Tridimity

We are indeed probably distinct from other animals, in that our verbal communication appears to be more complex and nuanced. This increased capacity for highly involved information exchange presumably confers a survival advantage - not least because it facilitates the formation and maintenance of the intricate social interactions that underpin our civilisation. Having said this, there are still occasions when more primitive methods of communication prove to be more effective in communicating a straightforward message. A single facial expression or change in body language can be very informative. Simple messages such as 'I love you' are arguably best delivered non-verbally, as an embrace or a certain glance or even a kind gesture, rather than as a long series of prose. Indeed, many people experience difficulty in expressing the depth of their feeling in words - in these cases, the 'old' methods of communication rule supreme. I think it very much depends on the nature of the information that is being communicated.

Semiconductor sensors and photocolorimeters can be used to measure the levels (mg/m3) of certain gases although I'm not sure what you mean when you refer to a gun being used for this purpose.

Seriously, there was no intentional double-entendrez here? Good then that you won't find any here: I'd be surprised if you have ever encountered a female. If you expect me to stand by while you insult females then your expectations need to shift.

Yeah, I know they do sometimes. I used to think though that they would attempt to replicate all of the experiments from scratch (imagine how difficult, expensive and time-consuming this would be for, for example, work involving genetically modified mice!) and then would reject the paper if they were unable to replicate the findings. This does happen, if effect, but obviously not as part of the initially peer review quality control step, which is effectively a crude sifting mechanism. The main refutations come in the form of subsequent publications by other groups who may be unable to replicate the findings of the original paper. The citation index will generally act as a post-publication acid test of relevance, with papers whose findings are replicable but not so important to the field, being stillborn. However, even this is not an infallible test of relevance - think, for example, of the work of revolutionaries throughout the history of Science whose groundbreaking results were largely ignored by their peers and only received their due attention long after the scientist (natural philosopher) had died - and all because their work was too revolutionary for the times.

Agreed. I would add that, if you expect your employees to be well-rounded and to employ soft skills, rather than being purely technical - then provide them with opportunities for growth in their work role. If you treat people like a means to an end, like a piece of machinery, you will get the response of a piece of machinery! The clique issue is equally important. Employees require healthy relationships and friendships with their colleagues if they are to be happy. Speaking from experience, one way not to encourage this, is to place a new start in a room full of pre-existing cliques and two-person friendships that have been built on years of bonding. There is no way, as a previous outsider, to break into those circles of friendship, because intruding on pre-existing friendship pairs makes one or both parties in the friendship feel threatened. More often than not, any opportunity to get that far is impossible anyhow. Also not a good idea to have a high degree of turnover of staff, such that a new start becomes attached to one person who then leaves, and then to another person, who then leaves, and so on. The person will eventually give up on trying to make friendships under these conditions. Oh, and try to have people on a similar level in the working hierarchy, so that they have peers to befriend - rather than leaving them with the only option of trying to forge a friendship with those two levels removed from their own (not easy at all, maybe even impossible). Communication is absolutely key - all employees must be listened to and must know that they are being listened to.

I'd be surprised if you have ever encountered a female.

It's funny, I used to think a few years back that the peer review process involved the peer reviewers attempting to replicate, in their own Labs, the data presented in each and every manuscript submitted to them for review. How naive.

I think the important thing is not so much creating fixed meeting times and agendas but that the supervisor/boss be both available and approachable. Personally, I had quite a bad experience in my previous job, although that may be due largely to having a different expectation to my colleagues regarding the way in which group work ought to be conducted. My actual boss, as stated in the job advertisement for the role, held a very senior position within not only our Faculty but also the University. As such, and understandably, he did not have much time for me as a very junior member of staff in his group. Supervisory duties were effectively delegated to a different PI with whom I did not get along and who was very close with the post-doc alongside whom I was working. The post-doc, in turn, did not care to consult me much on anything work-related, so that it was really a very morale sapping top-down instruction hierarchy. 'Do this, don't ask why, don't expect me to discuss the Science with you, [and definitely don't complain!]'. The only time I would see my actual boss was 1 hour per week, in a group setting, meaning that it was not feasible to raise confidential or sensitive matters. On two occasions I met him on a 1:1 basis, but doing that involved booking his time through his PA (like I said, he was a very busy man). The point is, although he was approachable and I liked him immensely as a person, he was not really available. This meant that when the top-down structure and unhealthy clique dynamics of the group finally imploded, it was too late to rectify the problems, the damage had been done a long time ago. I no longer work there, thank goodness. So, employees need to feel comfortable approaching their boss, and the boss needs to be available.

