<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_28_2227213</id>
	<title>Study Says US Needs Fewer Science Students</title>
	<author>samzenpus</author>
	<datestamp>1256731140000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>cremeglace writes <i>"It's an article of faith: the United States needs more <a href="http://blogs.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2009/10/study-argues-us.html">native-born students in science and other technical fields</a>. But a new paper by sociologists at the Urban Institute and Rutgers University contradicts the notion of a shrinking supply of native-born talent in the United States. In fact, the supply has actually remained steady over the past 30 years, the researchers conclude, while the highest-performing students in the pipeline are opting out of science and engineering in greater numbers than in the past, suggesting that the threat to American economic competitiveness comes not from inadequate science training in school and college but from a lack of incentives that would make science and technology careers attractive. Cranking out even more science graduates, according to the researchers, does not give corporations any incentive to boost wages for science/tech jobs, which would be one way to retain the highest-performing students."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>cremeglace writes " It 's an article of faith : the United States needs more native-born students in science and other technical fields .
But a new paper by sociologists at the Urban Institute and Rutgers University contradicts the notion of a shrinking supply of native-born talent in the United States .
In fact , the supply has actually remained steady over the past 30 years , the researchers conclude , while the highest-performing students in the pipeline are opting out of science and engineering in greater numbers than in the past , suggesting that the threat to American economic competitiveness comes not from inadequate science training in school and college but from a lack of incentives that would make science and technology careers attractive .
Cranking out even more science graduates , according to the researchers , does not give corporations any incentive to boost wages for science/tech jobs , which would be one way to retain the highest-performing students .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>cremeglace writes "It's an article of faith: the United States needs more native-born students in science and other technical fields.
But a new paper by sociologists at the Urban Institute and Rutgers University contradicts the notion of a shrinking supply of native-born talent in the United States.
In fact, the supply has actually remained steady over the past 30 years, the researchers conclude, while the highest-performing students in the pipeline are opting out of science and engineering in greater numbers than in the past, suggesting that the threat to American economic competitiveness comes not from inadequate science training in school and college but from a lack of incentives that would make science and technology careers attractive.
Cranking out even more science graduates, according to the researchers, does not give corporations any incentive to boost wages for science/tech jobs, which would be one way to retain the highest-performing students.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29915305</id>
	<title>Re:Over-simplify much?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256806800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>there's a minor misconception that's come up a few times in this thread, and people seem to be ignoring the one entry saying otherwise :</p><p>PhD grad students in science are<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/paid/  and have their tuitions covered.</p><p>Typically a PhD student in biology/chemistry/physics  in the US  can expect to receive $20 - $30 K per year as a stipend,  and someone else covers tuition.  This isn't great (it's half or less what many of us could make in an industry job)  but it's not the same as getting a loan.</p><p>the thing is - ok,  so you take an extra 5 or 6 years and live cheaply,  and then what?<br>well now if you do a post-doc you get a very mild salary hike and a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/decrease/ in benefits,  and you're no longer considered a student so you get no extra discounts, and you have to start paying your under-grad loans,  even  though you're highly trained (you have a PhD at this point) and you're still only making ~$30k or so.</p><p>then after you spend 4-10 years working 70+ hours/week as a post-doc,  living on a salary that compares with many unskilled and semiskilled laborers,  you can apply for professor jobs (which are pretty miserable until you get tenure, as described above), OR you can go into the science/engineering industries (which have a reputation for having better pay and more relaxed hours than the academic track)  OR you can still try to be a quant in the finance world (best ratio of $/hour).</p><p>so just the grad school portion isn't even that terrible,  as you're not increasing your debt.  what's scary is the prospect of earning less than an elementary school teacher through age 40,  in spite of all the training.  Particularly if you have an undergrad or grad degree in something employable,  like computer science or applied mathematics,   it occurs to you once a week or more that you could be earning 2x what you're making (or a lot more)  if you just did something a little different from pure research.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>there 's a minor misconception that 's come up a few times in this thread , and people seem to be ignoring the one entry saying otherwise : PhD grad students in science are /paid/ and have their tuitions covered.Typically a PhD student in biology/chemistry/physics in the US can expect to receive $ 20 - $ 30 K per year as a stipend , and someone else covers tuition .
This is n't great ( it 's half or less what many of us could make in an industry job ) but it 's not the same as getting a loan.the thing is - ok , so you take an extra 5 or 6 years and live cheaply , and then what ? well now if you do a post-doc you get a very mild salary hike and a /decrease/ in benefits , and you 're no longer considered a student so you get no extra discounts , and you have to start paying your under-grad loans , even though you 're highly trained ( you have a PhD at this point ) and you 're still only making ~ $ 30k or so.then after you spend 4-10 years working 70 + hours/week as a post-doc , living on a salary that compares with many unskilled and semiskilled laborers , you can apply for professor jobs ( which are pretty miserable until you get tenure , as described above ) , OR you can go into the science/engineering industries ( which have a reputation for having better pay and more relaxed hours than the academic track ) OR you can still try to be a quant in the finance world ( best ratio of $ /hour ) .so just the grad school portion is n't even that terrible , as you 're not increasing your debt .
what 's scary is the prospect of earning less than an elementary school teacher through age 40 , in spite of all the training .
Particularly if you have an undergrad or grad degree in something employable , like computer science or applied mathematics , it occurs to you once a week or more that you could be earning 2x what you 're making ( or a lot more ) if you just did something a little different from pure research .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>there's a minor misconception that's come up a few times in this thread, and people seem to be ignoring the one entry saying otherwise :PhD grad students in science are /paid/  and have their tuitions covered.Typically a PhD student in biology/chemistry/physics  in the US  can expect to receive $20 - $30 K per year as a stipend,  and someone else covers tuition.
This isn't great (it's half or less what many of us could make in an industry job)  but it's not the same as getting a loan.the thing is - ok,  so you take an extra 5 or 6 years and live cheaply,  and then what?well now if you do a post-doc you get a very mild salary hike and a /decrease/ in benefits,  and you're no longer considered a student so you get no extra discounts, and you have to start paying your under-grad loans,  even  though you're highly trained (you have a PhD at this point) and you're still only making ~$30k or so.then after you spend 4-10 years working 70+ hours/week as a post-doc,  living on a salary that compares with many unskilled and semiskilled laborers,  you can apply for professor jobs (which are pretty miserable until you get tenure, as described above), OR you can go into the science/engineering industries (which have a reputation for having better pay and more relaxed hours than the academic track)  OR you can still try to be a quant in the finance world (best ratio of $/hour).so just the grad school portion isn't even that terrible,  as you're not increasing your debt.
what's scary is the prospect of earning less than an elementary school teacher through age 40,  in spite of all the training.
Particularly if you have an undergrad or grad degree in something employable,  like computer science or applied mathematics,   it occurs to you once a week or more that you could be earning 2x what you're making (or a lot more)  if you just did something a little different from pure research.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904767</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29908551</id>
	<title>Dictating the ROI and market value of education?</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1256820960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>such people <em>should</em> probably be starting [...]</p></div><p>Why?</p><p>Why should education have a particular return on investment?</p><p>For education to have a particular return on investment, the market value of educated people has to be at a particular level.  What good comes from that market value being high?</p><p>I would <em>like</em> my education to have a high return on investment (oh well, it's free, I'm even making money and saving some, and it's been five+ fun years so far).  But I don't think that's a good argument.</p><p>So tell me again: why is it good if education has a high ROI?  Make sure that you're not arguing why it <em>has</em> a high ROI, or why education <em>is</em> good, but why it <em>should</em> be good.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>such people should probably be starting [ ... ] Why ? Why should education have a particular return on investment ? For education to have a particular return on investment , the market value of educated people has to be at a particular level .
What good comes from that market value being high ? I would like my education to have a high return on investment ( oh well , it 's free , I 'm even making money and saving some , and it 's been five + fun years so far ) .
But I do n't think that 's a good argument.So tell me again : why is it good if education has a high ROI ?
Make sure that you 're not arguing why it has a high ROI , or why education is good , but why it should be good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>such people should probably be starting [...]Why?Why should education have a particular return on investment?For education to have a particular return on investment, the market value of educated people has to be at a particular level.
What good comes from that market value being high?I would like my education to have a high return on investment (oh well, it's free, I'm even making money and saving some, and it's been five+ fun years so far).
But I don't think that's a good argument.So tell me again: why is it good if education has a high ROI?
Make sure that you're not arguing why it has a high ROI, or why education is good, but why it should be good.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904767</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905087</id>
	<title>Re:how many scientists are enough?</title>
	<author>Captain Vittles</author>
	<datestamp>1256738760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>On the other hand, the 'meaningless' work done by those 'mediocre' scientists could very well be setting the foundation for the next Einstein to do something truly marvelous.  Science is not a series of disconnected "Eureka!" moments; it's a steady accumulation of small but meaningful hypotheses that allow those superstars to formulate workable theories.<br>
<br>
And what about all those potential superstars being lost, because they can't get the work experience they need to develop their potential?  How many of those next Einsteins have gone off to work in something totally unrelated because of financial concerns?  Sometimes it takes a lifetime for someone to produce that truly meaningful work.  By narrowing our focus to people doing 'useful' work, we kill a lot of long-term potential that could arise from the research being done for the sake of research.</htmltext>
<tokenext>On the other hand , the 'meaningless ' work done by those 'mediocre ' scientists could very well be setting the foundation for the next Einstein to do something truly marvelous .
Science is not a series of disconnected " Eureka !
" moments ; it 's a steady accumulation of small but meaningful hypotheses that allow those superstars to formulate workable theories .
And what about all those potential superstars being lost , because they ca n't get the work experience they need to develop their potential ?
How many of those next Einsteins have gone off to work in something totally unrelated because of financial concerns ?
Sometimes it takes a lifetime for someone to produce that truly meaningful work .
By narrowing our focus to people doing 'useful ' work , we kill a lot of long-term potential that could arise from the research being done for the sake of research .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the other hand, the 'meaningless' work done by those 'mediocre' scientists could very well be setting the foundation for the next Einstein to do something truly marvelous.
Science is not a series of disconnected "Eureka!
" moments; it's a steady accumulation of small but meaningful hypotheses that allow those superstars to formulate workable theories.
And what about all those potential superstars being lost, because they can't get the work experience they need to develop their potential?
