random_soldier1337

I see. Then would you say that once one has started on the path, would it be possible to maintain expertise in all those predicted fields without losing mastery in the original? And to what extent if at all? At least in this day and age. Most seem to think otherwise.

Hmm... This bit is very interesting to me. Care to elaborate/rephrase? With examples if you could.

We've reached a point where it seems like you can't be an expert in everything. But it seems from history that there was a time when you could be good at all the latest research subjects. Over what time period did those changes happen and what changes happened for such a shift?

Did you find it useful in any way?

I just used a general catch all for any and all media of interviewing whether that be radio, TV, newspaper, show, documentary, etc. I'm not counting classes, since classes, I often feel, seem to have less back and forth and interviews feel more like an open discussion or exchange.

Or maybe even talked to someone who doesn't do science but has an interest in the knowledge? How was your experience?

I'm asking for suggestions in various categories as some of them might be more important for coursework whereas others might be more recreational and to expand knowledge. I know for example that Knoll is the go to for radiation detection and Lamarsh and Baratta is the most important for intro to nuclear engineering (of course some disagree with dumbing down in it, which is why I ask). Any books that anyone would like to recommend as a must have for core nuclear courses? Other books that I'm looking for are more for my knowledge. For example, I found introductory nuclear physics by krane really helpful in explaining some of the concepts and bridging the gap between quantum/particle physics and nuclear for someone who hasn't had a rigorous physics background in those. Not to mention a fun read. But despite all that, it has been not useful for coursework and has been more recreational for me. Point is, I enjoy it for knowledge and recreation and I would like other suggestions for these as well so that I may expand my understanding of nuclear even if I don't formally take a course, please? There is one pet peeve that I would like to address specifically, however. I'm unable to find much information on books that detail nuclear engineering from a fusion perspective. For example, materials and neutronics usually detail everything from fission reactor standpoints with a very minor aside, if at all, towards fusion. Any suggestions for thoseas well?

I've just generally taken it as not a good idea to store anything you don't want getting out on an electronic device. Not an easy task but hopefully some things may be mitigated. Though I wouldn't be surprised if it became knowledge to me somewhere along the way as to how hard it is to find people who can handle a clearance, at least based on the information by Sensei.

I do recall a lot of discussion surrounding money. It's been a bit though. I think the issue is not only with crime but general incapability of handling money, especially if someone is in debt. I think it was something along the lines of they would be easy to manipulate because of their life style and how easy it would be to play them for their lust of currency. Just ask them for some private info while offering like a $100,000 and they'll let it all out. Not sure about the rest.

From the discussions I have had with friends thus far, it sounds like there is nothing to lose. Can't (presumably) clear the check, can't apply for the job. Apply and let the authorities decide. If you don't get it, the situation remains the same as when you couldn't apply. The problem comes in the fact that if there is or isn't a time limit on someone being able to speak of said crime, assuming they are truthful. Even if they did their time, reformed and it was all at least a decade ago, would there still be some crime that is an obvious automatic blacklist regardless of time and reformations?

What is the point of withdrawing from a check while receiving clearance if one has committed a heinous crime? From what I have discussed with some friends, once someone is denied, they are blacklisted from clearances. Someone in such a situation, would they have anything to lose whether they withdrew or not? Just morbidly curious.

Then one is at the mercy of those who get offended too easily. There has to be a better criteria than that.

Well put. Question still remains, at what point are the boundaries of a dress code being stretched? As one answer above said, it is to conform. When someone is following an established dress code but at the same time wearing face rings, should that count as following the dress code. In my opinion, many of them one can't instantly remove so I wouldn't fuss too much about it but another could say that it is very unbecoming and that they should never have gotten them in the first place.

You're reading too much into what I may or may not believe. What I have said, is on the basis of what I hear from others. Regardless, all that is not the point of this discussion. I would appreciate if you answer the question in the original post.

I didn't say anything about my personal preference. I'm asking about the rules set by others and the exceptions to these rules and if in your opinion what is and is not justified.

Isn't it still broken if I go with several piercings on my face, just wearing business casual clothing?

Nowadays a lot of people like to fashion themselves in a way that is less traditional. You might see men wear make up or men and women coloring their hair some color that isn't naturally possible. Since society is so free, even among serious scholars (as I see in my department), what is the point of having a strict dress code? I imagine one doesn't want someone showing up scantily clad or maybe there is a uniform requirement to represent a certain party or for a certain type of job but there doesn't seem to be much point for specifying such at social events in places such as conferences.

I see your point. I just can't see how one is to get to that stage without having had practice in a "less strict" environment.

I might have been mistaken. Though from what I recall, it was in response to my frustration for one of my class texts neither stating final values for questions anywhere nor any solution manual available to order. I'm still currently in my first year and taking courses. Some of them have very few textbooks to begin with let alone anything to check against once a problem is completed. As far as what you have mentioned, that is pretty much the answer I got. I guess it is more with regard to formal research.

So I was having a discussion with one of my teachers and they mentioned along the way in my PhD, I would learn how to formulate and/or understand where a question is coming from, be able to solve it and know exactly when I arrive at a satisfactory conclusion. This would be quite a handy skill to develop from the get go itself, if I did not misconstrue the meaning. Any/all here know what I am speaking of and how I would inculcate such an ability?

My function: d2f/dx2 + cf = delta(x) Condition: f is finite and f(50) = f(-50) = 0 Solution: f = C1exp(cx) + C2exp(-cx) Due to condition, f = C1exp(cx) for x<=0 and C2exp(-cx) for x>=0 f(50) = C2exp(-c*50) = 0 = > C2 = 0 Likewise, for C1 I don't know if I missed something. Also not sure if I dealt with the delta function correctly. I assumed RHS as zero for the purpose of solving the equation.

I was referring to the theta and phi directions, their vectors I mean. Wait don't you mean tangent? I thought the radius unit vector would be the normal.

Thanks. Even though those were semi random ideas, I think they actually make sense with what I am referring to. They are analogous if you will. Though I think I may now just be confused by what exactly the radius unit vector may be pointing towards. May I please know?

Let me clarify. I am confused because one of my subjects has a variable that is a function of various things, position and direction being a few of them. Position is already specified in terms of vector r. However, direction is the radius unit vector. I don't quite understand since it seems redundant and doesn't make sense at the same time.

If the radius unit vector is giving us some direction in spherical coordinates, why do we need the angle vectors or vice versa?