h a l f b a k e r yWe have a low common denominator: 2
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Old Scientist
Keeping up with ... err ... you know ... thingy ... um, what's the word ? | |
Since your year 1956, a weekly magazine has been published called New Scientist <links>
However, it is now your year 2015. Next year the magazine will have been around for 60 years.
It follows that scientists who were "new", i.e. graduates, in 1956 are now about 80 years old.
As some scientists
have working lives extending beyond "normal" retirement age, there are quite a few "old" scientists still leading (mostly) happy and (sometimes) productive lives.
However, on human timescales, there is no way that they can be considered "New".
BorgCo publications in association with MaxCo and Dignitas are shortly to launch a new publication under the banner Old Scientist, specifically to cater to this niche market.
The first issue will open with articles such as "Paisley or Tartan ? The difficult choice in travel rugs", "We test the ten best big-button phones" and "Editor's Pick - colostomy bags under $50".
There will be regular sections on "How do you get this bloody email thing to work for God's sake, what's wrong with faxes ?" and "Yes, I know it's quite old, no, not your company, you took them over in 1979, I want a replacement loading guide. What ? No, it was made in 1966 ... yes ... what do you mean, obsolete ? It worked perfectly well up to yesterday ..."
(Note on Category Choice: At least it's not in Other:[General])
New Scientist
http://www.newscientist.com/
The magazine. [8th of 7, May 08 2015]
Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.../wiki/New_Scientist
Detail [8th of 7, May 08 2015]
Vague Scientist
http://www.wired.co.../2009/07/020709.jpg
Actually fairly close to the real thing. [pocmloc, May 08 2015]
[link]
|
| |
The really successful scientists are those who were
studying gerontology back in the late 1800s. |
|
| |
My uncle Geront said it was all bluff. |
|
| |
At least it's not in - Oh, you already said that. |
|
| |
heh! It should absolutely not be available online, instead
it should arrive, in print, to be found among the piles of
science junk mail and the copies of Cell that inexplicably
keep arriving in the name of someone who died in 2009. |
|
| |
How to shoehorn that obscure and partially disproved
metabolic pathway that you memorized in 1979 into
conversations that start off as innocent small talk about
coffee |
|
| |
Scaring PhD students: the Goldilocks zone where they
stay, listen indefinitely, but don't say things. |
|
| |
10 conference questions you can ask irrespective of
whether you were asleep |
|
| |
Getting essentially the same grant application funded for
decades: The "if it ain't broke" method |
|
| |
// Getting essentially the same grant application funded for decades
// |
|
| |
Hey, hey, HEY ! Enough already ! That one is OURS ... hands off !
Prior Art, man, prior art ... |
|
| |
Must be at least better than Old Milwaukee, but not quite as good as Old Toby. |
|
| |
... and way below the sultry promise of Scruttock's Old Dirigible
("Makes you drunk very quickly for not much money"). |
|
| |
Nude Scientist ? Even old folks can take off their clothing provided assistance is available if needed.
An 80 year old centerfold kinda rhymes. |
|
| |
This idea makes me feel really old and tired. I would like this
magazine, (and don't even mention AARP Magazine), to be
exciting like all the new and cool things I am learning, and
doing, even though I have aged. Not a reminder of the bad
effects of old age. |
|
| |
//10 conference questions you can ask irrespective of whether you were asleep // |
|
| |
The following are suitable for almost all occasions: |
|
| |
(1) This is all very interesting, but how does it differ from the very similar ideas
proposed by Dubchek and Li in the 1980's? |
|
| |
(2) I'm not completely happy with the statistical analysis - have you run a Bern-
Schiff Q-test on the data? |
|
| |
(3) Could you just clarify the point you made in your 17th slide? |
|
| |
(4) Have you looked at this from a quantum-mechanical perspective? |
|
| |
(5) Is this just representative data? Do you have a larger dataset to support your
findings? |
|
| |
(6) I know you're aware of the obvious alternative interpretation of all these
results, and presumably omitted it to keep the talk concise and to the point; but
would you like to expand on this alternative? |
|
| |
(7) It seems that everything hinges on that one initial assumption in your first slide
- are you confident it's right? |
|
| |
(8) What do you think of the paper in yesterday's issue of "Kagaku kisha Tokyo" on
this subject? Doesn't it rather contradict your results ? |
|
| |
(9) Have you tested this in a different system? |
|
| |
I like "what's the physiological relevance of that" |
|
| |
Tricky after a maths seminar. |
|
| |