How many of those next Einsteins have gone off to work in something totally unrelated because of financial concerns?
Sometimes it takes a lifetime for someone to produce that truly meaningful work.
By narrowing our focus to people doing 'useful' work, we kill a lot of long-term potential that could arise from the research being done for the sake of research.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904821</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905709</id>
	<title>Should Slashdot have a "careers" section?</title>
	<author>walterbyrd</author>
	<datestamp>1256743380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am a bit surprised that there is not such section.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am a bit surprised that there is not such section .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am a bit surprised that there is not such section.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905617</id>
	<title>Re:As Rutherford said...</title>
	<author>benjamindees</author>
	<datestamp>1256742780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>banking and other world destruction careers</p></div><p>As far as I can tell, science and engineering are just as much "world destruction" careers as any other, insofar as they exist and work almost completely in support of the US military.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>banking and other world destruction careersAs far as I can tell , science and engineering are just as much " world destruction " careers as any other , insofar as they exist and work almost completely in support of the US military .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>banking and other world destruction careersAs far as I can tell, science and engineering are just as much "world destruction" careers as any other, insofar as they exist and work almost completely in support of the US military.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904553</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29906827</id>
	<title>30,000 genes in the human genome</title>
	<author>nbauman</author>
	<datestamp>1256753400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's each take one.</p><p>1 scientist per gene = 30,000 scientists right there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's each take one.1 scientist per gene = 30,000 scientists right there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's each take one.1 scientist per gene = 30,000 scientists right there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905369</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905013</id>
	<title>In physical sciences, PhD track = no tuition</title>
	<author>dlenmn</author>
	<datestamp>1256738040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you're doing a PhD in the physical sciences, then you're almost certainly not paying tuition directly (let alone a level of tuition proportional to your degree as you seem to claim). Otherwise, absolutely zero people would be doing it. MD, JD, and MBA programs can charge a lot because you'll make a lot of money once you've got the degree. The same cannot be said for a science PhD.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're doing a PhD in the physical sciences , then you 're almost certainly not paying tuition directly ( let alone a level of tuition proportional to your degree as you seem to claim ) .
Otherwise , absolutely zero people would be doing it .
MD , JD , and MBA programs can charge a lot because you 'll make a lot of money once you 've got the degree .
The same can not be said for a science PhD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're doing a PhD in the physical sciences, then you're almost certainly not paying tuition directly (let alone a level of tuition proportional to your degree as you seem to claim).
Otherwise, absolutely zero people would be doing it.
MD, JD, and MBA programs can charge a lot because you'll make a lot of money once you've got the degree.
The same cannot be said for a science PhD.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904619</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29906737</id>
	<title>Re:Very soon, most people not needed.</title>
	<author>Stiletto</author>
	<datestamp>1256752320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Too many people- no value to society- 1\% of people having stuff- 99\% of people not having stuff. Historically that doesn't go well.</i></p><p>Solved with easy access to distractions and cheap entertainment.</p><p>NASCAR on TV = No French Revolution</p><p>Our whole system is set up for the express purpose of helping the top 1\% take from the remaining 99\%. The system won't ever fail.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Too many people- no value to society- 1 \ % of people having stuff- 99 \ % of people not having stuff .
Historically that does n't go well.Solved with easy access to distractions and cheap entertainment.NASCAR on TV = No French RevolutionOur whole system is set up for the express purpose of helping the top 1 \ % take from the remaining 99 \ % .
The system wo n't ever fail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Too many people- no value to society- 1\% of people having stuff- 99\% of people not having stuff.
Historically that doesn't go well.Solved with easy access to distractions and cheap entertainment.NASCAR on TV = No French RevolutionOur whole system is set up for the express purpose of helping the top 1\% take from the remaining 99\%.
The system won't ever fail.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905863</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29913081</id>
	<title>Re:More articles like this please</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256841120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tenure was always tough.  My reason for not going further-the alternative was that even industry wanted 3-5 years of post-doc for a decent position.  You can call me doctor now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tenure was always tough .
My reason for not going further-the alternative was that even industry wanted 3-5 years of post-doc for a decent position .
You can call me doctor now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tenure was always tough.
My reason for not going further-the alternative was that even industry wanted 3-5 years of post-doc for a decent position.
You can call me doctor now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904731</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29912881</id>
	<title>Re:More articles like this please</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256840340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know there are good universities in Colorado, right?</p><p>I have no idea what you teach, but if you hate your job that much, you should consider switching to the University of Colorado at Boulder (you can teach anything here, especially if you're liberal) or (20 minutes down the road) the Colorado School of Mines (more of a strictly engineering school - no, not just Mining Engineering - with a slightly more conservative student base than Boulder).  You can teach, possibly have tenure, and still go skiing on the weekends in the winter at either school.</p><p>Or if you like, we also have coffee shops (locally-owned and Starbucks) all around Golden; if you're any good at coffee, I'm sure you can work there as well if you wish.</p><p>Disclaimer: I was born and live in Colorado, go to the Colorado School of Mines, ski and snowboard all winter (on certain weekends while in school, and tons over breaks), and sometimes see my professors on the slopes.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know there are good universities in Colorado , right ? I have no idea what you teach , but if you hate your job that much , you should consider switching to the University of Colorado at Boulder ( you can teach anything here , especially if you 're liberal ) or ( 20 minutes down the road ) the Colorado School of Mines ( more of a strictly engineering school - no , not just Mining Engineering - with a slightly more conservative student base than Boulder ) .
You can teach , possibly have tenure , and still go skiing on the weekends in the winter at either school.Or if you like , we also have coffee shops ( locally-owned and Starbucks ) all around Golden ; if you 're any good at coffee , I 'm sure you can work there as well if you wish.Disclaimer : I was born and live in Colorado , go to the Colorado School of Mines , ski and snowboard all winter ( on certain weekends while in school , and tons over breaks ) , and sometimes see my professors on the slopes .
: - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know there are good universities in Colorado, right?I have no idea what you teach, but if you hate your job that much, you should consider switching to the University of Colorado at Boulder (you can teach anything here, especially if you're liberal) or (20 minutes down the road) the Colorado School of Mines (more of a strictly engineering school - no, not just Mining Engineering - with a slightly more conservative student base than Boulder).
You can teach, possibly have tenure, and still go skiing on the weekends in the winter at either school.Or if you like, we also have coffee shops (locally-owned and Starbucks) all around Golden; if you're any good at coffee, I'm sure you can work there as well if you wish.Disclaimer: I was born and live in Colorado, go to the Colorado School of Mines, ski and snowboard all winter (on certain weekends while in school, and tons over breaks), and sometimes see my professors on the slopes.
:-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904731</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904725</id>
	<title>Stupd rationale</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256736480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Cranking out even more science graduates, according to the researchers, does not give corporations any incentive to boost wages for science/tech jobs, which would be one way to retain the highest-performing students.</p></div><p>Or they could pay solid wages to the highest-performing students, and lesser wages to the less performing students. You know, the way the market is supposed to work.<br>
<br>
Seriously, did they get grant money for this crap?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Cranking out even more science graduates , according to the researchers , does not give corporations any incentive to boost wages for science/tech jobs , which would be one way to retain the highest-performing students.Or they could pay solid wages to the highest-performing students , and lesser wages to the less performing students .
You know , the way the market is supposed to work .
Seriously , did they get grant money for this crap ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Cranking out even more science graduates, according to the researchers, does not give corporations any incentive to boost wages for science/tech jobs, which would be one way to retain the highest-performing students.Or they could pay solid wages to the highest-performing students, and lesser wages to the less performing students.
You know, the way the market is supposed to work.
Seriously, did they get grant money for this crap?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905369</id>
	<title>Re:how many scientists are enough?</title>
	<author>repapetilto</author>
	<datestamp>1256741100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Smoking cigarettes makes it less likely you will ever get parkinsons (<a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2225169/" title="nih.gov">source</a> [nih.gov]). Which chemical is it, nicotine, harmaline, what? At first noone knew... its probably nicotine. How is it doing this?  Theres a crapload of different versions of nicotinic receptors, is somehow interacting with a specific protein that makes up one of them (seems most likely) or even sticking to some other thing in your body and changing what that protein/whatever does (less likely)? Probably nicotinic receptors... which kind? Theyre made of combinations of 5 different proteins that arrange together to form the receptor, theres 17 proteins that could be part of these that could theoretically arrange in any combination you want...someone had to narrow down the possibililties. So ok theres only like 6 different combinations of these subunits we find in the parts of the brain that are supposedly involved in parkinsons (knowing which parts were involved was its own whole multimillion dollar expenditure) which one (or maybe more than one) of those is what nicotine is interacting with to make smokers less likely to develop Parkinson's? Probably ones containing a4B2  (alpha4 and beta2 are names for 2 of the 17 possible subunits). Whats special about those?  What type of neurons are they located on? Is nicotine doing this at the cell surface... or getting into the cell and doing something before these receptors even reach the surface? Is it increasing synthesis of these, or decreasing degradation? Where exactly is it sticking... how is the binding site shaped and what amino acids are involved... and what chemical and structural properties should a chemical have to make this anti-parkinsonian effect happen?</p><p>Once you know that, you can design a drug to fit, but then you also want to figure out how to make it also have chemical and structural properties that make it not altered to some nonfunctional form by your liver enzymes, pass the blood brain barrier, etc, that way people can just down a pill rather than get shots... or worse need to get the drug injected into their central nervous system in some way.</p><p>Its all very boring to anyone who doesnt like a good, complex mystery... but someone should be doing it because there are ways to figure out each step of the way (it might take a couple years and a bunch of money but its doable). And this isnt even my field.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Smoking cigarettes makes it less likely you will ever get parkinsons ( source [ nih.gov ] ) .
Which chemical is it , nicotine , harmaline , what ?
At first noone knew... its probably nicotine .
How is it doing this ?
Theres a crapload of different versions of nicotinic receptors , is somehow interacting with a specific protein that makes up one of them ( seems most likely ) or even sticking to some other thing in your body and changing what that protein/whatever does ( less likely ) ?
Probably nicotinic receptors... which kind ?
Theyre made of combinations of 5 different proteins that arrange together to form the receptor , theres 17 proteins that could be part of these that could theoretically arrange in any combination you want...someone had to narrow down the possibililties .
