On 21-2-2009 0:03, Darren New wrote:
> 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. :-)
> 
Just to be clear: I was totally unsure which of us you meant, it could 
mean either, so I opted for an ambiguous comment. :)

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 15:07:28 +0100, "scott" <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:

>
>What % of people in Milton Keynes do you think can program in a functional 
>language, know half of what you know about knot theory, and half of what you 
>know about fourier transforms etc?  What % would even be capable of 
>understanding?  I can tell you, not many.
> 

You may have picked the wrong town. Milton Keynes is where the OU is based. :)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 22:21:18 +0000, Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:

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

I've found that when I get paid to do something it mysteriously becomes
interesting ???
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 16:33:27 +0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:

>
>Having just discovered that I actually suck at Haskell, I think I'm the 
>one who needs convincing. :-S

One of the little tricks in life ®, for those of us with insecurity issues, is
to ignore them. Don't look for reasons why you can't do something as you will
find plenty of them. Just say to yourself, I want it I will do it. Every time
you have self doubts force your mind away from those thoughts.
I want you to never, ever post self doubting comments here again. It only
reinforces your weakness. Try it for a season or two.
Here endeth the lesson, according to uncle Stevie.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 00:49:19 +0000, Bill Pragnell wrote:
> 
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> 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. :-)
>> I thought that was one from the pen of Grunthos the Flatulent?
> 
> D'oh!  I must now go and hang my head in shame for goofing that up.
> 
> Of course, you are correct.  Grunthos' poetry was deemed the second worst 
> in the history of the universe.
> 
> Who can name the first?  (Vogons were third)

Ah, well, that depends on which version you're most familiar with... I 
think he changed the name from the radio series because of threatened 
legal action!

PS RIP Grunthos... death by intestinal brain throttling.

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 12:30:06 +0000, Bill Pragnell wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 00:49:19 +0000, Bill Pragnell wrote:
>> 
>>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> 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. :-)
>>> I thought that was one from the pen of Grunthos the Flatulent?
>> 
>> D'oh!  I must now go and hang my head in shame for goofing that up.
>> 
>> Of course, you are correct.  Grunthos' poetry was deemed the second
>> worst in the history of the universe.
>> 
>> Who can name the first?  (Vogons were third)
> 
> Ah, well, that depends on which version you're most familiar with... I
> think he changed the name from the radio series because of threatened
> legal action!

I'm not sure if it was threatened legal action or just that he was 
advised to not use a real name for the books - but you are correct, there 
were two different people who received the honour of "worst poetry of 
all" - originally it was "Paul Neil Milne Johnstone of Redbridge", but 
later this was changed to Paula Nancy Milstone Jennings.

> PS RIP Grunthos... death by intestinal brain throttling.

Yes, gruesome way to go. :-)

I should mention as well, though, that Invis didn't use the proper name 
of Grunthos' poem, either.  It is in fact "Ode to a small lump of green 
putty I found in my armpit one midsummer's morning" IIRC (don't have my 
copy of the scripts handy and I should know this from memory anyways, as 
frequently as I've listened to the original series).

My brother and I used to fall asleep listening to episodes of the radio 
series, and we'd quiz each other on the finer details.  Clearly I've lost 
my touch a little bit. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> I should mention as well, though, that Invis didn't use the proper name 
> of Grunthos' poem, either.  It is in fact "Ode to a small lump of green 
> putty I found in my armpit one midsummer's morning" IIRC (don't have my 
> copy of the scripts handy and I should know this from memory anyways, as 
> frequently as I've listened to the original series).

I knew this. However, as I knew you were a hitch-hiker fan (I think 
we've discussed this before at some point) I couldn't let you get away 
with the slip! ;-)

> My brother and I used to fall asleep listening to episodes of the radio 
> series, and we'd quiz each other on the finer details.  Clearly I've lost 
> my touch a little bit. ;-)

Only one thing to do - refresh the memory!

I was too young to listen to them when they were first broadcast over 
here, but my dad taped them so I grew up listening to them over and 
over. He missed the bridging episode, broadcast out of sequence (I 
believe it's fit the first on the second phase), so when I bought the 
tapes years later it was a revelation!

I recently watched the film again, and it's really astounding how badly 
they buggered up Zaphod's character in that version... pretty good apart 
from that though.

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 19:03:37 +0000, Bill Pragnell wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I should mention as well, though, that Invis didn't use the proper name
>> of Grunthos' poem, either.  It is in fact "Ode to a small lump of green
>> putty I found in my armpit one midsummer's morning" IIRC (don't have my
>> copy of the scripts handy and I should know this from memory anyways,
>> as frequently as I've listened to the original series).
> 
> I knew this. However, as I knew you were a hitch-hiker fan (I think
> we've discussed this before at some point) I couldn't let you get away
> with the slip! ;-)

Fair enough - and I think you're right, we did talk about this one 
before. :-)

>> My brother and I used to fall asleep listening to episodes of the radio
>> series, and we'd quiz each other on the finer details.  Clearly I've
>> lost my touch a little bit. ;-)
> 
> Only one thing to do - refresh the memory!

Yep, it's coming up on time to start again to be prepared for Towel Day.

> I was too young to listen to them when they were first broadcast over
> here, but my dad taped them so I grew up listening to them over and
> over. He missed the bridging episode, broadcast out of sequence (I
> believe it's fit the first on the second phase), so when I bought the
> tapes years later it was a revelation!

:-)

I had them all on cassette, then a friend of mine in the UK bought me the 
CDs - which have subsequently gone missing, so I've got another set now.

