x
Click to expand
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #3635 - zehutit (12/18/2014) [-]
You guys know about numbers and shit right? If theres anyone here who feels that knows enough about the business of stocks/shares (buying and selling) and would feel up to answering some questions to a noob I would appreciate it very much
User avatar #3639 to #3635 - kebabs (12/19/2014) [-]
Calculate risk from probability equations.
Profit/Loss=Selling price-cost price
How to invest:
1.Low risk, High yield investments
2.High risk, low yield investments
3.Low yield, high risk investments
4.High yield, low risk investments
5.Scones
User avatar #3632 - magnuskasparov (12/18/2014) [-]
any math majors here?
User avatar #3644 to #3632 - phoenixforger (12/19/2014) [-]
Freshmen Math Minor. If that counts.
#3631 - anonymous (12/18/2014) [-]
if i have 45 apples and eat 43, how many apples do I have left?
a. All of them
b. impossible to tell
c. 2
d. define "apple"
e. you never really had anything, the apples don't exist, you don't exist
User avatar #3669 to #3631 - iridium (12/22/2014) [-]
A: Literalist
B: Blind Person
C: Math Major
D: Retard
E: Retard taking Philosophy

Nutritionist: Too much
Doctor: Gastric rupture, Ulcers and internal bleeding
Research Psychologist: A case study
Clinical Psychologist: Addiction, prescribe CBT and Methodone
Computer Scientist: 01110100 01110111 01101111 00100000 01100001 01110000 01110000 01101100 01100101 01110011
Musician: I wish I had 45 apples
Womens Studies: You're oppressing the apples!



User avatar #3643 to #3631 - nimba (12/19/2014) [-]
prove it
User avatar #3640 to #3631 - kebabs (12/19/2014) [-]
Quantum fags: None and all
Maths masterrace: 2
Biologist pleb: Ah the Malus Domestica
Physicist: Plane of reference not mentioned, statement irrelevant
Engineer: Psst we can do 0 apples eaten if you want
Now, these aren't accurate but close.
User avatar #3670 to #3628 - iridium (12/22/2014) [-]
That's a bunch of bullshit nobody should ever care about ever.
#3633 to #3628 - anonymous (12/18/2014) [-]
existence itself is an illusion
why can't we just not exist? what makes us exist? maybe we don't really exist?
this more philosophy than real science
User avatar #3621 - marinepenguin (12/18/2014) [-]
io9.com/how-nasa-could-build-a-cloud-city-over-venus-1672240059/all

This makes me feel neat inside. I wonder how possible this could actually be?
#3617 - xsnowshark (12/18/2014) [-]
I'd like to do something similar to an AMA on the topic of aerospace engineering (as I am an aerospace engineer).

Post any questions that you have about aircraft or spacecraft.

(attached is a cool wallpaper size picture of the STS)
User avatar #3649 to #3617 - themastertroller (12/20/2014) [-]
being an aerospace engineer is my future career goal, going into university next year.
User avatar #3656 to #3649 - xsnowshark (12/21/2014) [-]
Nice! What university are you going to?
User avatar #3659 to #3656 - themastertroller (12/21/2014) [-]
Canadian, McGill
User avatar #3634 to #3617 - magnuskasparov (12/18/2014) [-]
I heard some aerospace engineers take complex number analysis. How is that used in engineering?
User avatar #3636 to #3634 - xsnowshark (12/18/2014) [-]
Yeah, the class is usually called "Numerical Methods for Engineers". It's good to know for the programming experience, and also for analyzing ODE's and system's of ODE's. It's pretty common for most engineers, not just aero, to take a class that covers numerical methods.
User avatar #3622 to #3617 - marinepenguin (12/18/2014) [-]
I'm considering trying to become an aerospace engineer. How were the studies? How long did it take to get to become an one? What is your job?
User avatar #3624 to #3622 - xsnowshark (12/18/2014) [-]
The studies are difficult, no doubt about that, but if you are interested in the field then you'll be able to get through them. Most college's offer 4 year programs, but it took me 5.
User avatar #3625 to #3624 - marinepenguin (12/18/2014) [-]
Do you actually enjoy your job?