So ok theres only like 6 different combinations of these subunits we find in the parts of the brain that are supposedly involved in parkinsons ( knowing which parts were involved was its own whole multimillion dollar expenditure ) which one ( or maybe more than one ) of those is what nicotine is interacting with to make smokers less likely to develop Parkinson 's ?
Probably ones containing a4B2 ( alpha4 and beta2 are names for 2 of the 17 possible subunits ) .
Whats special about those ?
What type of neurons are they located on ?
Is nicotine doing this at the cell surface... or getting into the cell and doing something before these receptors even reach the surface ?
Is it increasing synthesis of these , or decreasing degradation ?
Where exactly is it sticking... how is the binding site shaped and what amino acids are involved... and what chemical and structural properties should a chemical have to make this anti-parkinsonian effect happen ? Once you know that , you can design a drug to fit , but then you also want to figure out how to make it also have chemical and structural properties that make it not altered to some nonfunctional form by your liver enzymes , pass the blood brain barrier , etc , that way people can just down a pill rather than get shots... or worse need to get the drug injected into their central nervous system in some way.Its all very boring to anyone who doesnt like a good , complex mystery... but someone should be doing it because there are ways to figure out each step of the way ( it might take a couple years and a bunch of money but its doable ) .
And this isnt even my field .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Smoking cigarettes makes it less likely you will ever get parkinsons (source [nih.gov]).
Which chemical is it, nicotine, harmaline, what?
At first noone knew... its probably nicotine.
How is it doing this?
Theres a crapload of different versions of nicotinic receptors, is somehow interacting with a specific protein that makes up one of them (seems most likely) or even sticking to some other thing in your body and changing what that protein/whatever does (less likely)?
Probably nicotinic receptors... which kind?
Theyre made of combinations of 5 different proteins that arrange together to form the receptor, theres 17 proteins that could be part of these that could theoretically arrange in any combination you want...someone had to narrow down the possibililties.
So ok theres only like 6 different combinations of these subunits we find in the parts of the brain that are supposedly involved in parkinsons (knowing which parts were involved was its own whole multimillion dollar expenditure) which one (or maybe more than one) of those is what nicotine is interacting with to make smokers less likely to develop Parkinson's?
Probably ones containing a4B2  (alpha4 and beta2 are names for 2 of the 17 possible subunits).
Whats special about those?
What type of neurons are they located on?
Is nicotine doing this at the cell surface... or getting into the cell and doing something before these receptors even reach the surface?
Is it increasing synthesis of these, or decreasing degradation?
Where exactly is it sticking... how is the binding site shaped and what amino acids are involved... and what chemical and structural properties should a chemical have to make this anti-parkinsonian effect happen?Once you know that, you can design a drug to fit, but then you also want to figure out how to make it also have chemical and structural properties that make it not altered to some nonfunctional form by your liver enzymes, pass the blood brain barrier, etc, that way people can just down a pill rather than get shots... or worse need to get the drug injected into their central nervous system in some way.Its all very boring to anyone who doesnt like a good, complex mystery... but someone should be doing it because there are ways to figure out each step of the way (it might take a couple years and a bunch of money but its doable).
And this isnt even my field.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905087</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29911423</id>
	<title>Re:More articles like this please</title>
	<author>jawahar</author>
	<datestamp>1256835300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://mjr.in/phpdug/stories/232/Kerry\_Condon.html" title="mjr.in" rel="nofollow">Credible People</a> [mjr.in]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Credible People [ mjr.in ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Credible People [mjr.in]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29906159</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29910817</id>
	<title>Re:Stupd rationale</title>
	<author>jthayden</author>
	<datestamp>1256833020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That would require the bosses to be able to accurately grade performance in a field they don't understand.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That would require the bosses to be able to accurately grade performance in a field they do n't understand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That would require the bosses to be able to accurately grade performance in a field they don't understand.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904725</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29907745</id>
	<title>Re:how many scientists are enough?</title>
	<author>f3r</author>
	<datestamp>1256809080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My god!!! Insightful....

Precisely that is the fallacy behind all the angle-saxon countries' error in scientific resource distribution: few scientists, many resources.
The result is astounding experiments, published in Nature, while european scientists (less money, more people) develop science on which to build upon. Science is developed best when there is a huge amount of scientists researching many different fronts, since you can never foresee from which line progress and insight will come. Einstein would have never done any shit without several experiments and scientists (michelson-morley, maxwell, riemann..............)</htmltext>
<tokenext>My god ! ! !
Insightful... . Precisely that is the fallacy behind all the angle-saxon countries ' error in scientific resource distribution : few scientists , many resources .
The result is astounding experiments , published in Nature , while european scientists ( less money , more people ) develop science on which to build upon .
Science is developed best when there is a huge amount of scientists researching many different fronts , since you can never foresee from which line progress and insight will come .
Einstein would have never done any shit without several experiments and scientists ( michelson-morley , maxwell , riemann.............. )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My god!!!
Insightful....

Precisely that is the fallacy behind all the angle-saxon countries' error in scientific resource distribution: few scientists, many resources.
The result is astounding experiments, published in Nature, while european scientists (less money, more people) develop science on which to build upon.
Science is developed best when there is a huge amount of scientists researching many different fronts, since you can never foresee from which line progress and insight will come.
Einstein would have never done any shit without several experiments and scientists (michelson-morley, maxwell, riemann..............)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904821</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905341</id>
	<title>Re:What about just doing what you love?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256740860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But what if science doesn't pay the bills?</p></div><p>Fake some results and apply for more grants.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But what if science does n't pay the bills ? Fake some results and apply for more grants .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But what if science doesn't pay the bills?Fake some results and apply for more grants.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904839</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905207</id>
	<title>Re:What about just doing what you love?</title>
	<author>magsol</author>
	<datestamp>1256739780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Who in their right mind chooses a job based on "loving" to do it?</i> <br> <br>

I'm currently finishing up an M.S. degree, and am applying both to jobs and PhD programs. I've worked up a $100,000 student debt over the last two years, but I was just extended a job offer (my first full-time job, ever) paying $80,000/year.<br> <br>

It's a job I know I'd enjoy. But you know what? I enjoy being in school <i>even more</i>, so I'm probably going to turn it down in favor of pursuing a PhD. Call me crazy, call me naive, but I'm doing what I love.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who in their right mind chooses a job based on " loving " to do it ?
I 'm currently finishing up an M.S .
degree , and am applying both to jobs and PhD programs .
I 've worked up a $ 100,000 student debt over the last two years , but I was just extended a job offer ( my first full-time job , ever ) paying $ 80,000/year .
It 's a job I know I 'd enjoy .
But you know what ?
I enjoy being in school even more , so I 'm probably going to turn it down in favor of pursuing a PhD .
Call me crazy , call me naive , but I 'm doing what I love .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who in their right mind chooses a job based on "loving" to do it?
I'm currently finishing up an M.S.
degree, and am applying both to jobs and PhD programs.
I've worked up a $100,000 student debt over the last two years, but I was just extended a job offer (my first full-time job, ever) paying $80,000/year.
It's a job I know I'd enjoy.
But you know what?
I enjoy being in school even more, so I'm probably going to turn it down in favor of pursuing a PhD.
Call me crazy, call me naive, but I'm doing what I love.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904759</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905287</id>
	<title>Re:What about just doing what you love?</title>
	<author>c6gunner</author>
	<datestamp>1256740440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Oh come on! Are you a product of parents of the 70s "free love" and "intellectual exploration" process? Who in their right mind chooses a job based on "loving" to do it?</p></div><p>Me?  I've always done work I enjoyed.  When I stopped enjoying one particular type of work, I just moved on to something else that seemed interesting.  Why would you want to be stuck with a job you hate?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh come on !
Are you a product of parents of the 70s " free love " and " intellectual exploration " process ?
Who in their right mind chooses a job based on " loving " to do it ? Me ?
I 've always done work I enjoyed .
When I stopped enjoying one particular type of work , I just moved on to something else that seemed interesting .
Why would you want to be stuck with a job you hate ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh come on!
Are you a product of parents of the 70s "free love" and "intellectual exploration" process?
Who in their right mind chooses a job based on "loving" to do it?Me?
I've always done work I enjoyed.
When I stopped enjoying one particular type of work, I just moved on to something else that seemed interesting.
Why would you want to be stuck with a job you hate?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904759</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904811</id>
	<title>Sabotage!</title>
	<author>JesseBHolmes</author>
	<datestamp>1256736900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is an attempt by sociologists to build up their status by sabotaging the real sciences.

Seriously, if a country doesn't value a sector monetarily, it will suffer. The United States has long underpaid its academics and is now reaping the rewards, or lack thereof.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is an attempt by sociologists to build up their status by sabotaging the real sciences .
Seriously , if a country does n't value a sector monetarily , it will suffer .
The United States has long underpaid its academics and is now reaping the rewards , or lack thereof .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is an attempt by sociologists to build up their status by sabotaging the real sciences.
Seriously, if a country doesn't value a sector monetarily, it will suffer.
The United States has long underpaid its academics and is now reaping the rewards, or lack thereof.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904509</id>
	<title>how many scientists are enough?</title>
	<author>line-bundle</author>
	<datestamp>1256735220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A prevailing assumption is that the number of scientists needed is proportional to the population. I think this is what has caused the glut of scientists (trust me I'm an ex-scientist and I know)</p><p>My guessis that the number required is of the order log(population), or even possibly a fixed constant after a certain population size.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A prevailing assumption is that the number of scientists needed is proportional to the population .
I think this is what has caused the glut of scientists ( trust me I 'm an ex-scientist and I know ) My guessis that the number required is of the order log ( population ) , or even possibly a fixed constant after a certain population size .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A prevailing assumption is that the number of scientists needed is proportional to the population.
I think this is what has caused the glut of scientists (trust me I'm an ex-scientist and I know)My guessis that the number required is of the order log(population), or even possibly a fixed constant after a certain population size.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905101</id>
	<title>Re:Stupd rationale</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256738880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Measure my performance. Go ahead and try it. I'm majoring in an engineering field, along with a second major in mathematics and a minor in computer science, and a GPA hovering in the 3.7 range. Am I a better worker than a student who takes one of my majors and nails down a 4.0 in it? How the hell should I know?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Measure my performance .
Go ahead and try it .
I 'm majoring in an engineering field , along with a second major in mathematics and a minor in computer science , and a GPA hovering in the 3.7 range .