The thing I've been trying to find is a copy of the version that has 
Marvin's bit (when they first land on Magrathea) where he plays "Rock 'n 
Roll Music" after Arthur mentions that "that robot can hum like Pink 
Floyd".  I could swear I heard it in the radio version once upon a time, 
but now I only seem to be able to find it in the LP (I believe, I have 
the LP here somewhere but don't have a turntable).

> I recently watched the film again, and it's really astounding how badly
> they buggered up Zaphod's character in that version... pretty good apart
> from that though.

Yeah, I didn't think Rockwell captured the character well at all.  I also 
didn't think Mos Def made a convincing Ford, it often sounded he was just 
reading the lines.  

I didn't think anyone other than Peter Jones could do the voice of the 
book, but both William Franklyn and Stephen Fry did a very good job with 
it.  Still wish Peter could've done it, though.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:

> One of the little tricks in life ®, for those of us with insecurity issues, is
> to ignore them. Don't look for reasons why you can't do something as you will
> find plenty of them. Just say to yourself, I want it I will do it. Every time
> you have self doubts force your mind away from those thoughts.
> I want you to never, ever post self doubting comments here again. It only
> reinforces your weakness. Try it for a season or two.
> Here endeth the lesson, according to uncle Stevie.

OK, but I still think there's something to be said for knowing what your 
real strengths and weaknesses actually are.

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

Post a reply to this message

>> 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.

No no - I mean, I couldn't figure out the application process...

>> 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.

Heh. Now *that* I can do from my desk... ;-)

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

Post a reply to this message

>> 4. It is *highly* unlikely that having a PhD will make any kind of 
>> positive change to my employment situation. Nobody is impressed by a 
>> BSc, and I doubt a PhD will be any different. Everybody wants 
>> "experience" and/or "people skills".
> 
> Not true. If you're going for a technical position, even if it's 
> unrelated to your field of study, the fact that you are capable of 
> completing a PhD says a lot. It says you stick with the job, have a 
> capacity and interest for learning, have experience in 
> communication/dissemination, etc... and that's ignoring the 
> field-specific skills.

Yes, but... having a BSc already says all those things. I spent 4 years 
of my life studying for it, I learned all sorts of stuff, and in the end 
I did actually get my BSc. And yet, nobody gives a **** about that. How 
is a PhD different?

>>  8. Are you mental?
> 
> I've got the wrong doctorate to answer that question impartially. :-)

LOL! Nice... :-)

> Speculative queries to research groups in fields that sound interesting 
> are well worth it. You don't need to follow the impersonal rules of 
> regular employment - if you find some prof with research interests that 
> look your kind of thing, just email and ask for more information, and 
> say what you're interested in. Worst case is they simply don't reply.

Well, maybe it's worth a giggle. ;-)

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

Post a reply to this message

>> See, I don't give a **** about solving real-world problems. I only 
>> care about solving "interesting" problems. ;-)
> 
> What's interesting? Compiler optimization? Mathematics?

Anything with a neat algorithm in it? ;-)

Heh, I don't know...

>> 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.
> 
> The guy writing GHC is getting paid for it, isn't he?

Er, NO. Nobody gets paid to work on GHC, AFAIK. It's a volunteer-led 
open-source project. (Although, as I have mentioned, the few companies 
who are using Haskell in commercial code all seem to employ people who 
are also GHC developers. But they aren't paid to work on GHC, as such.)

> In any case, by the time I graduated, I was pretty sick of the field I 
> was studying. I went to interview at Bellcore, and they talked to me 
> about it, and I said "I'm pretty sick of it, really."  And they asked 
> "What would be more interesting?"  I said "Dunno. Multimedia?"  And 
> that's where I got a job.

Heh, nice.

>> Possibly my sanity? :-} (Did you *see* the links I posted?)
> 
> Yes. And you know what? Those are people who picked a bad advisor. Pick 
> an advisor who is motivated to get you to graduate, and he'll help you 
> do so.

Hmm. Seems to me that trying to set up a PhD is almost as verilous as 
trying to set up a decent job. Except that PhDs are much rarer. :-}

>> 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?
> 
> Not really. Keep going, is all. Spend some time thinking about it. 
> You're not going to come up with the cool stuff yourself in a couple hours.
> 
> Now when you read stuff for fun, think about "why is this fun? What's 
> cool about it?"  Give it a couple of weeks of gathering cool stuff.

Mmm, OK...

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

Post a reply to this message

>> See, I don't give a **** about solving real-world problems. I only care
>> about solving "interesting" problems. ;-)
> 
> 	You have PhD written all over you.

Heh. Yeah, that's what the guy at the job interview said. ;-)

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

Post a reply to this message

>> See, I don't give a **** about solving real-world problems. I only care 
>> about solving "interesting" problems. ;-)
> 
> I've found that when I get paid to do something it mysteriously becomes
> interesting ???

Heh. You clearly get paid very much more than I do. ;-)

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

Post a reply to this message

>> I wandered into lots of terms like "universal quantification" and got 
>> horribly lost...
> 
> You should look up "universal quantification" and "existential 
> quantification" on wikipedia.

I've already done this several times. I still don't comprehend. (But 
then, Wikipedia is astoundingly bad at explaining certain topics. Do 
look at digital filters, for example.)

> 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.

Maybe.

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

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:

> My brother and I used to fall asleep listening to episodes of the radio 
> series, and we'd quiz each other on the finer details.  Clearly I've lost 
> my touch a little bit. ;-)

You think *that* is bad?! I used to be able to sleep properly...