And I'm actually studying to be an engineer for sure, I'm just not sure exactly what I wanted to do specifically. Aeronautics and space travel has always been a huge interest of mine so I have been doing research on it recently.
User avatar #3626 to #3625 - xsnowshark (12/18/2014) [-]
I got into it for the same reason you are considering it, I had a great interest in planes and spacecraft. Take an intro course in aero-engineering and see how you like it.
User avatar #3627 to #3626 - marinepenguin (12/18/2014) [-]
I'll have to do that then. I'm close to completely an engineering program at my 2 year college that would put me as a 3rd year engineering student at a nearby 4 year school. Once I'm going there I'll look into those sorts of classes.
User avatar #3619 to #3617 - kebabs (12/18/2014) [-]
You being an engineer, how many dicks have you sucked so far?
User avatar #3629 to #3619 - magnuskasparov (12/18/2014) [-]
why do people say that engineers are gay? i've seen this on /sci/ and I can't figure out why other than they might be jealous of the money the earn compared to a pure math degree
User avatar #3642 to #3629 - kebabs (12/19/2014) [-]
It's just an old joke.
User avatar #3623 to #3619 - xsnowshark (12/18/2014) [-]
None
User avatar #3616 - plumpbooty (12/18/2014) [-]
Reminder that "le humun brian is hordwierd 2 do X" is pseudoscience because it completely eschews the responsibility of presenting causes and processes.
User avatar #3611 - ribocoon ONLINE (12/17/2014) [-]
Is it okay if I use salmon for my fishion reactor?
#3610 - coronus (12/17/2014) [-]
Here's a thought. I'd like to teach anyone and everyone who has questions about BRAIN THINGS. Neurophysiology, cognitive neuroscience, and more recently, systems neuroscience, are fields in which I am steadily gaining mastery.

You see, I need to keep my mind sharp while I wait to hear back from the labs I've applied to work in. In the long term, I plan to have a doctorate in some form of neuroscience, and I've been reading mountains of research papers since undergrad ended.

That said, I'll try and make posts here more often, and shall visit daily to answer questions addressed to me.
User avatar #3853 to #3610 - alltimetens (01/12/2015) [-]
How does the human brain compare to the average computer? How does it compare to our most advanced supercomputers? How will it compare to supercomputers in the next century or so?
User avatar #3873 to #3853 - coronus (01/13/2015) [-]
As far as computers of the future, most AI researchers are of the mind that there are somethings computer systems may never be able to do, unless we are able to create a bank of supercomputers running communicating simulations of single human neurons or brain system groups, which is one of the endeavors of the Human Brain Project. However, this is expected to take an enormous amount of data storage and processing power, even for a simplified model.
User avatar #3870 to #3853 - coronus (01/13/2015) [-]
That's a difficult one. In terms of raw storage capacity, the brain beats all but the best super computer banks in its ability to retain information. If you consider the amount of chemical and neural processes that have to happen in order for a memory to be retrieved, the amount of information generated and retained by the brain is staggeringly high, and rivals NASA's data trove.

In terms of computing power, the answer is more complex.

There are certain things that we've designed computers to do much better and faster than us, like mathematics and data integration. In terms of calculation speed for math based problems, we loose to even the most basic computer.

On the other hand, some processes that come naturally to humans, such as decision making, universal object recognition, social learning, and sudden insight, take powerful supercomputers to simulate. Even the best current computer models of things like object recognition aren't 100% accurate, and can be easily misdirected. So, in terms of navigating and understanding complex problems involving spacial reasoning and general decision making, we beat even the best computers by age 2.
User avatar #3872 to #3870 - alltimetens (01/13/2015) [-]
Interesting take on it, and you had some well formatted answers. How do you think supercomputers will be in 2050 relative to our brains? I mean, we all know that technology is advancing at an exponential rate. So I wouldn't be surprised if someone was able to create a socially-learning, human-like computer by 2050. Would we be outmatched to the point where humans are almost useless? Will jobs vanish as a result of robots/computers taking over the industries? So many questions, dude.
User avatar #3874 to #3872 - coronus (01/13/2015) [-]
I would be very surprised if we managed to create an AI capable of social learning. Simple value association and deep neural network learning are some of the best the current methods for creating a learning network, and they have some pretty exciting results. However, there are serious differences in the way these systems eventually evaluate an object or situation, which are coming to light now via long term learning studies with DNN systems.

For example, Objects are often boiled down to 2 dimensional pattern representations , containing what the network values as critical features of a 3D object. This is vastly different from the way we conceptualize objects, and leads to incorrect classifications and odd category formations by the DNN systems.
User avatar #3881 to #3874 - alltimetens (01/13/2015) [-]
I mean, let's look at robotics technology today.

