physica

Ok so you look down on academia and it's very competitive. So you think he's mesmerised by this shallow mundane thing however, he has also managed to achieve great things in academia. He has not pursued wealth but gone for contributing more to science. How is he shallow there??? You have focused on one thing even though you can do multiple things in life. Again you're simply looking down on people and asserting opinions. I can give you some advice for that, stop looking down on people and judging them based on one or two actions they do online. You can do multiple things with your life. From your own admission you strayed from the academy. Again you're making huge judgements by something you're not 100% clued up on. You may call it meat grinding I call it holding you to the save standard as everyone else. The first steps in education are abstract and kids will struggle to see the bigger picture. However, graduating from physics has changed the way I see the world..... sure I get more annoyed at main stream media because journalists don't understand probability theory but I can create mathematical models, I understand physical systems. This is useful in most jobs from engineering to company data analytics to finance and more. I have also been shown the mathematics behind forming or stars and black holes, electromagnetism, quantum particles. Most importantly of all I learnt the scientific method which is how to come up with a mathematical model of a system and how to test it. This is the fundamental basis of thinking for yourself. If you are disgusted by the imparting of this knowledge because you didn't do very well we could make the argument that you are shallow.

Says you but that's not everyone's' definition of purpose. by who? These are your personal opinions, other people can look at life in a different angle and find different meaning in life. As long as you're not directly hurting someone by your actions you can live life how you want. You seem to be missing what I've written about you judging people by a few shallow actions on the internet. Here is what I wrote about it. You read his comment on line and said that it was sad because he spends a lot of time playing and getting hold of games. What you failed to pick up from his comment is that he is a very dedicated scientist who has an amazing academic record and turns his back on careers that pay well for science. When I was living with him he was getting scores above 90%, when he went to a post grad interview at a university that's ranked in the top 10 in the world he taught the interviewers some maths and got a unconditional offer straight away. What I am saying is that you couldn't have been more wrong in your assessment about him and you were so wrong because you based it on an online comment he posted. I am confident that you are very wrong about the other people you are judging on the internet based on a few comments you've seen them post. I don't think society is shallow and petty, I think you're looking at it in a very lazy judgemental way. I too spend time playing games, I sometimes waste whole days playing online games. I sometimes taunt people on these online games. I sometimes watch porn. When I was a kid I spent hours playing video games and board games. I'm starting my third degree, I got into UCL (currently ranked 7th in the world) for postgrad physics and engineering in medicine. I'm learning code in my spare time in-turn developing computer programs that scrape data off the internet (plan is to help map disease in third world countries in the future), I'm coming close to releasing my phone app that I have been developing. However, if you didn't know that about me and just looked at my facebook activity and played a few online games with me you'd think that my life was shallow petty and wasted. You cannot sum someone's life up by reading a few posts they write on the internet.

I'm not really sure where you're coming from here. As long as these people are not hurting anyone they're allowed to do that. Assuming that their choice is wrong means you have to define a purpose to life. This is why religion has tyrannical episodes because it makes up a purpose to life. Everyone is free to define their own purpose in life. If you are concerned about the future of science then you can pursue science yourself. I like the idea of helping people, making a change and I like science which is why I'm pursuing postgrad in physics and engineering in medicine but I do not have the right to force others down my path. You're also being a bit simplistic and one-dimensional. People can have freedom on the internet and still choose science. I know I do. People can also love playing games and do worthwhile things. You said that Prometheus's statement about him spending a lot of time playing games, talking about games and getting games was sad. I personally know Prometheus. I lived with the guy for a while. He values his secrecy so I won't disclose too much however, he has done multiple degrees, done three masters degrees has experienced a couple of world class universities that are in the top 10 in the world in math orientated subjects but has not chased a lucrative career, instead he is doing more science in the postgrad world. You may think my endorsement of this guy is a big laboured but I'm making a point that you're prejudging and simplifying things. If you stop judging people straight away you will see that society is not as bad or doomed as you think.