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

Post a reply to this message

>> LOL. Riiiight...
> 
> I'm serious. You're way too worried about this stuff.
> 
> Don't spend much money. Just get funding and go. You have no obligations 
> right now. It's the best time in your life to start something 
> questionable like this.

Hmm. It has a flavour.

I guess it's just that I've spent my entire life surrounded by people 
telling me how stupid I am, and generally failing at almost everything I 
try to do. And given that a PhD is something that only a tiny percantage 
of the population manage to get... it all sounds a little implausible to 
me, that's all.

>>> Plus, you'll meet girls. :-)
>>
>> Oh. My. GOD! >_<
>>
>> You cannot *possibly* expect me to take anything else you say 
>> seriously now, can you? :-P
> 
> Know what? My wife has a PhD too. Know where I met her?

Heh. What do you have a PhD *in* though?

I rather doubt there are many females who have a PhD in anything 
remotely related to computing. (I also couldn't help noticing how the 
OU's PhD prospectus didn't seem to contain *any* people younger than 35...)

>> 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. :-}
> 
> No. It means you haven't done any sort of PhD work.
> 
> It's like saying "I don't want to go to school to study mathematics, 
> because every time I read a math paper I don't already understand it."

Like I say, I couldn't figure out the application process. Maybe because 
I don't have a clear idea of how this stuff is supposed to work...

>> That's pretty impressive, right there.
> 
> But that's how it works.

Heh. I can believe it.

> By the time I started actually writing the 
> thesis, I'd already published papers in three or four journals, been to 
> two countries on the school's money presenting the papers, and 
> peer-reviewed other papers about vaguely similar topics. You meet people 
> at these things, and they're expensive, so you get the school to pay for 
> it.

That's pretty impressive... I've spent years writting silly scraps of 
text, but I've never yet managed to write "a paper".

>> Taking a PhD for no apparent reason is slightly crazy, but I'm 
>> gradually coming around to the idea. Leaving the UK is an absurd idea. 
>> :-P
> 
> It's not "no apparently reason."  Think of it like taking a job doing 
> something fun, for not quite as much money as you might like, but 
> probably still more than you're making now. :-)

Well, if you put it like that... ;-)

> Why is leaving the UK for a few years absurd?

I think spending all day in a brand new, possibly hostile environment is 
quite enough to be dealing with, without living in a completely random 
country on top of all that. (Quite apart from the fact that I have no 
desire to leave the UK in the first place.)

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

Post a reply to this message

On 22-2-2009 10:59, 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.
> 
> I've already done this several times. I still don't comprehend. 

What exactly is the problem? Other than that the upside down E and A are 
not part of the ascii character set?

Post a reply to this message

On 22-2-2009 10:53, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> See, I don't give a **** about solving real-world problems. I only 
>>> care about solving "interesting" problems. ;-)
>>
>> I've found that when I get paid to do something it mysteriously becomes
>> interesting ???
> 
> Heh. You clearly get paid very much more than I do. ;-)
> 
If that is that simple, you only have to find a job that pays much more 
than this one.

Post a reply to this message

On 22-2-2009 10:17, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
> 
>> One of the little tricks in life ®, for those of us with insecurity 
>> issues, is
>> to ignore them. Don't look for reasons why you can't do something as 
>> you will
>> find plenty of them. Just say to yourself, I want it I will do it. 
>> Every time
>> you have self doubts force your mind away from those thoughts.
>> I want you to never, ever post self doubting comments here again. It only
>> reinforces your weakness. Try it for a season or two.
>> Here endeth the lesson, according to uncle Stevie.
> 
> OK, but I still think there's something to be said for knowing what your 
> real strengths and weaknesses actually are.
> 
Or if you are not able to self analysis, just post a lot of biographical 
information on a newsgroup, and let them sort it out for you. 
Unconventional perhaps, but I know at least one case that did it this way.

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Yes, but... having a BSc already says all those things. I spent 4 years
> of my life studying for it, I learned all sorts of stuff, and in the end
> I did actually get my BSc. And yet, nobody gives a **** about that. How
> is a PhD different?

How is a PhD different?!?

A PhD is *entirely* different from a BSc.  Most people, myself included to some
extent, float through a BSc, just making sure they pass the tests and get the
homework in on time.  Professors spoon-feed students the basics of assorted
fields, and a mutual understanding has arisen that as long as students can
repeat what the professor told them, they'll get the degree.  The very fact
that so many can make it through undetected says volumes about the amount of
personal responsibility expected.  That does NOT mean it's worthless, and does
NOT mean it's easy.  You learn a lot getting a BSc but never really have to put
yourself out there.

For a PhD, you have to do the work.  You go out and find the relevant books and
papers.  Your advisor may give you something to accomplish, but you have to
figure out how to make it happen.  Sure, there are a few classes, but the
emphasis is entirely on the research.  *No one* floats through a PhD.  Some may
put in more effort than others, but to get the degree you have to demonstrate
that, whether your research is really revolutionary or not (it's probably not),
you are not only capable of comprehending and conversing in your field, but that
you are capable of actively researching, contributing to, and expanding your
field.

Think of a project you did for your BSc.  I don't mean to assume, but if it's
anything like projects I did, there was a clear set of guidelines and
requirements.  It only amounted to making something work.  Once that was done,
the project was done.  For a PhD, the project requires that you can make sense
of the field, figure out where the voids are, learn the prerequisite material
yourself, and ultimately discover something no one else knows the answer
to--and along the way, you interact with the best and most knowledgeable people
in your respective field.