We're capable of creating robots and computers with the ability to produce artistic and musical pieces that are indistinguishable from human art/music, according to surveys done.

This already debunks the notion that humans are the only "special snowflakes" out there, and that we're not able to create technology that outmatches us in that capacity.
User avatar #3887 to #3881 - coronus (01/13/2015) [-]
It's a bit different, though. They create without purpose, according to their design. It's not about being a special snowflake. It's about simulated cognition, and active participation in reality. we haven't managed to create that.

It;s like printing a painting, or designing a robot to copy the exact strokes Monet used to create his works until it learns how he painted and creates a novel representation of a scene in his style. it's just copycat behavior based on complex command protocols,which proves nothing.
User avatar #3653 to #3610 - grump (12/21/2014) [-]
Do we have free-will?
User avatar #3654 to #3653 - coronus (12/21/2014) [-]
If we didn't , you wouldn't be able to ask that question, would you?

Every person has the ability to make choices, decisions, and judgments that are entirely unique to themselves, at a rate that far out-stripes the level of variation between people in neurophysiological function and genetic variation.

With similar rates of neurological variation, most other species show less behavioral variation among individuals.

In short, yes. Even if all of our cognitive abilities are an emergent property of complex underlying mechanisms (a point I don't support), the fact remains that essential components of the human experience are not fully explainable with deterministic models. There is chaos in our social systems that results from our own complexity, and that chaos would not exist if we were simply a product of emergent biological properties.
#3671 to #3654 - anonymous (12/22/2014) [-]
Interesting. Do you have any idea why determinism is so popular among the scientific community?
#3652 to #3610 - anonymous (12/21/2014) [-]
Am I a slave to my genes? Is all that I value really an illusion set up by my genes so that I will reproduce?
User avatar #3655 to #3652 - coronus (12/21/2014) [-]
see #3654.
#3614 to #3610 - anonymous (12/18/2014) [-]
What exactly is the self under physicalism/materialism?
User avatar #3615 to #3614 - coronus (12/18/2014) [-]
To the best of my knowledge, those fall under philosophy. Thus, I neither know nor have much interest in exploring them any further than I already have. They are well meaning, but ultimately ill-informed concepts.
User avatar #3608 to #3603 - coronus (12/17/2014) [-]
Neural feedback is an outdated conceptualization of ... anything motivational, really. Maybe it was in the 70's when B.F. Skinner was starting his career, but even he realized that strict behavioralism and mechanistic explanations aren't even half the story of humanity's conscious experience.

It's closely related to classical conditioning, which fails to explain the majority of learning, culture, language or behavior in humans. Hell, you can't even explain the self motivated behavior of dogs, cows, or most other social animals with feedback and conditioning mechanisms.

Take language, for example. Children learn the majority of the words they know without reward, and parental coaching contributes minimally to syntax and grammar learning.

If one were to take a few courses on say, evolution and cognition, human perception, or learning and memory, one would find that our situation is far less simple, and far less bleak.

If anyone has specific questions related to current understandings of human learning, motivation, and thought, I can answer them fairly well. My first research job was with a German evolutionary psychologist. He taught most of his classes related to human cognition with an eye for the past.

Having consumed the equivalent of perhaps 200+ research papers on the subject, I can tell you without hesitation that trying to explain why reality is an illusion using neural feedback is pompous pseudo-intellectual drivel, written by a "psychologist" who obviously isn't keeping up with the science of their work.
User avatar #3602 - xsnowshark (12/16/2014) [-]
This board leaves a lot to be desired...
User avatar #3620 to #3602 - kebabs (12/18/2014) [-]
It lacks maths.
User avatar #3609 to #3602 - coronus (12/17/2014) [-]
Usually.

I come every few days, and there's usually one or two things I can actually discuss. I'm thinking about posting more, though, since I've roped myself in to a critical writing course on Systems Neuroscience.