Am I a better worker than a student who takes one of my majors and nails down a 4.0 in it ?
How the hell should I know ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Measure my performance.
Go ahead and try it.
I'm majoring in an engineering field, along with a second major in mathematics and a minor in computer science, and a GPA hovering in the 3.7 range.
Am I a better worker than a student who takes one of my majors and nails down a 4.0 in it?
How the hell should I know?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904725</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904849</id>
	<title>Covered Before</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256737140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Adjusted for IQ, quantitative skills, and working hours, jobs in science are the lowest paid in the United States.<a href="http://philip.greenspun.com/careers/women-in-science" title="greenspun.com">"</a> [greenspun.com]</p><p>I studied Math. Not the worst possible choice for an undergrad, really: the level of conceptual abstraction and logical rigor make it difficult, maybe even somewhat more so than some other technical fields, but in terms of sheer number of hours of coursework, it's considerably shorter than engineering, which allows a student to take a lot of other courses and still graduate in a reasonable amount of time. And it's a pretty good education, too.</p><p>I don't think I'd do it again.</p><p>It's exceptionally clear that not only does the marketplace value other skills (law, finance, business adminstration, plumbing) more highly, but that 90\% of the population doesn't even understand what it is you learned. I'd have been far better off to pick a Math minor for core skills and rigor and pair it with an Econ or Business Major. And let's not even go to the Electrical Engineering degree I originally considered. Unless you're doing it for sheer love, it's a waste of time.</p><p>That's the general prognosis. As a career choice, STEM fields offer mediocre to middlin' rewards. Particularly when you consider the alternatives.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Adjusted for IQ , quantitative skills , and working hours , jobs in science are the lowest paid in the United States .
" [ greenspun.com ] I studied Math .
Not the worst possible choice for an undergrad , really : the level of conceptual abstraction and logical rigor make it difficult , maybe even somewhat more so than some other technical fields , but in terms of sheer number of hours of coursework , it 's considerably shorter than engineering , which allows a student to take a lot of other courses and still graduate in a reasonable amount of time .
And it 's a pretty good education , too.I do n't think I 'd do it again.It 's exceptionally clear that not only does the marketplace value other skills ( law , finance , business adminstration , plumbing ) more highly , but that 90 \ % of the population does n't even understand what it is you learned .
I 'd have been far better off to pick a Math minor for core skills and rigor and pair it with an Econ or Business Major .
And let 's not even go to the Electrical Engineering degree I originally considered .
Unless you 're doing it for sheer love , it 's a waste of time.That 's the general prognosis .
As a career choice , STEM fields offer mediocre to middlin ' rewards .
Particularly when you consider the alternatives .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Adjusted for IQ, quantitative skills, and working hours, jobs in science are the lowest paid in the United States.
" [greenspun.com]I studied Math.
Not the worst possible choice for an undergrad, really: the level of conceptual abstraction and logical rigor make it difficult, maybe even somewhat more so than some other technical fields, but in terms of sheer number of hours of coursework, it's considerably shorter than engineering, which allows a student to take a lot of other courses and still graduate in a reasonable amount of time.
And it's a pretty good education, too.I don't think I'd do it again.It's exceptionally clear that not only does the marketplace value other skills (law, finance, business adminstration, plumbing) more highly, but that 90\% of the population doesn't even understand what it is you learned.
I'd have been far better off to pick a Math minor for core skills and rigor and pair it with an Econ or Business Major.
And let's not even go to the Electrical Engineering degree I originally considered.
Unless you're doing it for sheer love, it's a waste of time.That's the general prognosis.
As a career choice, STEM fields offer mediocre to middlin' rewards.
Particularly when you consider the alternatives.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29918383</id>
	<title>Vice Provost of Caltech on the Big Crunch</title>
	<author>Paul Fernhout</author>
	<datestamp>1256820000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The Big Crunch" by David Goodstein, Vice Provost, Caltech<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; <a href="http://www.its.caltech.edu/~dg/crunch\_art.html" title="caltech.edu">http://www.its.caltech.edu/~dg/crunch\_art.html</a> [caltech.edu]<br>"I would like to propose a different and more illuminating metaphor for American science education. It is more like a mining and sorting operation, designed to cast aside most of the mass of common human debris, but at the same time to discover and rescue diamonds in the rough, that are capable of being cleaned and cut and polished into glittering gems, just like us, the existing scientists. It takes only a little reflection to see how much more this model accounts for than the pipeline does. It accounts for exponential growth, since it takes scientists to identify prospective scientists. It accounts for the very real problem that women and minorities are woefully underrepresented among the scientists, because it is hard for us, white, male scientists to perceive that once they are cleaned and cut and polished, they will look like us. It accounts for the fact that science education is for the most part a dreary business, a burden to student and teacher alike at all levels of American education, until the magic moment when a teacher recognizes a potential peer, at which point it becomes exhilarating and successful. Above all, it resolves the paradox of Scientific Elites and Scientific Illiterates. It explains why we have the best scientists and the most poorly educated students in the world. It is because our entire system of education is designed to produce precisely that result."</p><p>See also:<br>"[p2p-research] College Daze links"<br><a href="http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch\_listcultures.org/2009-October/005379.html" title="listcultures.org">http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch\_listcultures.org/2009-October/005379.html</a> [listcultures.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The Big Crunch " by David Goodstein , Vice Provost , Caltech       http : //www.its.caltech.edu/ ~ dg/crunch \ _art.html [ caltech.edu ] " I would like to propose a different and more illuminating metaphor for American science education .
It is more like a mining and sorting operation , designed to cast aside most of the mass of common human debris , but at the same time to discover and rescue diamonds in the rough , that are capable of being cleaned and cut and polished into glittering gems , just like us , the existing scientists .
It takes only a little reflection to see how much more this model accounts for than the pipeline does .
It accounts for exponential growth , since it takes scientists to identify prospective scientists .
It accounts for the very real problem that women and minorities are woefully underrepresented among the scientists , because it is hard for us , white , male scientists to perceive that once they are cleaned and cut and polished , they will look like us .
It accounts for the fact that science education is for the most part a dreary business , a burden to student and teacher alike at all levels of American education , until the magic moment when a teacher recognizes a potential peer , at which point it becomes exhilarating and successful .
Above all , it resolves the paradox of Scientific Elites and Scientific Illiterates .
It explains why we have the best scientists and the most poorly educated students in the world .
It is because our entire system of education is designed to produce precisely that result .
" See also : " [ p2p-research ] College Daze links " http : //listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch \ _listcultures.org/2009-October/005379.html [ listcultures.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The Big Crunch" by David Goodstein, Vice Provost, Caltech
      http://www.its.caltech.edu/~dg/crunch\_art.html [caltech.edu]"I would like to propose a different and more illuminating metaphor for American science education.
It is more like a mining and sorting operation, designed to cast aside most of the mass of common human debris, but at the same time to discover and rescue diamonds in the rough, that are capable of being cleaned and cut and polished into glittering gems, just like us, the existing scientists.
It takes only a little reflection to see how much more this model accounts for than the pipeline does.
It accounts for exponential growth, since it takes scientists to identify prospective scientists.
It accounts for the very real problem that women and minorities are woefully underrepresented among the scientists, because it is hard for us, white, male scientists to perceive that once they are cleaned and cut and polished, they will look like us.
It accounts for the fact that science education is for the most part a dreary business, a burden to student and teacher alike at all levels of American education, until the magic moment when a teacher recognizes a potential peer, at which point it becomes exhilarating and successful.
Above all, it resolves the paradox of Scientific Elites and Scientific Illiterates.
It explains why we have the best scientists and the most poorly educated students in the world.
It is because our entire system of education is designed to produce precisely that result.
"See also:"[p2p-research] College Daze links"http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch\_listcultures.org/2009-October/005379.html [listcultures.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29906093</id>
	<title>Re:Brain Drain</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256746260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow, I don't know when and where you grew up what you're saying is out of whack... there's plenty of basic as well as applied research going on in Australia.  I really don't think there's a net brain drain - there are a lot of bright foreigners immigrating   (as well as plenty of Australians who move overseas and come back).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , I do n't know when and where you grew up what you 're saying is out of whack... there 's plenty of basic as well as applied research going on in Australia .
I really do n't think there 's a net brain drain - there are a lot of bright foreigners immigrating ( as well as plenty of Australians who move overseas and come back ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, I don't know when and where you grew up what you're saying is out of whack... there's plenty of basic as well as applied research going on in Australia.
I really don't think there's a net brain drain - there are a lot of bright foreigners immigrating   (as well as plenty of Australians who move overseas and come back).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904691</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29906023</id>
	<title>Re:Brain Drain</title>
	<author>Hacker\_PingWu</author>
	<datestamp>1256745840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, and it's relative to government investment in projects. Businesses and banks engaged in speculation only run the world when governments don't. Our greatest advancement in science and technology, in social welfare and public education, in manufacturing, have always been when the Federal government invests in it. You have a huge surge in industry and scientific and humanist advancement when a nation invests in infrastructure projects and regulation of charter banks and Wall Street, as in FDR's New Deal and decay when there is little to no invest and/or deregulation of speculative activity... which is mostly everything in the past 40ish years since the Nixon administration and the dissolution of the Bretton-Woods treaty.

By allocating large grants to public works projects (roads, public transit, utilities, etc.) and technological developement (like the space program) in the form of credit/grants is the best way to nurture science and technology development, which are needed in various forms for those projects. This fosters advancements in the machine-tool industry, or the technology and techniques to manufacture things, and helps support the current population and provide the means for the population to expand. When this isn't done... industry wanes away or is even eaten alive from the inside out by globalization, companies unwilling to pay high wages for skilled work, limited funds to new projects, etc.

And contributes to the mess the US in presently in.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , and it 's relative to government investment in projects .
Businesses and banks engaged in speculation only run the world when governments do n't .
Our greatest advancement in science and technology , in social welfare and public education , in manufacturing , have always been when the Federal government invests in it .
You have a huge surge in industry and scientific and humanist advancement when a nation invests in infrastructure projects and regulation of charter banks and Wall Street , as in FDR 's New Deal and decay when there is little to no invest and/or deregulation of speculative activity... which is mostly everything in the past 40ish years since the Nixon administration and the dissolution of the Bretton-Woods treaty .