Now I'm not trying to devalue a BSc, and I'm not trying to overstate the value
of a PhD or the people with them (this wouldn't include me anyway).  I'm only
trying to state the facts--that to say a BSc and PhD are really not so
different is simply not the truth.  They are different.  Very different.  And
employers will recognize the difference.

 - Ricky

Post a reply to this message

"triple_r" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> to get the degree you have to demonstrate
> that, whether your research is really revolutionary or not (it's probably not),
> you are not only capable of comprehending and conversing in your field, but that
> you are capable of actively researching, contributing to, and expanding your
> field.

Oh, one more thing to add:  If you're saying, "That doesn't sound like me...,"
well it doesn't sound like me either.  As was pointed out, just like a math
class, the point of it is to develop those skills.  If you already had them,
you would have no use for the degree.  Don't sell yourself short though.  You
appear to have figured out digital filters and a bit of knot theory on your
own, among other things.  That's not PhD-level research, but that's the same
kind of effort and skills it requires.  One purpose of an advisor is to channel
that effort so that you can learn what you need and not get lost.

 - Ricky

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 09:53:19 +0000, Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:

>>> See, I don't give a **** about solving real-world problems. I only care 
>>> about solving "interesting" problems. ;-)
>> 
>> I've found that when I get paid to do something it mysteriously becomes
>> interesting ???
>
>Heh. You clearly get paid very much more than I do. ;-)

Could be ;)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> I had them all on cassette, then a friend of mine in the UK bought me the 
> CDs - which have subsequently gone missing, so I've got another set now.
> 
> The thing I've been trying to find is a copy of the version that has 
> Marvin's bit (when they first land on Magrathea) where he plays "Rock 'n 
> Roll Music" after Arthur mentions that "that robot can hum like Pink 
> Floyd".  I could swear I heard it in the radio version once upon a time, 
> but now I only seem to be able to find it in the LP (I believe, I have 
> the LP here somewhere but don't have a turntable).

If it's on the LP, you're probably stuck with that, because it seems 
they lifted that bit out for copyright reasons:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hitchhiker%27s_Guide_to_the_Galaxy_(radio_series)#Musical_copyrights

I've never heard that version before...

>> I recently watched the film again, and it's really astounding how badly
>> they buggered up Zaphod's character in that version... pretty good apart
>> from that though.
 >
> Yeah, I didn't think Rockwell captured the character well at all.  I also 
> didn't think Mos Def made a convincing Ford, it often sounded he was just 
> reading the lines.  

Essentially Zaphod is about right in the film, but in the previous 
versions the character managed to stay likeable, never becoming outright 
unpleasant. You just want Martin Freeman's Arthur to pummel him. In the 
other versions it's much more low-level jibing and Arthur gives as good 
as he gets in most cases. ("Well, go bang your heads together, foureyes!")

Mos Def was actually better than I expected. Unfortunately the original 
actors' interpretations are so firmly embedded in my mind that I doubt 
anyone else will do it as well to my ears... although, as you say, 
Stephen Fry was excellent.

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 09:17:30 +0000, Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:

>OK, but I still think there's something to be said for knowing what your 
>real strengths and weaknesses actually are.

True but not a lot. I believe that introspection is bad for you, I also believe
that analysis, public displays of grief and talking about your (not aimed at
you) feelings are amongst the worst things that you can do for your mental
health.

<Sits back and waits for the avalanche>
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> Not true. If you're going for a technical position, even if it's 
>> unrelated to your field of study, the fact that you are capable of 
>> completing a PhD says a lot. It says you stick with the job, have a 
>> capacity and interest for learning, have experience in 
>> communication/dissemination, etc... and that's ignoring the 
>> field-specific skills.
> 
> Yes, but... having a BSc already says all those things. I spent 4 years 
> of my life studying for it, I learned all sorts of stuff, and in the end 
> I did actually get my BSc. And yet, nobody gives a **** about that. How 
> is a PhD different?

A *good* BSc says you have a capacity for learning. I'm not convinced it 
says anything more than that. My first degree certainly didn't equip me 
with the ability to communicate effectively with my professional(!) 
peers. If anything, it made me want to avoid giving presentations and so 
forth even more! The experiences gained in a PhD are as valuable, and 
real, as actual work experience. They're the same thing. For all intents 
and purposes, you can regard a PhD project as a proper job.

That said, be proud of the BSc, it's still a valuable achievement and 
puts you firmly in a higher category than most. But just think: you hold 
the thought of a PhD in very high esteem - why shouldn't others too?

>> Speculative queries
> [snip]
> 
> Well, maybe it's worth a giggle. ;-)

Absolutely. Worked for me. And I wasn't even looking for it with the 
deliberation that you (hopefully) will be!

Post a reply to this message

>>>> I wandered into lots of terms like "universal quantification" and 
>>>> got horribly lost...
>>>
>>> You should look up "universal quantification" and "existential 
>>> quantification" on wikipedia.
>>
>> I've already done this several times. I still don't comprehend. 
> 
> What exactly is the problem? Other than that the upside down E and A are 
> not part of the ascii character set?

I don't know. I would imagine I'm looking at one specific technical 
term, and I'm therefore not seeing the entire background context that 
goes with it, so it doesn't make much sense. Something like that.

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

Post a reply to this message

>> Yes, but... having a BSc already says all those things. I spent 4 years
>> of my life studying for it, I learned all sorts of stuff, and in the end
>> I did actually get my BSc. And yet, nobody gives a **** about that. How
>> is a PhD different?
> 
> How is a PhD different?!?
> 
> A PhD is *entirely* different from a BSc.  

> They are different.  Very different.

Agreed.