Perhaps I'll post a bit on the intricacies of sensation and perception, since I've got a paper on multi-modal processing to write, and over 100 research papers, on various neuroscience topics to read before the next semester starts.
User avatar #3599 - grogovic (12/16/2014) [-]
NFL sent a rocket to the moon, or was it NASCAR?
User avatar #3592 - beatmasterz (12/16/2014) [-]
My parents both have blue eyes and I have green eyes. Am I a genetic freak?
#3630 to #3592 - anonymous (12/18/2014) [-]
you;re adopted
User avatar #3595 to #3592 - nimba (12/16/2014) [-]
blue eyes can turn into green eyes after the fact. You probably have a blue eye genotype but your phenotype may be different because of post-sexual modification or differences in your gene expression but these can be difficult to predict without a genetic test.
Also these things can be subjective - are both your parents definitely blue eyed and are you definitely green eyed or is it possible that your eyes are merely on the greenish end of the blue spectrum?
User avatar #3596 to #3595 - beatmasterz (12/16/2014) [-]
Theirs are dark blue and mine are grey-green. What would case this alteration?
User avatar #3597 to #3596 - nimba (12/16/2014) [-]
I don't particularly think it's that upon a little bit of reading. There are a number of genes and alleles which contribute to the spectrum of eye colours. Your parents are double recessive for the genes that produces melanin on the iris, which guarantees for recessive eye colours like yours to be produced, those colours dictated by the genotype of other genes. Your parents may have had a genotype in the other genes like Gg x Gg - G means blue and g means green. If G is dominant to g then they will present with blue eyes in the absence of melanin. However there is a 0.25 probability that their progeny can be double recessive for this gene - which could explain you having a supposed genotype gg.
So I guess if you consider a 1 in 4 chance occurring to be freakish then I suppose you could be considered a freak in that regard, though I wouldn't really.
User avatar #3598 to #3597 - beatmasterz (12/16/2014) [-]
Thanks
0
#3591 - tigronn has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #3594 to #3591 - nimba (12/16/2014) [-]
Dream interpretation
Chakras

I think this should probably go on the religion board, this woo is closer to that than science.
User avatar #3584 - luigipimp (12/15/2014) [-]
i like sleep cause its like time travel to breakfast
User avatar #3606 to #3584 - iridium (12/17/2014) [-]
Are you 12 or something? You can eat breakfast literally whenever you want.
User avatar #3613 to #3606 - luigipimp (12/17/2014) [-]
you can have breakfast foods whenever you want but it wouldnt be breakfast
User avatar #3612 to #3606 - ribocoon ONLINE (12/17/2014) [-]
I ate some oatmeal and leftover mcdonalds at 2 in the morning last night
Adulthood is the best
0
#3583 - luigipimp has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #3593 to #3582 - nimba (12/16/2014) [-]
You don't exist
because of all these things you're made of
see??

It's buying in to compositional fallacy in the most bizarre way - 'how can you be real if parts of you are made of neurons?' How can H2O extinguish fires when hydrogen and oxygen are both notably flammable? The properties of the sum of parts can be different to the isolated properties of the constituent parts.
User avatar #3586 to #3582 - kebabs (12/16/2014) [-]
That was gay as fuck.
#3589 to #3586 - anonymous (12/16/2014) [-]
How so? Do you have any objections?
User avatar #3590 to #3589 - kebabs (12/16/2014) [-]
That was really stupid.
>I am just a meat slab
>Preprogrammed
Shit was irrelevant and who ever made it is probably a faggot thinking "w0w i am so original woah i should be a theorotical scientist". Unless it's an article containing actual facts and experiments conducted telling me I am not real and in a dream world or I am in a computer, I am not believing any shit saying I am not real. I mean where are the calculations, where are the experiments, what's the proof?
Why do people even waste their time writing bullshit like that.
>I am just a byproduct of evolutionary accident
>everything you perceive, believe, or hold dear, is just the attempts by a few kilos of fat, connected to some basic sensory organs, to model reality.
w0w i am not real though i can perceive, believe, touch, smell, it's all just some organs rite amirite
fuck you you're not right, it even says that even if we see, it's not real, we've got a whole optics section in physics telling us how light behaves.
man i thought psychologists were supposed to be specific of human behaviour and not make these stupid posts.
User avatar #3607 to #3590 - coronus (12/17/2014) [-]
It's kind of sad, actually. Even beetles have a capacity for choice, and they have a handful of neurons in the entirety of their body. Besides the fact that our ability to look at ourselves in an introspective manner and change disproves the idea that our behavior is pre-programmed, or that we are capable and willing to engage in behaviors and thought experiments (like the above) that pose no benefit to anything or anyone ... a short rant.