By allocating large grants to public works projects ( roads , public transit , utilities , etc .
) and technological developement ( like the space program ) in the form of credit/grants is the best way to nurture science and technology development , which are needed in various forms for those projects .
This fosters advancements in the machine-tool industry , or the technology and techniques to manufacture things , and helps support the current population and provide the means for the population to expand .
When this is n't done... industry wanes away or is even eaten alive from the inside out by globalization , companies unwilling to pay high wages for skilled work , limited funds to new projects , etc .
And contributes to the mess the US in presently in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, and it's relative to government investment in projects.
Businesses and banks engaged in speculation only run the world when governments don't.
Our greatest advancement in science and technology, in social welfare and public education, in manufacturing, have always been when the Federal government invests in it.
You have a huge surge in industry and scientific and humanist advancement when a nation invests in infrastructure projects and regulation of charter banks and Wall Street, as in FDR's New Deal and decay when there is little to no invest and/or deregulation of speculative activity... which is mostly everything in the past 40ish years since the Nixon administration and the dissolution of the Bretton-Woods treaty.
By allocating large grants to public works projects (roads, public transit, utilities, etc.
) and technological developement (like the space program) in the form of credit/grants is the best way to nurture science and technology development, which are needed in various forms for those projects.
This fosters advancements in the machine-tool industry, or the technology and techniques to manufacture things, and helps support the current population and provide the means for the population to expand.
When this isn't done... industry wanes away or is even eaten alive from the inside out by globalization, companies unwilling to pay high wages for skilled work, limited funds to new projects, etc.
And contributes to the mess the US in presently in.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904691</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905791</id>
	<title>Re:What about just doing what you love?</title>
	<author>aztektum</author>
	<datestamp>1256744040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is we've been brainwashed by advertisements that we think we just have to have more junk than we will ever use. You don't NEED a lot to survive. There was even a poster on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. who said he made ~10,000/yr, worked 2hrs/wk and that supported his wife, 2 kids and himself and had his house paid off. They grow their food and have some animals like chickens I believe.</p><p>If we all just took a touch more responsibility for our own well being... It's not like you really NEED to work 40 hours a week, and in most cases people don't and the world gets by just fine (if you factor in the smoke/coffee/restroom/water cooler breaks, reading<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/., etc. it all adds up.) And what the fuck does all that hard work get you in the long run anyway? More money and likely your boss will give you MORE WORK, because you're so good at your job.</p><p>Look at all the fluff and shit science we read about on here, coming from "career" minded science folk. Work less and focus on quality over quantity and you'd have more time to focus on things you need to do to survive and not crap science because you simply need to "pay your bills". Our society is tailors us to work out ass of and hand over the reward to others for food/etc in order to "survive". It's bullshit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is we 've been brainwashed by advertisements that we think we just have to have more junk than we will ever use .
You do n't NEED a lot to survive .
There was even a poster on / .
who said he made ~ 10,000/yr , worked 2hrs/wk and that supported his wife , 2 kids and himself and had his house paid off .
They grow their food and have some animals like chickens I believe.If we all just took a touch more responsibility for our own well being... It 's not like you really NEED to work 40 hours a week , and in most cases people do n't and the world gets by just fine ( if you factor in the smoke/coffee/restroom/water cooler breaks , reading /. , etc .
it all adds up .
) And what the fuck does all that hard work get you in the long run anyway ?
More money and likely your boss will give you MORE WORK , because you 're so good at your job.Look at all the fluff and shit science we read about on here , coming from " career " minded science folk .
Work less and focus on quality over quantity and you 'd have more time to focus on things you need to do to survive and not crap science because you simply need to " pay your bills " .
Our society is tailors us to work out ass of and hand over the reward to others for food/etc in order to " survive " .
It 's bullshit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is we've been brainwashed by advertisements that we think we just have to have more junk than we will ever use.
You don't NEED a lot to survive.
There was even a poster on /.
who said he made ~10,000/yr, worked 2hrs/wk and that supported his wife, 2 kids and himself and had his house paid off.
They grow their food and have some animals like chickens I believe.If we all just took a touch more responsibility for our own well being... It's not like you really NEED to work 40 hours a week, and in most cases people don't and the world gets by just fine (if you factor in the smoke/coffee/restroom/water cooler breaks, reading /., etc.
it all adds up.
) And what the fuck does all that hard work get you in the long run anyway?
More money and likely your boss will give you MORE WORK, because you're so good at your job.Look at all the fluff and shit science we read about on here, coming from "career" minded science folk.
Work less and focus on quality over quantity and you'd have more time to focus on things you need to do to survive and not crap science because you simply need to "pay your bills".
Our society is tailors us to work out ass of and hand over the reward to others for food/etc in order to "survive".
It's bullshit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905029</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29911257</id>
	<title>Re:how many scientists are enough?</title>
	<author>Dragonslicer</author>
	<datestamp>1256834700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Science is not a series of disconnected "Eureka!" moments; it's a steady accumulation of small but meaningful hypotheses that allow those superstars to formulate workable theories.</p></div><p>"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' (I found it!) but 'That's funny<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...'" - Isaac Asimov</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Science is not a series of disconnected " Eureka !
" moments ; it 's a steady accumulation of small but meaningful hypotheses that allow those superstars to formulate workable theories .
" The most exciting phrase to hear in science , the one that heralds new discoveries , is not 'Eureka !
' ( I found it !
) but 'That 's funny ... ' " - Isaac Asimov</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Science is not a series of disconnected "Eureka!
" moments; it's a steady accumulation of small but meaningful hypotheses that allow those superstars to formulate workable theories.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!
' (I found it!
) but 'That's funny ...'" - Isaac Asimov
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905087</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29911165</id>
	<title>Re:More articles like this please</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256834340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The Federal Reserve does not print money. Maybe you were speaking metaphorically... The Federal  can change the size of the the money supply [wikipedia.org] by<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..."</p><p>Intellectual hogwash. The metaphor fits the description perfectly. It is not factually incorrect which you implied by your 'time to bring facts into this thread' preface.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The Federal Reserve does not print money .
Maybe you were speaking metaphorically... The Federal can change the size of the the money supply [ wikipedia.org ] by ... " Intellectual hogwash .
The metaphor fits the description perfectly .
It is not factually incorrect which you implied by your 'time to bring facts into this thread ' preface .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The Federal Reserve does not print money.
Maybe you were speaking metaphorically... The Federal  can change the size of the the money supply [wikipedia.org] by ..."Intellectual hogwash.
The metaphor fits the description perfectly.
It is not factually incorrect which you implied by your 'time to bring facts into this thread' preface.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29906647</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905451</id>
	<title>Re:how many scientists are enough?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256741640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; I would make the fairly obvious argument that the number of scientists is largely irrelevant compared to the amount of work they produce. A single Einstein is worth an infinite number of mediocre physicists who never end up producing any work in their careers. This is important, because (at least in my experience in academia), 95\% of academic scientists and maybe 80\% of engineers produce nothing useful in their lifetimes.</p><p>You would be very very wrong. Einstein did his work, because a lot of people before him, whose names you don't know, did theirs. Without their painful efforts, which you call 'nothing useful' because you never notice it, he would never have had the tools, understanding, and body of work to build on. This rockstar mentality is really silly; Einstein was good, but if he hadn't figured out the issues with the atom, relativity, etc; someone else would have in short order, the theory was already floating about (Lorenz transformations existed, others were working on the statistics required to settle the atom issue, etc).</p><p>Perhaps you should read what famous scientists have to say about this, and see what they think about all the work they do and how much credit they should get.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; I would make the fairly obvious argument that the number of scientists is largely irrelevant compared to the amount of work they produce .
A single Einstein is worth an infinite number of mediocre physicists who never end up producing any work in their careers .
This is important , because ( at least in my experience in academia ) , 95 \ % of academic scientists and maybe 80 \ % of engineers produce nothing useful in their lifetimes.You would be very very wrong .
Einstein did his work , because a lot of people before him , whose names you do n't know , did theirs .
Without their painful efforts , which you call 'nothing useful ' because you never notice it , he would never have had the tools , understanding , and body of work to build on .
This rockstar mentality is really silly ; Einstein was good , but if he had n't figured out the issues with the atom , relativity , etc ; someone else would have in short order , the theory was already floating about ( Lorenz transformations existed , others were working on the statistics required to settle the atom issue , etc ) .Perhaps you should read what famous scientists have to say about this , and see what they think about all the work they do and how much credit they should get .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; I would make the fairly obvious argument that the number of scientists is largely irrelevant compared to the amount of work they produce.
A single Einstein is worth an infinite number of mediocre physicists who never end up producing any work in their careers.
This is important, because (at least in my experience in academia), 95\% of academic scientists and maybe 80\% of engineers produce nothing useful in their lifetimes.You would be very very wrong.
Einstein did his work, because a lot of people before him, whose names you don't know, did theirs.
Without their painful efforts, which you call 'nothing useful' because you never notice it, he would never have had the tools, understanding, and body of work to build on.
This rockstar mentality is really silly; Einstein was good, but if he hadn't figured out the issues with the atom, relativity, etc; someone else would have in short order, the theory was already floating about (Lorenz transformations existed, others were working on the statistics required to settle the atom issue, etc).Perhaps you should read what famous scientists have to say about this, and see what they think about all the work they do and how much credit they should get.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904821</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29907697</id>
	<title>Re:More articles like this please</title>
	<author>CodeBuster</author>
	<datestamp>1256808300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The Federal Reserve does not print money.</p></div><p>If the Fed engages in "open market operations" and buys newly issued T-Bills directly from the US Treasury then it absolutely does create new money. The Fed buys the IOUs from the US Treasury, writes the balance into the accounts of the Federal Government (the Federal Reserve keeps the accounts of the United States Government) and <i> <b>poof</b> </i> new money is created (an increased account balance in an electronic database).</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Monetary policy is complicated, most people don't understand it, and impassioned hyperbolizing isn't helpful.</p></div><p>It is complicated because there is really no reliable way to centrally calculate or determine <i>exactly</i> how much money should be circulated so that all exchange needs can be meet without triggering inflation. The problem is analogous to the notoriously difficult task of creating and maintaining an artificial price system in centrally planned economies (i.e. Cuba and the former Soviet Union). Modern economies are so fiendishly complex that centrally determining the right prices or the right amount of money is a neigh impossible task. I don't claim to have the solution, but trusting the philosopher kings of the Federal Reserve to accurately guess the right amount of money to supply the economy has done little over the years to redeem the reputation of central bankers everywhere as bunglers. The most recent bust proves that yet again.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Federal Reserve does not print money.If the Fed engages in " open market operations " and buys newly issued T-Bills directly from the US Treasury then it absolutely does create new money .