> And employers will recognize the difference.

This is the part I'm dubious about.

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

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> > They are different.  Very different.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > And employers will recognize the difference.
>
> This is the part I'm dubious about.

Then I don't understand.  Employers (both the people doing the hiring and the
people doing the thinking) obviously look for *something*.  I think we can all
agree on that.  Then the question is what.  Experience?  Certainly.
Communication and interpersonal skills?  Without a doubt.  Knowledge or
specific skills?  Yes, or maybe slightly less as long as you can learn.  It
seems to me (and I can only answer from my understanding, not personal
experience) that a PhD shows all of these qualities.

Is the point of contention that you might not have exactly the right specific
skill?  I believe Mr. New said that he learned a new programming language in
almost all of his jobs.  Even if they don't have to take it on faith that you
can learn, then shouldn't the fact that your research was funded indicate that
someone out there is willing to pay for what you have?

 - Ricky

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> And employers will recognize the difference.
> 
> This is the part I'm dubious about.

	Don't know about UK, but there are quite a number of jobs in the US
that require at least an MSc. And if it's research, they almost always
require a PhD.

	In electrical engineering jobs, it's almost a given that you won't be
part of product design unless you have the MSc.

	So of course, some employers recognize the difference.

-- 
On a clear disk you can seek forever.


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom> wrote:
> True but not a lot. I believe that introspection is bad for you, I also believe
> that analysis, public displays of grief and talking about your (not aimed at
> you) feelings are amongst the worst things that you can do for your mental
> health.

Ignorance is bliss?

> <Sits back and waits for the avalanche>

No avalanche, just curious.

 - Ricky

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> I've already done this several times. I still don't comprehend.

OK, you understand boolean "and" and boolean "or", right? This is called 
"propositional logic":

   If it rains, the street is wet.
   It is raining.
   Therefore the street is wet.
That's propositional logic.

Go the next step, and you get first order predicate logic:
   All ravens are black.
   My bird is a raven.
   Therefore my bird is black.

The "all X are Y" is universal quantification.

If you have "some X is Y", that's existential quantification. Usually it's 
part of an expression involving universal quantification, like
   "for all integers X, there exists a integer Y such that
      if X is prime then Y is prime and Y > X."
That's just saying there's no biggest prime. No matter what
number we pick, if it's prime, there's some other number that's
also prime and larger. (It's not a proof, just a statement of
a boolean value. Proving the boolean is true is a separate step.)

Note also that the result is *one* boolean value. It's either true for all 
X, or it isn't.

There are, of course, standard rules of deduction, like
   "for all X, pred(X)"
is the same as
   "not for some X, not pred(X)"
and so on.



You might be getting stuck by reading too low in the explanation stack. Try
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_order_predicate_logic



-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
   unable to read this, even at arm's length."

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> I guess it's just that I've spent my entire life surrounded by people 
> telling me how stupid I am, 

They're wrong. All my teachers thought I was crap too. I was just bored for 
the most part, and uninterested.

>> Know what? My wife has a PhD too. Know where I met her?
> Heh. What do you have a PhD *in* though?

Both our PhDs were in computers.

> I rather doubt there are many females who have a PhD in anything 
> remotely related to computing. 

In my university, it seemed pretty close to even, IIRC. At least in the PhD 
program.

> Like I say, I couldn't figure out the application process. Maybe because 
> I don't have a clear idea of how this stuff is supposed to work...

Oh. You mean, you were blocked by HR? That's not unusual.

> That's pretty impressive... I've spent years writting silly scraps of 
> text, but I've never yet managed to write "a paper".

Did you ever take an intensive 3-year class in "how to write a technical 
paper destined for an academic journal" taught one-on-one by someone who 
does that regularly for a living? :-)

>> It's not "no apparently reason."  Think of it like taking a job doing 
>> something fun, for not quite as much money as you might like, but 
>> probably still more than you're making now. :-)
> 
> Well, if you put it like that... ;-)

I'm serious. Don't look at it as a destination. You want to get out of where 
you are, so think of the PhD as a place to go, have fun, meet people, and do 
exciting stuff. It doesn't matter if you finish or not, any more than 
running a marathon is about whether you come in first.

> I think spending all day in a brand new, possibly hostile environment is 
> quite enough to be dealing with, without living in a completely random 
> country on top of all that. (Quite apart from the fact that I have no 
> desire to leave the UK in the first place.)

That's fair.  Part of the fun is living in a different country, mind. (Not 
that I did, but ...)   I can completely understand if it isn't fun, tho. Do 
take advantage of the fact that you speak one of the languages that ran 
rampant all over the world not too long ago, so you can get by language-wise 
pretty much anywhere. China was the only place I've been that people 
generally didn't know enough English to get by.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
   unable to read this, even at arm's length."

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> I did actually get my BSc. And yet, nobody gives a **** about that. How 
> is a PhD different?

What's the difference between being a sailor in the navy and the captain of 
the ship?  In one, you're swabbing the decks when the captain tells you to. 
In the other, you're responsible for making sure the ship gets where it's going.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
   unable to read this, even at arm's length."

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 10:01:47 +0000, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
> 
>> My brother and I used to fall asleep listening to episodes of the radio
>> series, and we'd quiz each other on the finer details.  Clearly I've
>> lost my touch a little bit. ;-)
> 
> You think *that* is bad?! I used to be able to sleep properly...

Heh, I've never been able to sleep properly.  Better now than it used to 
be, but still pretty restless.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
> Now, is it possible to do a search using SQL that does something like
> this: Find all the times that an experiment has gone over temperature
> while switched on (ie after a switched on event but not after a switched
> off
> event)?  This is beyond my basic knowledge how I would do such a thing
> without writing some code to manually search the results and checking
> times.