Good luck with that.

Then what's the point of the competition? Who can make most efficient use of resources? Seems a bit pointless.

Even if it were possible, I do not think that this would be an advisable procedure. The procedure would be entirely cosmetic and the rationale would therefore be borne of vain motivations on the part of the individual woman concerned, because she is not comfortable with her own appearance and/or because she is concerned that her body is aesthetically unsatisfactory for her partner. The problems with this type of cosmetic surgery are: i. the individual is no longer retaining their core integrity of self - the reflection in the mirror is no longer of the individual's true self, and so any perceived improvement in self-judgment is futile; ii. if the individual allows their sense of self-worth to depend so heavily on the opinions of others, then the individual will never achieve a true and wholesome sense of self-acceptance. We need to move beyond a society that judges people on a superficial level, and recognise a deeper beauty. In this particular case, the individual woman ought to see the beauty in her own body as she ages naturally; for example, she may appreciate in herself the immense value of motherhood, or of being a loving partner, or simply of unabashed proud womanhood.

My sex chromosomes are XX. Make of that what you will.

Higgs' reaction is to go on holiday and to leave his phone at home. Got to love the man's style.

Just a quick link to a great series on the anatomy of nature's 'giants', Inside Nature's Giants, available on Channel 4 On Demand and via Youtube: http://www.channel4.com/programmes/inside-natures-giants/4od http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-w0EgXPFj68 The team comprising: Mark Evans, an experienced vet and anatomy expert; anatomist Prof. Joy Reidenberg; Simon Watt, an evolutionary biologist; and, Darrell Evans, an expert in human anatomy, work together to dissect a variety of large animals. Episodes The Elephant The Whale The Crocodile The Giraffe The Great White Shark The Monster Python The Big Cats The Polar Bear The Sperm Whale The Camel The Dinosaur Bird The Leatherback Turtle The Racehorse Rogue Baboon The Hippo The Kangaroo Jungle Special The Giant Squid

Phi, that's the best analogy I've heard in ages

Thanks, the Abstract of the review looks interesting, I will read the full text once I regain access. It seems, then, that it is mostly a lack of clinical data that is holding back the development and implementation of this mode of drug delivery. I wonder how easy or difficult it would be to access various tissues in this way and I am surprised that it has taken so long for researchers to begin to investigate methods of local administration of chemotherapeutics in this way - especially for the more accessible cancers, such as certain skin or head and neck cancers.

Some companies do not require that you have a degree in Computer Science in order to secure a job in programming. One of my friends is currently a programmer, he does not have a degree in Computer Science, he completed 2 of 4 years of a Physics degree before choosing this field and self-taught the programming essentials - but, then, he is a bit ridiculously intelligent! However, a degree in Computer Science would certainly be an asset if and when the supply of programmers begins to increase and swamp the labour market, employers may well become more selective. I would second the points made above by other members: the ability to think logically and to demonstrate problem-solving skills is essential. Any programming related experience would also be advantageous. Good luck! Tri

Thanks, it is working now

Who will make the robots? Will robots make the robots? And, if so, who will make the robots that make the robots that make the robots? Ad infinitum...

Yeah, I'm having the same problem as Unity+ Trying to set up a blog, clicking on 'sign up' results in the following error message: Fatal error: Call to undefined function get_blogs_of_user() in /www/area52.scienceforums.net/html/admin/applications_addon/other/blogs/modules_public/register/register.php on line 34 Anybody know when this will be fixed? Thanks

As robots supercede human labour in various fields of work, so new fields of work will most likely become exploitable by humans. Akin to the developments in the labour market since the industrial revolution: some manual workers, of course, still work at factories - others lost their jobs as the assembly line became increasingly mechanised. New types of jobs then emerged - typically in the tertiary sector. Who knows if a new sector of the economy will be born as a result of robot influx - beyond the primary, secondary, tertiary, quaternary and (quinary?) sectors... maybe, emotional servicing? ... or is that sector reserved for the work of God?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79YDgv_zWA4 Sonnentanz (Sun Don't Shine ft. Will Heard)