The Fed buys the IOUs from the US Treasury , writes the balance into the accounts of the Federal Government ( the Federal Reserve keeps the accounts of the United States Government ) and poof new money is created ( an increased account balance in an electronic database ) .Monetary policy is complicated , most people do n't understand it , and impassioned hyperbolizing is n't helpful.It is complicated because there is really no reliable way to centrally calculate or determine exactly how much money should be circulated so that all exchange needs can be meet without triggering inflation .
The problem is analogous to the notoriously difficult task of creating and maintaining an artificial price system in centrally planned economies ( i.e .
Cuba and the former Soviet Union ) .
Modern economies are so fiendishly complex that centrally determining the right prices or the right amount of money is a neigh impossible task .
I do n't claim to have the solution , but trusting the philosopher kings of the Federal Reserve to accurately guess the right amount of money to supply the economy has done little over the years to redeem the reputation of central bankers everywhere as bunglers .
The most recent bust proves that yet again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Federal Reserve does not print money.If the Fed engages in "open market operations" and buys newly issued T-Bills directly from the US Treasury then it absolutely does create new money.
The Fed buys the IOUs from the US Treasury, writes the balance into the accounts of the Federal Government (the Federal Reserve keeps the accounts of the United States Government) and  poof  new money is created (an increased account balance in an electronic database).Monetary policy is complicated, most people don't understand it, and impassioned hyperbolizing isn't helpful.It is complicated because there is really no reliable way to centrally calculate or determine exactly how much money should be circulated so that all exchange needs can be meet without triggering inflation.
The problem is analogous to the notoriously difficult task of creating and maintaining an artificial price system in centrally planned economies (i.e.
Cuba and the former Soviet Union).
Modern economies are so fiendishly complex that centrally determining the right prices or the right amount of money is a neigh impossible task.
I don't claim to have the solution, but trusting the philosopher kings of the Federal Reserve to accurately guess the right amount of money to supply the economy has done little over the years to redeem the reputation of central bankers everywhere as bunglers.
The most recent bust proves that yet again.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29906647</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29907169</id>
	<title>Re:More articles like this please</title>
	<author>registrar</author>
	<datestamp>1256757780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Precisely --- Australian academic here.  The pay is good for anyone not trying to get rich, it's quite comfortable. Some of the conditions are great: good people, interesting material.</p><p>But the amount of work is absurd, and the risks you list are not worth the benefits.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Precisely --- Australian academic here .
The pay is good for anyone not trying to get rich , it 's quite comfortable .
Some of the conditions are great : good people , interesting material.But the amount of work is absurd , and the risks you list are not worth the benefits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Precisely --- Australian academic here.
The pay is good for anyone not trying to get rich, it's quite comfortable.
Some of the conditions are great: good people, interesting material.But the amount of work is absurd, and the risks you list are not worth the benefits.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904731</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904767</id>
	<title>Over-simplify much?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256736660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe money isn't the sole motivator. Did it ever occur to you that maybe there are students that really want to go into science, but because of the job prospects (or perceived lack thereof), don't think they can *afford* to go into science?</p><p>I mean, if you think you are going to give up 6 years of your life/potential income [well, you can still work while in school, perhaps, but probably not make as much income as you could if you were working full-time + overtime at a job for those years], and spend $60,000 (plus interest, so probably closer to $100,000), say, to get a Masters in Science, and then you think you will only make 40,000-60,000/yr, you might not think you can afford that. I have a cousin, only has a high school education, works for a road construction/repair company. On the one hand, he has to work a lot of overtime, but on the other hand, I think he's making in that same $40,000-60,000/yr range [maybe more]. He's been doing that basically since he graduated from high school, and never had to take out any student loans. So, the way I see it, someone in his position potentially comes up about $300,000 ahead (on graduation day) of the guy who went to school for 6 years and took out those loans.</p><p>That's the reality of education. In order to justify the expense, you need to make good money after graduation - such people should probably be starting at $70,000-$90,000 yr almost straight out of school, with raises every year which outpaces inflation, just to allow them to recover that "lost" $300,000 over the course of say the first 10 years of their employement, and then continue to make that kind of money after that so they come out *ahead* of the people who didn't go to school.</p><p>But, it sounds like, from the article, that's not happening, so while students might be attracted to science, they may just feel that they can't sacrifice their financial future in order to benefit corporations who aren't willing to give them reasonable compensation for their education.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe money is n't the sole motivator .
Did it ever occur to you that maybe there are students that really want to go into science , but because of the job prospects ( or perceived lack thereof ) , do n't think they can * afford * to go into science ? I mean , if you think you are going to give up 6 years of your life/potential income [ well , you can still work while in school , perhaps , but probably not make as much income as you could if you were working full-time + overtime at a job for those years ] , and spend $ 60,000 ( plus interest , so probably closer to $ 100,000 ) , say , to get a Masters in Science , and then you think you will only make 40,000-60,000/yr , you might not think you can afford that .
I have a cousin , only has a high school education , works for a road construction/repair company .
On the one hand , he has to work a lot of overtime , but on the other hand , I think he 's making in that same $ 40,000-60,000/yr range [ maybe more ] .
He 's been doing that basically since he graduated from high school , and never had to take out any student loans .
So , the way I see it , someone in his position potentially comes up about $ 300,000 ahead ( on graduation day ) of the guy who went to school for 6 years and took out those loans.That 's the reality of education .
In order to justify the expense , you need to make good money after graduation - such people should probably be starting at $ 70,000- $ 90,000 yr almost straight out of school , with raises every year which outpaces inflation , just to allow them to recover that " lost " $ 300,000 over the course of say the first 10 years of their employement , and then continue to make that kind of money after that so they come out * ahead * of the people who did n't go to school.But , it sounds like , from the article , that 's not happening , so while students might be attracted to science , they may just feel that they ca n't sacrifice their financial future in order to benefit corporations who are n't willing to give them reasonable compensation for their education .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe money isn't the sole motivator.
Did it ever occur to you that maybe there are students that really want to go into science, but because of the job prospects (or perceived lack thereof), don't think they can *afford* to go into science?I mean, if you think you are going to give up 6 years of your life/potential income [well, you can still work while in school, perhaps, but probably not make as much income as you could if you were working full-time + overtime at a job for those years], and spend $60,000 (plus interest, so probably closer to $100,000), say, to get a Masters in Science, and then you think you will only make 40,000-60,000/yr, you might not think you can afford that.
I have a cousin, only has a high school education, works for a road construction/repair company.
On the one hand, he has to work a lot of overtime, but on the other hand, I think he's making in that same $40,000-60,000/yr range [maybe more].
He's been doing that basically since he graduated from high school, and never had to take out any student loans.
So, the way I see it, someone in his position potentially comes up about $300,000 ahead (on graduation day) of the guy who went to school for 6 years and took out those loans.That's the reality of education.
In order to justify the expense, you need to make good money after graduation - such people should probably be starting at $70,000-$90,000 yr almost straight out of school, with raises every year which outpaces inflation, just to allow them to recover that "lost" $300,000 over the course of say the first 10 years of their employement, and then continue to make that kind of money after that so they come out *ahead* of the people who didn't go to school.But, it sounds like, from the article, that's not happening, so while students might be attracted to science, they may just feel that they can't sacrifice their financial future in order to benefit corporations who aren't willing to give them reasonable compensation for their education.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904617</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29917601</id>
	<title>Re:What about just doing what you love?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256815320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Get smaller bills...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Get smaller bills.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Get smaller bills...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904839</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29909107</id>
	<title>Re:Covered Before</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256825760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unless you have a PHD in math, you are worthless compared to an EE. Some applied mathematicians and individuals with computational mathematics backgrounds are good, but a lot of math majors (at undergrad level) can't program for shit, and have no real understanding of physics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless you have a PHD in math , you are worthless compared to an EE .
Some applied mathematicians and individuals with computational mathematics backgrounds are good , but a lot of math majors ( at undergrad level ) ca n't program for shit , and have no real understanding of physics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless you have a PHD in math, you are worthless compared to an EE.
Some applied mathematicians and individuals with computational mathematics backgrounds are good, but a lot of math majors (at undergrad level) can't program for shit, and have no real understanding of physics.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904849</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29910013</id>
	<title>no respect</title>
	<author>xycadium</author>
	<datestamp>1256830020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I believe that most engineers don't get the respect they deserve. It's always the stupid managers that don't know their had from their ass who get respect while the brilliant engineers who do all the innovative thinking don't get any respect at all. This lack of respect can often result in lower wages as well, not to mention a cubicle or tiny hole in the wall office with no windows. When you look at the engineer and business management positions from the outside, which route would you rather take? After all, why would you chose to work your ass off and keep yourself so well read and learned when you can be stupid and boss people around and get paid more?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe that most engineers do n't get the respect they deserve .
It 's always the stupid managers that do n't know their had from their ass who get respect while the brilliant engineers who do all the innovative thinking do n't get any respect at all .
This lack of respect can often result in lower wages as well , not to mention a cubicle or tiny hole in the wall office with no windows .
When you look at the engineer and business management positions from the outside , which route would you rather take ?
After all , why would you chose to work your ass off and keep yourself so well read and learned when you can be stupid and boss people around and get paid more ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe that most engineers don't get the respect they deserve.
It's always the stupid managers that don't know their had from their ass who get respect while the brilliant engineers who do all the innovative thinking don't get any respect at all.
This lack of respect can often result in lower wages as well, not to mention a cubicle or tiny hole in the wall office with no windows.
When you look at the engineer and business management positions from the outside, which route would you rather take?