I know enough about SQL to be able to get a complete list of students
(including their phone numbers and course marks) from a supposedly
important university in my area, through the SQL injection bug a friend
found, but your question goes beyond my knowledge too.

It would be easier if you had a "switched on" column on each temperature
event, saying if at that event the...thing was on or off.

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 11:20:31 +0000, Bill Pragnell wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I had them all on cassette, then a friend of mine in the UK bought me
>> the CDs - which have subsequently gone missing, so I've got another set
>> now.
>> 
>> The thing I've been trying to find is a copy of the version that has
>> Marvin's bit (when they first land on Magrathea) where he plays "Rock
>> 'n Roll Music" after Arthur mentions that "that robot can hum like Pink
>> Floyd".  I could swear I heard it in the radio version once upon a
>> time, but now I only seem to be able to find it in the LP (I believe, I
>> have the LP here somewhere but don't have a turntable).
> 
> If it's on the LP, you're probably stuck with that, because it seems
> they lifted that bit out for copyright reasons:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hitchhiker%27s_Guide_to_the_Galaxy_
(radio_series)#Musical_copyrights

Yeah, I'd read that it was copyright issues.  A real shame, but I could 
swear that I had it from the radio series that way as well.

The scripts talk about it a little bit as well.

> I've never heard that version before...

It's kinda a mix of the radio version and the BBC TV version.  You get 
the "dish of the day", for example, which appears in the TV version.  
Personally, I prefer the Hagunennons to Hotblack Desiato, though, but it 
was interesting to see David Prowse outside the Darth Vader outfit - and 
to hear why Lucas had to use James Earl Jones to do the voice for that 
character in the Star Wars films.

>>> I recently watched the film again, and it's really astounding how
>>> badly they buggered up Zaphod's character in that version... pretty
>>> good apart from that though.
>  >
>> Yeah, I didn't think Rockwell captured the character well at all.  I
>> also didn't think Mos Def made a convincing Ford, it often sounded he
>> was just reading the lines.
> 
> Essentially Zaphod is about right in the film, but in the previous
> versions the character managed to stay likeable, never becoming outright
> unpleasant. You just want Martin Freeman's Arthur to pummel him. In the
> other versions it's much more low-level jibing and Arthur gives as good
> as he gets in most cases. ("Well, go bang your heads together,
> foureyes!")

Well, yeah - that's why he isn't right in the film - he's a bit too 
unpleasant.  But Mark Wing-Davey nailed the role in the radio version and 
the TV version.

> Mos Def was actually better than I expected. Unfortunately the original
> actors' interpretations are so firmly embedded in my mind that I doubt
> anyone else will do it as well to my ears... although, as you say,
> Stephen Fry was excellent.

I expected Mos Def to do much better than he did.  His interpretation was 
just flat, though.  I preferred Geoffrey McGivern's interpretation over 
all of them, though I understand why he couldn't do the TV version (hard 
to be an "impoverished hitchhiker" given how large he is).

I was surprised, though, that I felt that Martin Freeman did an 
outstanding job as Arthur.  Given that Adams wrote the part essentially 
just for Simon Jones (kinda like the part for the book was written for 
someone with a "Peter Jones-y sort of voice"), I didn't think anyone 
could do the role justice.

Of all the Trillians, though, I preferred Susan Sheridan.  She came 
across as the most believable when it came to holding a degree in 
astrophysics.  I remember reading somewhere that Adams originally wanted 
someone of Indian ancestry to play the role - that could've worked well 
as well.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Mike Raiford wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
> 
>> I actually have no idea what you're talking about - although spending 
>> 3 years evaluating the intelligence of a half-mouldy cup of yogurt 
>> does seem like an amusing prospect. ;-)
> 
> That could be your dissertation. :-D

And there's probably a line item for it in Obama's stimulus bill...

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> It's kinda a mix of the radio version and the BBC TV version.  You get 
> the "dish of the day", for example, which appears in the TV version.  
> Personally, I prefer the Hagunennons to Hotblack Desiato

Agreed - the idea of disaster area was very funny, but I thought the 
hagunenons (far too many 'n's in that name) were better too.

> was interesting to see David Prowse outside the Darth Vader outfit - and 
> to hear why Lucas had to use James Earl Jones to do the voice for that 
> character in the Star Wars films.

*grin* I reckon Prowse's broad west accent sound is about the least 
suitable voice for Vader I could possibly imagine!

> But Mark Wing-Davey nailed the role in the radio version and 
> the TV version.

Completely. "Hand me the rap-rod, plate captain!"

> I expected Mos Def to do much better than he did.  His interpretation was 
> just flat, though.  I preferred Geoffrey McGivern's interpretation over 
> all of them, though I understand why he couldn't do the TV version (hard 
> to be an "impoverished hitchhiker" given how large he is).

Haha, interesting, I never knew that. I don't think I've ever seen what 
he looks like IRL... :)

> I was surprised, though, that I felt that Martin Freeman did an 
> outstanding job as Arthur.  Given that Adams wrote the part essentially 
> just for Simon Jones (kinda like the part for the book was written for 
> someone with a "Peter Jones-y sort of voice"), I didn't think anyone 
> could do the role justice.

He was very different. It didn't really spoil it for me, but I did have 
trouble linking him in my mind to the character.

> Of all the Trillians, though, I preferred Susan Sheridan.  She came 
> across as the most believable when it came to holding a degree in 
> astrophysics.