This is flat out wrong. I have shown you stats where between 22 and 39 they earn more when you exclude overtime. If you think this is different in the USA please provide stats that excude overtime and account for age. YOU are proposing the theory, YOU have the burden of proof. Your response to me saying that you provide no evidence is to waffle and provide no links or evidence...... good one. Luckily you're fighting for the female victimhood cult so no one will pick you up on this. Enough with the cheap dirty tricks. Stop trying to reverse the scientific method. YOU are proposing the theory that part of the gender pay gap is because of the organising of the patriarchy. YOU have to provide the evidence. If YOU provide no evidence then it is as good as a conspiracy theory. This is very basic concept or science.... how are you not getting it. Another cheap trick, pretend that you answered the question and refer back to the post..... If you really answered it copying and pasting would be an easy solution... sigh I'll go the extra mile and point out how you have done nothing. here is 105 So you have a question. Another cheap trick of trying to reverse the scientific method. Then just some vague statement with no evidence or links. Also how does the stat that women 22-39 earn more than men prove that women get rewarded for their youth??? If that was the case then women under 22 would be earning more. Also your vague statement (I'll be generous and call a model) doesn't acount for women earning more for 17 years. If they were getting punished for aging you would see a decline as the age increases. Instead you see a dramatic change from 39 onwards. This is just vague statements with no links, it's compariable to pub talk. Really not an answer to what I'm bringing up. This is post 115: Ok hate to break it to you but again this is just vague speculating with zero links. It's as good as pub talk. Just saying the US has cultural differences doesn't cut it. I have given you stats that show that when age is concerned women earn more than men per hour from the ages of 22-39 when overtime is excluded in the UK. If YOU want to propose the theory that the wage gap is consistent against women through all ages in the USA the YOU have to provide stats that show this is the case when taking into account age and excluding overtime. Basically you've done nothing but just spew your own opinions...... man this is easy. Guess what guys you're going to have to try some more cheap tricks, hide behind the downvoting and do anything possible not to take my points head on because guess what........ YOU CAN'T TOUCH THIS

There's a trade-off, whilst there is clear financial incentive it is an event. it's a break in the routine life, people get to talk about it with others. We are social animals, this is why festivals and events are so popular. Whilst making someone feel special all the time is nice it's not that easy. If you're doing it all the time then it's no longer special and there are a few people out there who would think it's too much. We have busy lives to small encouragements such as thanksgiving, Chirstmas, birthdays etc are a way of bumping us back into the giving and spoiling type. Don't get me wrong I've worked in A and E and seen the suicides at christmas (I don't celebrate christmas) and I don't celebrate my birthday either but in general if done sensibly these celebrations are beneficial to society. This is why all societies all over the world have celebrations at marked times of the year.

Completely agree had to vote up. You have to think why people are playing games. Partly to pass time, simulate, because it's fun and because they get to simulate doing stuff they'd never do in real life. I play starcraft and order units to kill other units without even thinking twice...... In real life I definitely wouldn't facilitate killing. Same goes with the way I talk online. A conversation online generally has less impact because you don't know the person and they have no ties to your social circle. You can even mute them and considering the previous points you will forget about them very quickly. The problem is that people take themselves too seriously on the internet. Whilst I don't shout abuse at people I sometimes taunt people when playing online games and I've lost count of how many people have taunted me. The bottom line is that they don't know anything about you. What I think is more interesting is the people who take it to heart. There is an increasing number of people who really freak out when someone has a difference of opinion to them or says that their efforts are not amazing. Colleges are partly to blame allowing the creation of "safe spaces", making up a line of facts which are usually victim orientated and attacking and demonising anyone who questions those facts. I am one small person in a vast world. I am not connected to you in any way apart from this dialog. If you don't like what I'm saying don't worry it will not affect your life in any way unless you choose for it to. Where the double standards really come out is when lefties call politicians and speakers who aren't left every name under the sun but then try and silence them when they say something they don't agree with. Thankfully in gaming freedom of speech is still going strong. Whilst some activists have tried to imposed their double standards onto this industry the gaming industry thankfully has remained market orientated which maintains freedom of choice and freedom of speech. Instead of buckling to tyranny they let their customers decide. If you want to engage in this horseplay you can do that. If you don't no one is forcing you to play. If there is enough people who want a heavily policed gaming platform then there would be a market for it and money to be made. More heavier policing would cost more. If you'd like to pay more for that then it would be your choice to seek out such a service as long as I don't have to be forced to pay more people because someone else is too delicate. It's up to the parents. Laws against the internet are hard to enforce and easily infringe on the freedom of speech. You seem to have an issue with western culture. That's up to you however, it's western culture that pushes forward human rights and democracy. Western culture has produced most of the modern innovations and leads the world in education and research. The poor in the west have much more freedom. Majority of art, literature and film comes out of the west. It's popular to hate the west like it's popular to hate the head boy a school. We can talk superficial statements till the cows come home but in reality the real deep-down reason is that they weren't picked to be head boy. In this day and age there isn't another culture that even comes close to rivaling western culture.