Remember also that peer review does not end once a paper has been accepted by a Journal. Once published, the entire scientific community in the relevant field is free to - and usually does - attempt to replicate and build on the findings of the paper, if the data are sufficiently interesting to warrant further investigation. False positives will quickly come to light in this manner, and may be openly challenged in other papers. This second fail-safe mechanism incurs a cost: both in terms of time and (possibly) if a researcher bases a grant application upon the data - presumably, though, if a grant rests absolutely on a given premise that is not well established, then (s)he will first attempt to replicate the previous data before proceeding to study it any further. Peer review is not perfect but what is the alternative? Perhaps a better question to ask is, how can we educate researchers to think more critically? Maybe modify degree course content to include less rote learning of scientific facts and more critical thinking skills? (Actually, this modification ought to be made at all levels of education).

Yes, I am well aware that there is not currently a strict dichotomy in US or UK society between conservatives and liberals, except at the extremes of the political spectra. Most individuals within both camps agree that some form of welfare state is desirable - the negotiations focus on the extent of taxation and financial aid. I can't help feeling though that, in all of this, the working and lower middle classes are not getting anywhere near a fair deal. At least here in the UK, the main left wing party Labour have sold out on their Union roots in favour of a style of New Labour 'kind capitalism' (actually not that kind) that is virtually indistinguishable from the ethos of mainstream Tories. It remains to be seen whether the change of leadership to the leftist Ed Miliband will mean a change of substance or merely a change of style for Labour. As for the third main political party here, the Liberal Democrats, they have basically proven to be a lame duck while in coalition government with the Conservatives, essentially compromising away all of their pre-election promises, most notably their promise to abolish University tuition fees - instead trebling tuition fees. Due to our first-past-the-post electoral system in the UK, it is difficult for non-mainstream parties to establish power. So, you see, our workers do not have many options come election time. It has all turned into one conglomeration of, at best, political centrism. What I am suggesting is the creation of a new political party with a fighting chance of being elected - even under FPTP constrictions - to serve the interests of both ordinary workers and the very wealthy. To be named something like, the Moderation Party or the Proportionate Party. In the public sector, job creation, wage levels and all other policies including healthcare would be directly tallied with Treasury finances. There would still be a hierarchy of sorts, in the sense that certain jobs (those that have required more education, investment and hard work) would be better paid than others (for example, entry level jobs). However, wages would be controlled within a given range of the mean income, but including a wide enough range that enterprise and industriousness are incentivised, such that wages follow a normal distribution and the kind of gross discrepancies in wealth and reward for work that we are currently observing in UK and US society (CEOs with million-pound bonuses while clerks are earning in the region of £15,000 per year) are prevented. Tax rate would be high and flat. Monitoring of population dynamics and public finances would allow for anticipation of future requirements and would help to prevent any repeat of the dire situation recently encountered, in which the taxpayer pays the price of private sector high risk investments. Unlike previous attempts to establish socialism, there would be no coercive pressure; no authoritarianism. Instead, citizens would actively and democratically opt in to the new system at election time, and then opt to be either a public or private citizen. So as not to stifle creativity and entrepreneurship, any public citizen wishing to initiate a business could seek financial help from the government for start-up funds, with risk/benefit analysis performed on an individual objective and independent basis, the government would then effectively own the business and the individual could employ public sector citizens. The individual would then have the choice at the next election to either remain in the public sector and have certain constraints on their income, in the form of tax and wage control, or could take the entirety of their personal wealth to the private sector where they would be able to live tax-free. ^^The more I think about this the more I realise it is a stupid artificial dichotomy of tax rates. The public sector would have very high administration costs, would have a hard time anticipating future demand and would lack the flexibility of free market, unless some kind of market socialism was implemented. I guess I just want a fairer deal for ordinary workers, not just monetary but in terms of personal respect, in terms of acknowledgement that in any institution the ordinary workers represent most of the capacity for profit generation. Could probably be achieved in a mixed economy *shrugs reluctantly*

Not exactly a joke but this made me smile: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gOjw5ncV7A Channel 4 News presenter Cathy Newman performs gangnam style. I don't know which to find most unexpected: that she did it in the first place, or that she looks so damn good doing it!