The idea that our reality is just a construct is idiotic at its base, since all our senses are set up to receive real time data. The only time our reality is a construct is when something is seriously neurologically wrong, like schizophrenia or phantom limb syndrome.

Beyond that, our higher social constructs are at worst the emergent property of evolved sociality, but, much like our craving for foods that store well as fat, the base Social facets of humanity were far surpassed by our true mental abilities,and outpaced by the growth of culture, even before the Assyrians identified themselves as a singular group of people.

We are not merely a sum of our parts, and evolution does not produce accidents, nor does anything in the universe operate on some chaotic principle of randomness. In fact, any good scientist will tell you that the colloquial definition of random is, in reality, nonexistent.

A good example of a species that fit the description of programmed interaction and sociability is the ant. They exemplify the bare minimum of social order needed to survive, fight, and exist as a group. A few steps higher you get certain species of macaque, who have elements of proto-culture. In their case, each population is separated by the way they use simple tools and process food; behaviors that are partly taught and partly self discovered.

Nearly every higher function of humanity, save navigation and certain facets of memory, remains singular in all the animal kingdom.
User avatar #3618 to #3607 - kebabs (12/18/2014) [-]
Psychologist: Hey man you're pre-programmed, here read the things I have written in this article. You're just a bunch of organs.
Person: K. Does your article contribute to anything at all?
Psychologist: No. Let's just get sad about the fact that we're just organs doing their functions instead of focusing on important things.
#3581 - jimmyfofibby (12/15/2014) [-]
Does anyone have any questions about or want to discuss nuclear fusion? daw1217.freeforums.net/board/1/general-board   Go to this website if you do.   
   
Gif kinda science related.
Does anyone have any questions about or want to discuss nuclear fusion? daw1217.freeforums.net/board/1/general-board Go to this website if you do.

Gif kinda science related.
#3585 to #3581 - anonymous (12/15/2014) [-]
how does one make a nuclear fusion reactor at home
#3604 to #3585 - jimmyfofibby (12/17/2014) [-]
With incredible difficultly that's how. But in all reality I don't know how to just build a nuclear fusion reactor at home. Nuclear fusion isn't yet even efficient.   
 Although I wish I knew
With incredible difficultly that's how. But in all reality I don't know how to just build a nuclear fusion reactor at home. Nuclear fusion isn't yet even efficient.
Although I wish I knew
User avatar #3547 - sweetbutteryjesus (12/14/2014) [-]
How are properties (melting point, boiling point, and conductivity) related to chemical bond strength?
User avatar #3548 to #3547 - kebabs (12/14/2014) [-]
If the bond is short, i.e strong, more energy is required to break it, hence melting point and boiling point are more for compounds with shorter bond. As for conductivity, the more shorter the bond, the more harder it is for valence electrons to get free, hence conductivity decreases.
User avatar #3546 - vashford (12/14/2014) [-]
Is majoring in Biochemistry and Molecular biology cool, or is it considered the gender studies major of the STEM field
User avatar #3551 to #3546 - nimba (12/14/2014) [-]
Taking an inter-field subject is a good bet, that's the way the industry is moving - the existing high-end professionals tend to be trained pure chemists or biologists, but when they're trying to work together they are speaking in different languages. If you can approach a team and offer to be able to interface with the chemists and the biologists you are going to be pretty valuable to their little tower of babel.
What I would say is make up your mind as to which school you're going to be in - I'm a biochemist in a biology school where the detailed chemistry kinda takes a backseat. I wish I had done biochemistry in a chemistry school tbh because chemistry is my stronger arm - but you may be different.
User avatar #3549 to #3546 - sciencexplain (12/14/2014) [-]
The real question is who gives a shit? If you're asking to base your career path on it, don't bother. If you just want to know how people would view you, I wouldn't have a negative view on anyone doing biochemistry, but the general idea is that anyone doing pseudoscience is a dickhead. When I was at Uni, I was mocked for Forensics as my masters, because everyone thought that forensics was a shitty subject and not a "real" science. If it's not one of the original sciences, it sometimes is frowned upon by the snobs who think their subject is better, but this is just from my experience. It might be different elsewhere.
User avatar #3556 to #3549 - vashford (12/14/2014) [-]
Wait, how is biochemistry and molecular biology a pseudoscience?