No one has produced USA stats that look at age and exclude overtime. I have shown that there is an inconsistent 17 year period in the UK that no one dares touch. If you want to push your conspiracy theory you have you have to show that the wage gap is consistent throughout the ages when over time is excluded. Right now you're sticking your head in the sand and saying look at all this other poor quality data that doesn't address the 17 year inconsistency that you have shown in the UK. Again YOU are proposing you know what's going on not me it is up to you to show this. Right now you've failed to do so, so your theory is more of a speculation with insufficient data. Looking at the bigger picture if you are unemployed for a period of time then you will not progress in your career at the same rate as others who do not take time out. If we look at the bigger picture we have to acknowledge a 17-year inconsistency when you exclude overtime and look at age. If you want YOUR model to explain why there is a pay gap you have to look at why at 39 there is a change which is over 100% of the pay gap. If YOU want to assert that the gender pay gap is consistent against women throughout age in the USA YOU have to provide stats that exclude overtime and look at hourly earnings throughout age. This is very directionless. No one is disputing the fact that there is a gender pay gap for SOME AGE GROUPS however, there is a small cult that seems to think they know the reasons why and the reason why is their conspiracy theory. I say we don't know enough, there is a lot of noise and their is an inconsistancy in the stats if you exclude overtime and look at it over age. If you want your conspiracy theory to fit you will have to explain how this conspiracy theory fits with the inconsistency in the stats. If you can't do that and want to retreat back to just the USA you have to show that the wage gap is consistent for all ages when overtime is excluded. If you think that consipracy theory is a little harsh look at the reasoning that's being accepted: With no evidence this screams consipracy theory. Also doens't even bother to explain how my points, links and claims support this. However, you and iNow haven't pulled this up. This did not recieve a vote down yet my posts have. Hence why I describe a cult mentality and this thread has been rife with doucle standards and cheap tricks. This is mainly iNow and ovetone, CharonY I appreciate the dialog with you. Thank you for not getting involved with the mob/cult mentality. Keep throwing your toys out the pram and down voting. You know you can't touch my points