Yes, the improbably-named Deschanel (how fitting!) was good in the film, 
but the girl in the TV series was terrible. Far too ditzy and shallow. 
As you say, the original was pretty definitive. She had such a sexy 
voice too!

:)

Post a reply to this message

>> I've already done this several times. I still don't comprehend.
> 
> OK, you understand boolean "and" and boolean "or", right? This is called 
> "propositional logic":
> 
>   If it rains, the street is wet.
>   It is raining.
>   Therefore the street is wet.
> That's propositional logic.
> 
> Go the next step, and you get first order predicate logic:
>   All ravens are black.
>   My bird is a raven.
>   Therefore my bird is black.
> 
> The "all X are Y" is universal quantification.
> 
> If you have "some X is Y", that's existential quantification. Usually 
> it's part of an expression involving universal quantification, like
>   "for all integers X, there exists a integer Y such that
>      if X is prime then Y is prime and Y > X."
> That's just saying there's no biggest prime. No matter what
> number we pick, if it's prime, there's some other number that's
> also prime and larger. (It's not a proof, just a statement of
> a boolean value. Proving the boolean is true is a separate step.)
> 
> Note also that the result is *one* boolean value. It's either true for 
> all X, or it isn't.

Hmm, OK. That seems simple enough. I guess the problem is that all that 
relational calculus stuff is abstracted to the point where it's just 
moving symbols around and it's difficult to determine how this is 
related to reality.

> There are, of course, standard rules of deduction, like
>   "for all X, pred(X)"
> is the same as
>   "not for some X, not pred(X)"
> and so on.

But, notably, if X being true implies Y being true, then X being false 
does not necessarily imply Y being false.

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

Post a reply to this message

>> You think *that* is bad?! I used to be able to sleep properly...
> 
> Heh, I've never been able to sleep properly.  Better now than it used to 
> be, but still pretty restless.

Oh man, I used to be *awesom* at sleeping!

Like, I'd go to sleep, and wake up the next day even if my alarm clock 
was switched off, and feel wide awake and not tired at all. Like, I'd be 
standing outside the university building at 7:30 AM on a Sunday waiting 
for the sleepy-eyed [and most likely highly under-paid] technitions to 
show up at 9 AM to open the building so I could get into the computer 
room, hit the Internet, and code some serious Smalltalk. (Or possibly 
Java. Or, hell, maybe just sit around all day and write LaTeX? Who knows.)

Now I just seem to be permanently tired, and every now and then I become 
almost totally unable to sleep at all... I *suck* at sleeping! >_<

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

Post a reply to this message

>> I did actually get my BSc. And yet, nobody gives a **** about that. 
>> How is a PhD different?
> 
> What's the difference between being a sailor in the navy and the captain 
> of the ship?  In one, you're swabbing the decks when the captain tells 
> you to. In the other, you're responsible for making sure the ship gets 
> where it's going.

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought that was the ship's engineer. ;-) </sarcasm>

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

Post a reply to this message

>> I guess it's just that I've spent my entire life surrounded by people 
>> telling me how stupid I am, 
> 
> They're wrong. All my teachers thought I was crap too. I was just bored 
> for the most part, and uninterested.

Heh. I still remember my science teacher's words: "Andrew, if you don't 
buck your ideas up, you're going to fail." I walk into the room holding 
my B-grade - the highest possible grade for that particular paper, I 
might add - and he's all "well I always said you could do well". WTF? NO 
YOU DIDN'T!!

Still... that guy really did love himself. :-P

Of course, if it was just some dump-ass teacher, it wouldn't matter so 
much. The problem was that *everybody* told me I was stupid. Throughout 
my whole life. Hence my self-evident mental issues. x_o

>>> Know what? My wife has a PhD too. Know where I met her?
>> Heh. What do you have a PhD *in* though?
> 
> Both our PhDs were in computers.

OK, that's pretty crazy...

...wait, are you that guy who has a Chinese wife?

>> I rather doubt there are many females who have a PhD in anything 
>> remotely related to computing. 
> 
> In my university, it seemed pretty close to even, IIRC. At least in the 
> PhD program.

OK, that's just mental. At college, we had 14 guys, 0 girls. At uni we 
had [approximately] 75 guys and 5 girls [almost all married with children].

>> Like I say, I couldn't figure out the application process. Maybe 
>> because I don't have a clear idea of how this stuff is supposed to 
>> work...
> 
> Oh. You mean, you were blocked by HR? That's not unusual.

More like, I read the webpage telling you how to apply, and I just say 
there going "wuh?"

> I'm serious. Don't look at it as a destination. You want to get out of 
> where you are, so think of the PhD as a place to go, have fun, meet 
> people, and do exciting stuff.

Heh. My mum's first reaction was "and what are you going to do after 
that?" Not that my mum's opinion is especially important. I was just 
wondering how much she'd freak out. ;-)

> It doesn't matter if you finish or not, 
> any more than running a marathon is about whether you come in first.

I never understood this... The ENTIRE POINT of a marathon is to finish 
it! How is not finishing it still OK? Weird people...

> That's fair.  Part of the fun is living in a different country, mind. 
> (Not that I did, but ...)   I can completely understand if it isn't fun, 
> tho. Do take advantage of the fact that you speak one of the languages 
> that ran rampant all over the world not too long ago, so you can get by 
> language-wise pretty much anywhere. China was the only place I've been 
> that people generally didn't know enough English to get by.

Ah. Is *that* why every country in the EU speaks English, but the 
English can't speak any damned language except English? :-} I often 
wonder about that...