After all, why would you chose to work your ass off and keep yourself so well read and learned when you can be stupid and boss people around and get paid more?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29908871</id>
	<title>Re:More articles like this please</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256824200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's time to bring some facts to this thread.  Monetary policy is complicated, most people don't understand it,</p></div><p>including you!</p><p><div class="quote"><p>For anyone whose interested, the <a href="http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/" title="npr.org" rel="nofollow">Planet Money blog and podcast</a> [npr.org] is a great place to start.  Their reporting and research is done by actual economists rather than ideologues and talking heads, and they explain <i>why</i> things are the way they are and how they got there.  Like I said, our current financial situation is kinda FUBAR, but approaching it with a level head and trying to understand what's really going on is better than getting angry and playing the blame game.</p></div><p>Planet Money started out good but they dumbed down their content too much. If you *really* want to know what's going on read <a href="http://www.zerohedge.com/" title="zerohedge.com" rel="nofollow">Zero Hedge</a> [zerohedge.com].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's time to bring some facts to this thread .
Monetary policy is complicated , most people do n't understand it,including you ! For anyone whose interested , the Planet Money blog and podcast [ npr.org ] is a great place to start .
Their reporting and research is done by actual economists rather than ideologues and talking heads , and they explain why things are the way they are and how they got there .
Like I said , our current financial situation is kinda FUBAR , but approaching it with a level head and trying to understand what 's really going on is better than getting angry and playing the blame game.Planet Money started out good but they dumbed down their content too much .
If you * really * want to know what 's going on read Zero Hedge [ zerohedge.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's time to bring some facts to this thread.
Monetary policy is complicated, most people don't understand it,including you!For anyone whose interested, the Planet Money blog and podcast [npr.org] is a great place to start.
Their reporting and research is done by actual economists rather than ideologues and talking heads, and they explain why things are the way they are and how they got there.
Like I said, our current financial situation is kinda FUBAR, but approaching it with a level head and trying to understand what's really going on is better than getting angry and playing the blame game.Planet Money started out good but they dumbed down their content too much.
If you *really* want to know what's going on read Zero Hedge [zerohedge.com].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29906647</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905609</id>
	<title>Thinking Wrong</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256742780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>     Science does not hold the same position in peoples' lives as it used to. We now seek more and more scientific answers to common issues. We need far more scientists than at any time in the past. There are now far more areas of science for them to investigate as well. WE also need to consider the size of our population. Since our population is now so large we should be supporting far more scientists than ever before, There is also the nasty little problem of keeping  up with foreign nations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Science does not hold the same position in peoples ' lives as it used to .
We now seek more and more scientific answers to common issues .
We need far more scientists than at any time in the past .
There are now far more areas of science for them to investigate as well .
WE also need to consider the size of our population .
Since our population is now so large we should be supporting far more scientists than ever before , There is also the nasty little problem of keeping up with foreign nations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>     Science does not hold the same position in peoples' lives as it used to.
We now seek more and more scientific answers to common issues.
We need far more scientists than at any time in the past.
There are now far more areas of science for them to investigate as well.
WE also need to consider the size of our population.
Since our population is now so large we should be supporting far more scientists than ever before, There is also the nasty little problem of keeping  up with foreign nations.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905303</id>
	<title>Re:What about just doing what you love?</title>
	<author>Mr Otobor</author>
	<datestamp>1256740500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uhm, not to intrude on your scree with something as trivial as real life, but lots and lots and lots of people care about making money and lots and lots of people have either undeveloped or multiple interests (or are otherwise undecided) --particularly in the age range of 16 to 26 when they will be getting the degree(s) thought of as required by many careers-- and might end up choosing amongst those possibilities and/or competing interests based on (at least partially based on) predicted future earnings.  What is wrong with that?</p><p>"Pursue your dreams, man!" is fine and all, but you're greatly oversimplifying if you think that a.)  money is not a part of dreams for lots of people, and b.)  comfort and ease (what most people translate future money into) aren't powerful motivators right alongside grand schemes and pursuits.  You're also assuming everyone has very powerful academic or career interests, when a lot of people really just want to get enough money so they can go hiking or play volleyball or take the motorcycle out on the weekend.</p><p>Takes all kinds...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uhm , not to intrude on your scree with something as trivial as real life , but lots and lots and lots of people care about making money and lots and lots of people have either undeveloped or multiple interests ( or are otherwise undecided ) --particularly in the age range of 16 to 26 when they will be getting the degree ( s ) thought of as required by many careers-- and might end up choosing amongst those possibilities and/or competing interests based on ( at least partially based on ) predicted future earnings .
What is wrong with that ?
" Pursue your dreams , man !
" is fine and all , but you 're greatly oversimplifying if you think that a .
) money is not a part of dreams for lots of people , and b .
) comfort and ease ( what most people translate future money into ) are n't powerful motivators right alongside grand schemes and pursuits .
You 're also assuming everyone has very powerful academic or career interests , when a lot of people really just want to get enough money so they can go hiking or play volleyball or take the motorcycle out on the weekend.Takes all kinds.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uhm, not to intrude on your scree with something as trivial as real life, but lots and lots and lots of people care about making money and lots and lots of people have either undeveloped or multiple interests (or are otherwise undecided) --particularly in the age range of 16 to 26 when they will be getting the degree(s) thought of as required by many careers-- and might end up choosing amongst those possibilities and/or competing interests based on (at least partially based on) predicted future earnings.
What is wrong with that?
"Pursue your dreams, man!
" is fine and all, but you're greatly oversimplifying if you think that a.
)  money is not a part of dreams for lots of people, and b.
)  comfort and ease (what most people translate future money into) aren't powerful motivators right alongside grand schemes and pursuits.
You're also assuming everyone has very powerful academic or career interests, when a lot of people really just want to get enough money so they can go hiking or play volleyball or take the motorcycle out on the weekend.Takes all kinds...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904517</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29910205</id>
	<title>Don't forget comparative advantage</title>
	<author>GlobalEcho</author>
	<datestamp>1256830800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd like to add one thing to the many great points above:</p><p>The United States has a higher-than-average GDP and wage structure.  If you assume that science skills and language/culture skills are evenly distributed, then you would expect to find science fields disproportionately populated by immigrants.</p><p>The reason for this is that scientific skill translate across the cultural barrier much more easily than other skills.  The theory of comparative advantage (the only important result in all of economics, some think), then points out that native citizens will tend to populate fields where their advantage over immigrants is largest.  That's law, business, etc., and not science and engineering.</p><p>Another way to say this is that, <i>even if Americans are better at science than the average immigrant</i>, the immigrants still enjoy a <i>comparative</i> advantage in science, due to the smaller absolute difference in scientific versus cultural skills.</p><p>One result of this is that wages in technical disciplines will tend to revert to the world average far more quickly than wages in nontechnical disciplines.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd like to add one thing to the many great points above : The United States has a higher-than-average GDP and wage structure .
If you assume that science skills and language/culture skills are evenly distributed , then you would expect to find science fields disproportionately populated by immigrants.The reason for this is that scientific skill translate across the cultural barrier much more easily than other skills .
The theory of comparative advantage ( the only important result in all of economics , some think ) , then points out that native citizens will tend to populate fields where their advantage over immigrants is largest .
That 's law , business , etc. , and not science and engineering.Another way to say this is that , even if Americans are better at science than the average immigrant , the immigrants still enjoy a comparative advantage in science , due to the smaller absolute difference in scientific versus cultural skills.One result of this is that wages in technical disciplines will tend to revert to the world average far more quickly than wages in nontechnical disciplines .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd like to add one thing to the many great points above:The United States has a higher-than-average GDP and wage structure.
If you assume that science skills and language/culture skills are evenly distributed, then you would expect to find science fields disproportionately populated by immigrants.The reason for this is that scientific skill translate across the cultural barrier much more easily than other skills.
The theory of comparative advantage (the only important result in all of economics, some think), then points out that native citizens will tend to populate fields where their advantage over immigrants is largest.
That's law, business, etc., and not science and engineering.Another way to say this is that, even if Americans are better at science than the average immigrant, the immigrants still enjoy a comparative advantage in science, due to the smaller absolute difference in scientific versus cultural skills.One result of this is that wages in technical disciplines will tend to revert to the world average far more quickly than wages in nontechnical disciplines.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29915163</id>
	<title>Re:Over-simplify much?</title>
	<author>jwhitener</author>
	<datestamp>1256849520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Maybe money isn't the sole motivator"</p><p>And then you go on to discuss money for the rest of your post.  Did I miss something?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Maybe money is n't the sole motivator " And then you go on to discuss money for the rest of your post .
Did I miss something ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Maybe money isn't the sole motivator"And then you go on to discuss money for the rest of your post.
Did I miss something?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904767</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905029</id>
	<title>Re:What about just doing what you love?</title>
	<author>DaveAtFraud</author>
	<datestamp>1256738220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The United States is a sort of free society and you are still (for at least the time being) free to choose to do what you love.  Just be ready to say, "Do you want fries with that?" if the market doesn't pay squat for doing what you love.</p><p>Cheers,<br>Dave</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The United States is a sort of free society and you are still ( for at least the time being ) free to choose to do what you love .
Just be ready to say , " Do you want fries with that ?
" if the market does n't pay squat for doing what you love.Cheers,Dave</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The United States is a sort of free society and you are still (for at least the time being) free to choose to do what you love.
Just be ready to say, "Do you want fries with that?
" if the market doesn't pay squat for doing what you love.Cheers,Dave</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904517</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29913629</id>
	<title>Re:Very soon, most people not needed.</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1256843400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That will be delayed somewhat by comparative advantage. Even if a robot can do everything (and I do mean everything) better than a human, it'll be better for the robots to work on high value work and leave the lower value work to humans. For example, if your robot could be designing a fusion power generator or mopping a floor, then why have it do the latter unless you have a few billion tons of bored robots with nothing better to do?</htmltext>
<tokenext>That will be delayed somewhat by comparative advantage .
Even if a robot can do everything ( and I do mean everything ) better than a human , it 'll be better for the robots to work on high value work and leave the lower value work to humans .
For example , if your robot could be designing a fusion power generator or mopping a floor , then why have it do the latter unless you have a few billion tons of bored robots with nothing better to do ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That will be delayed somewhat by comparative advantage.
Even if a robot can do everything (and I do mean everything) better than a human, it'll be better for the robots to work on high value work and leave the lower value work to humans.