You haven't even come close to it and you and your friends know it which is why they were trying to downplay it as a small irrlevent slice of data a few posts ago, 105 was a question and 115 was waffle without a single piece of evidence to back it up. Nice try but you're dirty tricks are not touching me. It's very likely. Coming from someone who went from medical back to study physics and now doing physics and eningeering in medicine postgrad the pace is a lot faster. With medical there is a ton of regulation, the change is a change in the biology memorised. In tech and engineering jobs new programming languages come out, other programming languages become obsolete. Take a couple of years out of a biotech company and you stuggle to get a company to take you on due to the competative nature. Nursing is famous for being easy in terms of part time and maternity leave. Still lets not turn the scientific method on it's head. I was speculating party doing your job. You claim you know the cause of the gender pay gap, tell me your model that explains why women earn more than men from 22-39 and how the discrimination kicks in after that. This is nice pub talk but do you have any evidence to back this up? This is compariable to a conspiracy theory. The fact that at age 39 women go from earning more than earning less (accounting for over 100% of the pay gap) means that there must be some serious restirctions on women which would be very easy for you to find. Without evidence your theory is nothing. Once again Overtone you've added nothing. iNow usually picks you up for slopply contributions but luckily for you you're supporting the female victimhood conspiracy so anything for the cause hey iNow? Are you even going to try and approach the facts I produce that smash you position into the ground or are you going to dance around and snipe hiding behind the downvote? In conclusion no one has even come close to producing evidence of this consipracy theory, produce good quality data or even attempt to exaplain inconsistencies when good quality data is produced, instead it's been ingored and downplayed. The proof is the fact that no one even dares to attempt to explain the facts I've been laying out here. overtone has waffled mildly about them but it's pub talk at best with illogical explainations and zero evidence. this is what's going on right now: Carry on voting down because that is all that you can do. This female victimhood cult has pushed good people away from the science forums.

stop trying to be dishonest. iNow, on 12 Feb 2016 - 03:17 AM, said: The wage gap persists and females are making less than males for no recognizable reason other than the ridiculous fact that they have a second X chromosome and some private lady bits instead of a Y chromosome and some external boy plumbing. Now I appreciate that my statements lock you down and you can't really respond to them. You try a few tricks, try and get me to prove why your theory is wrong as opposed to proving it yourself. Again I lock you down quickly. You then flat out lie and say that you're simply highlighting the gap. The second quote shows you're not. Last but not least you try and seek solace in voting me down even though I have been consistent and held your feet to the fire with facts as opposed to trying tricks. Keep it up. A hypothetical rating system doesn't disprove my facts and you know this. I haven't seen any good quality data excluding overtime in the USA. If you can find it will help you proving your theory that women are discriminated against. We know that men are twice as likely to do over time, relying on data that doesn't exclude overtime is just messy and disingenuous. Again I have to keep focusing on the scientific method here. I have not proposed that I know the forces behind these gaps. However, if we are to be consistent with the scientific method someone who does claim has to explain why they are earning more in their prime out of university and why it drops off at 39. I'll do a little bit of your job for you and chuck out a speculation but this is in no means an invite to force me to produce a theory and start defending it distracting from the fact that your are coming to the table with a theory. Women who recently graduate are less likely to be raising a child and can focus on work. The fact that there is a period where women earn more than men suggests that 100% of the pay gap later on could be down to external factors like raising children. You have to explain how women are discriminated from pay and promotions despite earning more for 17 years (I think people generally get promotions and pay rises when working for 17 years). You play down this section but women are earning more suggests that there are changes at 39 that accounts more than 100% of the gender pay gap later on. Nice spin but you but lets look at the other side people chose to ignore earlier on: Percentage of men employed with children: age 16-24 69.5% 25-34 88.6% 35-49 92.1% Percentage of women employed with children: age 16-24 35.8% 25-34 63.0% 35-49 75.0% Percentage of men employed without children: age 16-24 48.6% 25-34 83.6% 35-49 82.0% Percentage of women employed without children: age 16-24 51.1% 25-34 85.0% 35-49 79.7% Office of national statistics [page: 9] http://www.ons.gov.u...1776_328352.pdf When we look at the later years the difference between men and women going to work when children are involved is also in the double digits. Look there's a lot of noise and guess work here. Your model of sexual discrimination doesn't even come close to a conspiracy theory yet. If you take time out of a highly skilled trade you deskill quicker. Physics/tech and engineering jobs move a lot faster than caring professions and people who work in history departments or libraries etc. We are all agreeing that women take time out to raise kids. Instead of discrimination is it just that these jobs are fast paced? Again I'm going to introduce some more noise here. If we look at Europe poor countries like Lithuania have nearly 50/50 men and women in senior management jobs. When you look at wealthy stable countries like Germany and France women account for less than 10% of senior management jobs. Why is it that in richer countries were the households are more stable and have more expendable income women are less likely to be in a senior management role??? Do you think women's' choice might be a factor??? Show me some USA stats that takes overtime into account and age and I'll believe you that there's a consistent gap.

