem to vaguely recall somebody (I forget who) claiming to know who
>> to go to for this kind of thing, and offering to help me arrange it.
> 
> I've done it in the USA. Apparently the UK is much different. But don't
> limit yourself to the UK.  Lots of people travel abroad to do schooling
> like that.

Agreed.  Plus going to school abroad looks great on a resume.  Andy 
shouldn't let his view of going to a foreign country be coloured by a few 
jerks in the company he works for who happen to be based in the US.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 22:17:09 +0000, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

>> 4) Profit!
> 
> Anybody know the origins of this curios meme?

Slashdot.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 20-2-2009 22:54, Darren New wrote:
> 
> Go where they'll pay for you.  You can't reasonably do a PhD while 
> you're holding down a full-time job, IMO.

It can be done. My only PhD student ATM has a full time job elsewhere. I 
sorta did that and one of my former PhD students also did not have a 
regular PhD position. It may take a bit longer doing it this way. The 
environment you are working in should be research minded of course.
Actually I think that for Andy it might work. At least in an environment 
like my department where the distinction between scientific staff and 
supporting staff is rather blurred. I think I mentioned it recently in 
another thread, we do have a couple of people that started out as 
supporting staff and then converted to do a PhD. I don't know enough 
about the English system to know if such things are possible there.

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> > Plus, you'll meet girls. :-)
>
> Oh. My. GOD! >_<
>
> You cannot *possibly* expect me to take anything else you say seriously
> now, can you? :-P

Now we all know it's the truth, but you might want to play that one down, at
least until you're in:

http://ccartier.blogspot.com/2009/01/rejected-stanford-bschool-essay.html

> Heh. Actually, a few weeks back I did look at MSRC. But I couldn't
> figure out what they were talking about. I surmised this probably means
> I'm too stupid to be there. :-}

That doesn't mean your stupid [sic].  I'm sure many people in the field couldn't
understand it because they haven't worked on it.  What's important is whether
you can learn it, not whether you already know it.

> Much as it would be fun to meet the legendary Simon PJ, I rather doubt
> they have any PhD openings to do with Haskell right about now.

Don't doubt it.  Find out, and you might find something else interesting along
the way.

> > 4) Profit!
>
> Anybody know the origins of this curios meme?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnomes_(South_Park_episode)

 - Ricky

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
>> <insert asshole PhD comment here>
> ok: Thanks for pointing out.

Just to be clear, I was calling myself an ass for making fun of you for a 
mistake like that. I wasn't calling you that. I'm not sure what your 
response means you thought I meant. :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Ouch ouch ouch!"
   "What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
   "No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> I wandered into lots of terms like "universal quantification" and got 
> horribly lost...

You should look up "universal quantification" and "existential 
quantification" on wikipedia. They're really straightforward concepts with 
big names. It's like one step up from boolean logic.

I strongly suspect you already know what the words mean, and you just don't 
know there's a mathematical term for what they name.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Ouch ouch ouch!"
   "What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
   "No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."

Post a reply to this message