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

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Hmm, OK. That seems simple enough. I guess the problem is that all that 
> relational calculus stuff is abstracted to the point where it's just 
> moving symbols around and it's difficult to determine how this is 
> related to reality.

Um, yes. Indeed, that's precisely exactly why you would use formal 
relational calculus stuff: it's just moving symbols around with no relation 
to reality. That's why you can program computers to do it - that's all 
computers can do.

That's true of most all formal math, tho: everything related to algebra or 
calculus is ultimately moving symbols around with no relation to reality.

>> There are, of course, standard rules of deduction, like
>>   "for all X, pred(X)"
>> is the same as
>>   "not for some X, not pred(X)"
>> and so on.
> 
> But, notably, if X being true implies Y being true, then X being false 
> does not necessarily imply Y being false.

Um, yes? :-) Was that supposed to be a relevant comment?

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
   unable to read this, even at arm's length."

Post a reply to this message

>> Hmm, OK. That seems simple enough. I guess the problem is that all 
>> that relational calculus stuff is abstracted to the point where it's 
>> just moving symbols around and it's difficult to determine how this is 
>> related to reality.
> 
> Um, yes. Indeed, that's precisely exactly why you would use formal 
> relational calculus stuff: it's just moving symbols around with no 
> relation to reality. That's why you can program computers to do it - 
> that's all computers can do.
> 
> That's true of most all formal math, tho: everything related to algebra 
> or calculus is ultimately moving symbols around with no relation to 
> reality.

The trick is to be able to associate all this abstraction with reality 
in your mind, so that you can use it to do Useful Stuff. ;-)

>>> There are, of course, standard rules of deduction, like
>>>   "for all X, pred(X)"
>>> is the same as
>>>   "not for some X, not pred(X)"
>>> and so on.
>>
>> But, notably, if X being true implies Y being true, then X being false 
>> does not necessarily imply Y being false.
> 
> Um, yes? :-) Was that supposed to be a relevant comment?

Apparently large numbers of people aren't aware of this particular fact.

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

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Of course, if it was just some dump-ass teacher, it wouldn't matter so 
> much. The problem was that *everybody* told me I was stupid. Throughout 
> my whole life. Hence my self-evident mental issues. x_o

Yes. Getting constantly put down will eventually lead to problems.

Get over it. You're not stupid. Everyone else was, for telling you you are.

> ...wait, are you that guy who has a Chinese wife?

Yes.

> OK, that's just mental. At college, we had 14 guys, 0 girls. At uni we 
> had [approximately] 75 guys and 5 girls [almost all married with children].

Undergradutate, yes. We had something like 25 guys and 3 girls in the 
classes when I was undergrad.

> Heh. My mum's first reaction was "and what are you going to do after 
> that?" Not that my mum's opinion is especially important. I was just 
> wondering how much she'd freak out. ;-)

I think the right answer is "live far away from *you*!" :-)

>> It doesn't matter if you finish or not, any more than running a 
>> marathon is about whether you come in first.
> 
> I never understood this... The ENTIRE POINT of a marathon is to finish 
> it! How is not finishing it still OK? Weird people...

I didn't say finish. I said "win" the marathon.

In any case, getting the PhD is a learning process. If you stop early, it's 
because you decided you don't want to learn what it is you started studying, 
and you're still no worse off than you were.

> Ah. Is *that* why every country in the EU speaks English, but the 
> English can't speak any damned language except English? :-} I often 
> wonder about that...

Yes. You didn't figure that out? That's why there's like 200 languages in 
India, but everyone speaks English. And why Americans mostly speak English. 
And why lots of Africa speaks English. And why lots of central and south 
america speak spanish or something close to it.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
   unable to read this, even at arm's length."

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> I did actually get my BSc. And yet, nobody gives a **** about that. 
>>> How is a PhD different?
>>
>> What's the difference between being a sailor in the navy and the 
>> captain of the ship?  In one, you're swabbing the decks when the 
>> captain tells you to. In the other, you're responsible for making sure 
>> the ship gets where it's going.
> 
> Oh, I'm sorry, I thought that was the ship's engineer. ;-) </sarcasm>

No. The ship's engineer makes the ship run. It's the captain's 
responsibility to make the ship get there. That's why the ship's captain 
traditionally has ultimate authority as well as ultimate responsibility.

Don't confuse ability with responsibility. :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
   unable to read this, even at arm's length."

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> The trick is to be able to associate all this abstraction with reality 
> in your mind, so that you can use it to do Useful Stuff. ;-)

Yes. The problem comes when people think that the math implies something 
about the real world they don't have to check for accuracy. :-)

>> Um, yes? :-) Was that supposed to be a relevant comment?
> Apparently large numbers of people aren't aware of this particular fact.

Well, yes, there is that.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
   unable to read this, even at arm's length."

Post a reply to this message

>>> What's the difference between being a sailor in the navy and the 
>>> captain of the ship?  In one, you're swabbing the decks when the 
>>> captain tells you to. In the other, you're responsible for making 
>>> sure the ship gets where it's going.
>>
>> Oh, I'm sorry, I thought that was the ship's engineer. ;-) </sarcasm>
> 
> Don't confuse ability with responsibility. :-)

Ah. Sorry... I'm used to working in a place where I get held responsible 
for things I have no ability to control. :-}

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

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Ah. Sorry... I'm used to working in a place where I get held responsible 
> for things I have no ability to control. :-}

That's called scapegoating. It's held in great regard here. People base 
religions on it, even.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
   unable to read this, even at arm's length."

Post a reply to this message