Again this is another example of a dirty trick. I have shown you that taking into account age and excluding over time shows different results. YOU are proposing the theory. If YOU want to prove that women in the USA are discriminated against then show me the stats that take into account age and exclude overtime that women are discriminated against. Again YOU are proving the theory. If you want it to be: it only makes YOUR job harder not mine. It baffles me as to why the scientific method gets turned on it's head when female victimhood gets chucked into the mix. This is what it's like at the moment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CL9lVE5MJ9A

Wow took a break and people took the chance to ignore the fact that women earn more than men per hour ages of 22 and 39 (excluding overtime). http://www.ons.gov.u...1778_385428.pdf [page12] If you're pushing forward the theory that women are discriminated against because of their sex in turn getting lower pay you have to explain why women get paid more when over time is excluded. I see that the dirty tricks have come out of the closet again, ignore stats that go against your theory in favour of stats with less controls and more noise and try and get people who are not proposing a theory to try and prove a negative.

Thanks for looking into this. It turns out I was installing it to pip as opposed to pip3. It now works

These reasons just strengthen my resolve that you need to do an undergrad. There is more to a phd than simply doing the math. You will have to communicate with others and work with others. You will also have to teach subjects to undergrads as a phd student. Doing undergrad will get you out of your comfort zone and make you a more rounded person. I think few people on this thread look back at their high school selves and think that he had it all figured out back. Also you cannot under estimate exams. Reading and thinking you understand something is very different to aactually passing exams on it. Again we have all known people who sat exams thinking they knew the material back to front only to fail. This is why we have them. Also I hate to break it to you but on a global scale you're not that special. If you're as smart as you think you are you will be able to go to Harvard, MIT, Oxford, Cambridge. There will be plenty of smart people there who will challenge you and teach you things. Again Imperial NHS has let me work with Oxbridge grads and UCL postgrad has also let me bump shoulders with very smart people. They all say the same thing, at high school they thought they were super smart but when they got to university they were fairly average. I used to think I was super smart but seriously, some exposure in a top university really put things into perspective for me. Also you're undergrad isn't wasted, if you breeze though it use your spare time to prep for post grad, start a buisness or invent something. Really smart people do this all the time in undergrad. update: some of my response parrots Arete's must have been writing at the same time.

I'd also look at this from a competition perspective. A phd is an academic job. They would compare your application against others. Whilst you claim to understand it other applicants will have actually passed exams on it and applied the knowledge to project work. The second one is a big thing. One it shows if you can think outside the box and manipulate the concepts so they can be practically applied, secondly it shows you understand the material and have a taste in what these projects are like giving you a further true understanding of if you actually want to do it. I've been at Imperial NHS trust for 5 years and will be starting postgrad in physics and engineering in medicine at UCL in sept and I have seen my fair share of people who have read stuff in their spare time, think they understand and have even less of a clue actually applying it. You will not be able to match up against a graduate who has this experience. This is why young people are accepted to university early if they are gifted but not accepted straight to a phd program from high school.

I've come a fair way in python 3. I am having trouble installing modules on my mac. Poured hours into it and it's still not working, documentation on the internet that I have managed to find is vague at best. I've used pip and typed: sudo install XlsxWriter into the command line and got the following: usage: install [-bCcpSsv] [-B suffix] [-f flags] [-g group] [-m mode] [-o owner] file1 file2 install [-bCcpSsv] [-B suffix] [-f flags] [-g group] [-m mode] [-o owner] file1 ... fileN directory install -d [-v] [-g group] [-m mode] [-o owner] directory ... Then back to another command prompt... is it ready to use? I'm finding installing modules extremely frustrating Update: I tried running a script and it said ImportError: No module named 'xlsxwriter'