User avatar #3557 to #3556 - sciencexplain (12/14/2014) [-]
Well, pseudoscience originally meant that the subject doesn't adhere to traditional scientific methods, but it came to mean a science that isn't directly Chemistry, Biology or Physics when I was at Uni. The kids called a "pseudoscience" anything like Biochem, Forensics, Psychology, etc. I thought it was because of how the scientific method works, but to them, pseudo literally meant not real science.
User avatar #3558 to #3557 - vashford (12/14/2014) [-]
That's strange logic, though.

Biochemistry is a legitimate correlation of both chemistry and biology as it applies to the chemical processes within a living body. It's the application of both chemistry and biology, right?

That's like saying, if I mix the concept of a cake and a cupcake together and I get a cake-sized cupcake, or a cupcake-sized cake, or some variation of mixtures, it's not a real pastry. I get that either variation isn't an original form of either cupcake or cake, but it's still a pastry regardless, and it's still tasty.

So why would people majoring in "pseudosciences" like biochemistry be considered not majoring in a real science...
User avatar #3560 to #3558 - sciencexplain (12/14/2014) [-]
Exactly. It sounds illogical, but they follow that logic because money is more important than knowledge at the Uni I went to. Most of the students paid their way in through their parents, and had no working knowledge of how things are meant to be or what "pseudoscience" meant. They just called it that because they were righteous bastards who believed their subject to be better than others, even thought they sucked shit at it because money was more important than skill.
User avatar #3562 to #3560 - vashford (12/14/2014) [-]
The funny thing I found out is the actual salary of what I want my major (biochemistry and molecular biology) to be is. A biologist's mean salary is around 45k (2013 statistic), while a chemists is 51k (2014 statistic).

However, a biochemists average salary is 48k, which is the median of these two averaged out salaries. Kind of funny, imo.

Also, were there a lot of physics majors at Oxford? When it came to the STEM students, at least.
User avatar #3564 to #3562 - sciencexplain (12/14/2014) [-]
There were a lot of Physics students there doing BSc in Physics, but not so many doing MSc. The Physics students were mostly white UK residents who were really fucking good at the maths. The most foreign students were probably in Biology or Chemistry, but there were a couple in Physics. The Physics students were mostly accepted on skill instead of money, so I felt like it was the only subject where you REALLY needed to know your shit to be able to do it.
User avatar #3566 to #3564 - vashford (12/14/2014) [-]
And Asians.
User avatar #3565 to #3564 - vashford (12/14/2014) [-]
Ah. The reason I was asking that was because, on average, physicist have a higher salary than both biologist and chemist, etc.

Since before you said that most students who called out "pseudoscience" majors usually majored in something where the money is dank, I would assume there'd be a lot of physics majors. Also, how many black/African students were at Oxford, anyway? When you say foreign, I suppose you mean Indian/Middle Eastern/West and Eastern Europeans.
User avatar #3567 to #3565 - sciencexplain (12/14/2014) [-]
By foreign, I mean mainly Asian students who came from rich families. They usually came from areas where the rich were really rich, and the poor very fucking poor. As for African-American students, there were a few, but not many. Most that I saw studied in Humanities and the Performing Arts, specifically History and Drama. I'm not sure what caused them to flock to those subjects, but I dare not ask and say "is it because black history".
User avatar #3569 to #3567 - vashford (12/14/2014) [-]
However, /rant aside, what did you major in-- if that's not too personal a question?
User avatar #3570 to #3569 - sciencexplain (12/14/2014) [-]
I did a BSc in Chemistry, 3 year, and then I did my MSc in Forensic Sciences, specialising in Toxicology and Ballistics. I wanted to do a MSc in Chemistry for 4 years, but I felt that narrowed my options too much and I wanted to go into forensics. I'm starting to realise how bad of an idea it is, because jobs are hard to get and it's so glamourised by the media that all I have done recently is some studentship work.
User avatar #3571 to #3570 - vashford (12/14/2014) [-]
So, what's your dream job, then?
User avatar #3572 to #3571 - sciencexplain (12/14/2014) [-]
I originally wanted to be a Forensic scientist for a big government organisation like the police or a higher up power, but I started to realise how slim my chances are. Now, I'm contemplating earning money from live music performances. I'm not a great musician, but it's more money than I'm making now, and a successful career in that would be great.
User avatar #3573 to #3572 - vashford (12/14/2014) [-]
Well, did a bit of research. Becoming a toxicologist can make you some serious cash.

Anyway, it sounds rough that you're having trouble finding a job for your specialties, but if you do plan on starting a music career, I hope it's successful. When you say live music performances, do you mean solo, or join an existing ensemble?
User avatar #3574 to #3573 - sciencexplain (12/14/2014) [-]
Part of a band temporarily. At this time of year, lots of local venues want Christmas performers, so we're just doing some Christmas stuff for easy money. I'd like to continue in a band, honestly. I wouldn't mind even if it was a 2 piece band like the Black Keys or The White Stripes, I just like having someone there to perform with.
User avatar #3576 to #3574 - sciencexplain (12/14/2014) [-]
I wasn't paid a yearly salary, I was paid based on what I produced. I was lucky to be scraping £20,000 over one year, and that sounds like a lot, but it's not in my circumstance. With live performances, I could maybe make in the range of £25,000-£30,000 if I did very well. I enjoy music performances more than writing papers for a shitty University, so I'd happily tour around and have an opportunity to make it big, y'know?
User avatar #3578 to #3576 - vashford (12/14/2014) [-]
Follow your dreams, as they would say.

Maybe you've considered songwriting? I bet if you have an awesome band in general, and a catchy song, you'd rake in bucks.

I was about to relate writing papers for Uni to being a lyricist, but then I realized that wouldn't really work. Do you think you could make it big, though?
User avatar #3579 to #3578 - sciencexplain (12/14/2014) [-]
I dunno, man. Small beginnings and everything, but nothing's impossible. I'd love to be big like Foo Fighters or some band like that. My all time idol is Synyster Gates and I'd love to do what he's done. It's all right place, right time though.
#3580 to #3579 - vashford (12/14/2014) [-]
Right.
Right.
User avatar #3577 to #3576 - sciencexplain (12/14/2014) [-]
>>#3575, Fucking hell, I replied to the wrong one.
User avatar #3575 to #3574 - vashford (12/14/2014) [-]
Well, how much money do you expect to make being in a band temporarily than what you were doing previously?
User avatar #3568 to #3567 - vashford (12/14/2014) [-]
I wonder why you don't hear about too many African-American's in the STEM field, but then I realize it's sort of the culture. I mean, next year for my Senior year in high school I want to take a multitude of sciences(AP Chemistry, AP Biology, maybe AP Physics, etc.), but my parents keep wanting me to take different more literature-oriented classes. I have no idea why, but I think I have an inference.

They even want me to take a one-trimester class (Ethnic Literature: African-American Literature) so I can get more "in-tune" with my culture. Both my sisters were forced to take it or have one of their classes dropped when they were in high school still, and now my oldest sister is aiming for her Ph. D in Clinical Psychology, and the younger (but still older than me) sister is majoring in Film and Cinema.

You can probably be assured that it's "because of black history," and because of black culture.
User avatar #3550 to #3549 - nimba (12/14/2014) [-]
I believe that pseudoscience isn't necessarily invalid. Forensics is like psychology IMO - it's the application of scientific principles to a field that is usually above the complexity level of something like a molecule or a population. I have some forensic experience and I found it a little frustrating because it had a different assumptive threshold than I was used to. I wouldn't classifiy it as strictly scientific but that doesn't mean that I would automatically condescend to a forensic major.
User avatar #3553 to #3550 - sciencexplain (12/14/2014) [-]
This is all based off of personal experience. I like pseudoscience, and I value it highly. It's just that I experienced something very different at Uni, and I was chipping in what I knew of the general view. I did go to Oxford though. They're mostly snobby foreign cunts who's parents are richer than Branston.
User avatar #3554 to #3553 - nimba (12/14/2014) [-]
I think you've told me that you went to oxford before. You don't think it's more than a little snobbish do you?
User avatar #3555 to #3554 - sciencexplain (12/14/2014) [-]
Hmm... As a place, it's not too snobbish. The foreign students are pretty up their own asses, but when it reaches the later years when they need to start actually doing well because they can't pay the way through the rest, they're on their knees begging for help. The students who got in because of their qualifications and skill are nice people. The place itself is nice, but if you define snobbish as people who are aware of their skills and talents, Oxford is very snobbish. People there know they're good, and they know who they're better than in their educational field. The lecturers sure as shit know that, and they love to put the righteous people in their place.
 Friends (0)