For example, if your robot could be designing a fusion power generator or mopping a floor, then why have it do the latter unless you have a few billion tons of bored robots with nothing better to do?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905863</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905997</id>
	<title>Patents and Ownership</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256745540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ultimately, the root cause of STEM jobs not getting paid significantly or even evenly when compared to finance/management careers is because the corporations who employ the scientists also "own" the work produced by them.  Hell, the article on slashdot directly above this one talks about a patent "by" Amazon.  I assure you, none of the management/finance/legal personnel contributed to writing the code that allows that patent to even be a reality.</p><p>The scientist is simply working to make something, or make something better.  The managers/financiers are looking to "own" the thing the scientist made in order to make money for themselves.</p><p>But of course, it's the money that had been made on the backs of previous scientists that the newest scientist had the expensive equipment and research money in order to perform the task assigned.  But again, the majority of the returns from this money doesn't get back to the scientist who created the thing in the first place.  A greater portion of the returns goes to the people who ensured the fact that the scientist would receive a lesser share at the end of it all.</p><p>The vicious cycle of capitalism.</p><p>-PlaneShaper</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ultimately , the root cause of STEM jobs not getting paid significantly or even evenly when compared to finance/management careers is because the corporations who employ the scientists also " own " the work produced by them .
Hell , the article on slashdot directly above this one talks about a patent " by " Amazon .
I assure you , none of the management/finance/legal personnel contributed to writing the code that allows that patent to even be a reality.The scientist is simply working to make something , or make something better .
The managers/financiers are looking to " own " the thing the scientist made in order to make money for themselves.But of course , it 's the money that had been made on the backs of previous scientists that the newest scientist had the expensive equipment and research money in order to perform the task assigned .
But again , the majority of the returns from this money does n't get back to the scientist who created the thing in the first place .
A greater portion of the returns goes to the people who ensured the fact that the scientist would receive a lesser share at the end of it all.The vicious cycle of capitalism.-PlaneShaper</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ultimately, the root cause of STEM jobs not getting paid significantly or even evenly when compared to finance/management careers is because the corporations who employ the scientists also "own" the work produced by them.
Hell, the article on slashdot directly above this one talks about a patent "by" Amazon.
I assure you, none of the management/finance/legal personnel contributed to writing the code that allows that patent to even be a reality.The scientist is simply working to make something, or make something better.
The managers/financiers are looking to "own" the thing the scientist made in order to make money for themselves.But of course, it's the money that had been made on the backs of previous scientists that the newest scientist had the expensive equipment and research money in order to perform the task assigned.
But again, the majority of the returns from this money doesn't get back to the scientist who created the thing in the first place.
A greater portion of the returns goes to the people who ensured the fact that the scientist would receive a lesser share at the end of it all.The vicious cycle of capitalism.-PlaneShaper</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29928849</id>
	<title>Re:What about just doing what you love?</title>
	<author>magsol</author>
	<datestamp>1256896860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How is this trolling? It's an honest answer and rebuttal to someone who apparently doesn't believe that anyone these days enters into a profession because of enjoyment and passion, but rather for compensation and ease of living.<br> <br>

If this is trolling, then apparently I am alone in my belief that one should pursue a profession they love, and let the money follow suit, rather than the other way around.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How is this trolling ?
It 's an honest answer and rebuttal to someone who apparently does n't believe that anyone these days enters into a profession because of enjoyment and passion , but rather for compensation and ease of living .
If this is trolling , then apparently I am alone in my belief that one should pursue a profession they love , and let the money follow suit , rather than the other way around .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is this trolling?
It's an honest answer and rebuttal to someone who apparently doesn't believe that anyone these days enters into a profession because of enjoyment and passion, but rather for compensation and ease of living.
If this is trolling, then apparently I am alone in my belief that one should pursue a profession they love, and let the money follow suit, rather than the other way around.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905207</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905937</id>
	<title>Re:Stupd rationale</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256744940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You seem to be under the impression that high performing students are more effective at a job. I'm assuming that you mean "high performing" by those that have a high GPA. Having gone through 4 schools in 16 years in the US, both public and private, I'm sure that GPA does not equate to high performing students in the majority of cases.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You seem to be under the impression that high performing students are more effective at a job .
I 'm assuming that you mean " high performing " by those that have a high GPA .
Having gone through 4 schools in 16 years in the US , both public and private , I 'm sure that GPA does not equate to high performing students in the majority of cases .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You seem to be under the impression that high performing students are more effective at a job.
I'm assuming that you mean "high performing" by those that have a high GPA.
Having gone through 4 schools in 16 years in the US, both public and private, I'm sure that GPA does not equate to high performing students in the majority of cases.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904725</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29908345</id>
	<title>Re:What about just doing what you love?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256818500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't want to have a big house or a big car. However, I do want to be able to afford \_an\_ apartment and \_a\_ car without going in to debt. Enough money to have a budget holiday few times a year is also nice. This was the reason why I declined a  PhD position in one of the most prestigious universities there is, and choosed a mundane R&amp;D physicist position in the industry. I have also been offered almost twice my current salary in a sales position, but declined that since the extra money didn't seem worth the mental agony.</p><p>All in all, it is not important to have huge amounts of money, but enough to live comfortably. In the academic career there is hardly any money at all nowadays.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't want to have a big house or a big car .
However , I do want to be able to afford \ _an \ _ apartment and \ _a \ _ car without going in to debt .
Enough money to have a budget holiday few times a year is also nice .
This was the reason why I declined a PhD position in one of the most prestigious universities there is , and choosed a mundane R&amp;D physicist position in the industry .
I have also been offered almost twice my current salary in a sales position , but declined that since the extra money did n't seem worth the mental agony.All in all , it is not important to have huge amounts of money , but enough to live comfortably .
In the academic career there is hardly any money at all nowadays .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't want to have a big house or a big car.
However, I do want to be able to afford \_an\_ apartment and \_a\_ car without going in to debt.
Enough money to have a budget holiday few times a year is also nice.
This was the reason why I declined a  PhD position in one of the most prestigious universities there is, and choosed a mundane R&amp;D physicist position in the industry.
I have also been offered almost twice my current salary in a sales position, but declined that since the extra money didn't seem worth the mental agony.All in all, it is not important to have huge amounts of money, but enough to live comfortably.
In the academic career there is hardly any money at all nowadays.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905027</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29908519</id>
	<title>Re:Brain Drain</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256820480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Weren't most of the USA's scientists working on the big name projects of the last 50 years foreign born anyway?</p></div><p>Perhaps, but they weren't from Australia.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Were n't most of the USA 's scientists working on the big name projects of the last 50 years foreign born anyway ? Perhaps , but they were n't from Australia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Weren't most of the USA's scientists working on the big name projects of the last 50 years foreign born anyway?Perhaps, but they weren't from Australia.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904691</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29915509</id>
	<title>Re:Very soon, most people not needed.</title>
	<author>TheSync</author>
	<datestamp>1256807520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Once we get decent robots (and they can now pick loose nuts out of a bin), 99\% of jobs (even low skill ones) go away.</i></p><p>Indeed, this is why (until last year), US manufacturing output has been continuously expanding, while US manufacturing employment has been dropping.  Machinery has increased the productivity of US manufacturing workers so much, we can produce more goods with less people.</p><p>All you have to do is watch "How It's Made" and count the number of machines versus people.  Not very many people, except for when custom artistry is required.</p><p>The most "offshored" work is that which requires hand operation, such as sewing.  But increasingly even those manual operations will become automated.  <a href="http://www.auburn.edu/~thomph1/ft\%20payne.htm" title="auburn.edu">Sock toe sewing</a> [auburn.edu] is a prime example, the US lost much of its sock industry overseas, now with automated sock toe sewing machines, it is returning, but not hiring many people as they are not required.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Once we get decent robots ( and they can now pick loose nuts out of a bin ) , 99 \ % of jobs ( even low skill ones ) go away.Indeed , this is why ( until last year ) , US manufacturing output has been continuously expanding , while US manufacturing employment has been dropping .
Machinery has increased the productivity of US manufacturing workers so much , we can produce more goods with less people.All you have to do is watch " How It 's Made " and count the number of machines versus people .
Not very many people , except for when custom artistry is required.The most " offshored " work is that which requires hand operation , such as sewing .
But increasingly even those manual operations will become automated .
Sock toe sewing [ auburn.edu ] is a prime example , the US lost much of its sock industry overseas , now with automated sock toe sewing machines , it is returning , but not hiring many people as they are not required .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once we get decent robots (and they can now pick loose nuts out of a bin), 99\% of jobs (even low skill ones) go away.Indeed, this is why (until last year), US manufacturing output has been continuously expanding, while US manufacturing employment has been dropping.
Machinery has increased the productivity of US manufacturing workers so much, we can produce more goods with less people.All you have to do is watch "How It's Made" and count the number of machines versus people.
Not very many people, except for when custom artistry is required.The most "offshored" work is that which requires hand operation, such as sewing.
But increasingly even those manual operations will become automated.
Sock toe sewing [auburn.edu] is a prime example, the US lost much of its sock industry overseas, now with automated sock toe sewing machines, it is returning, but not hiring many people as they are not required.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905863</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29908163</id>
	<title>Let's get real...</title>
	<author>Genda</author>
	<datestamp>1256815920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Over the last two years, the only jobs whose salary haven't been seriously eroded are members of the board of directors of large corporations, and government officials. Everybody else is either losing their job, afraid of losing their job, or is being faced with all kinds of ridiculous contortion to hold on to what little they've still got. Our current system seems to see the middle class as pointless and irrelevant, and is committedly working to make it vanish.</p><p>Scientist are simply one more group being loaded into the breach. There're tremendously too few young people becoming scientists, to face the challenges besetting mankind today. The fact that our society would rather devote billions upon endless billions on the most shallow and ridiculous of human endeavors, and then fail to make even the most mediocre contributions to solving the problems of our day suggests that our society's priorities and focus, and very much in the wrong place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Over the last two years , the only jobs whose salary have n't been seriously eroded are members of the board of directors of large corporations , and government officials .
Everybody else is either losing their job , afraid of losing their job , or is being faced with all kinds of ridiculous contortion to hold on to what little they 've still got .
Our current system seems to see the middle class as pointless and irrelevant , and is committedly working to make it vanish.Scientist are simply one more group being loaded into the breach .
There 're tremendously too few young people becoming scientists , to face the challenges besetting mankind today .
The fact that our society would rather devote billions upon endless billions on the most shallow and ridiculous of human endeavors , and then fail to make even the most mediocre contributions to solving the problems of our day suggests that our society 's priorities and focus , and very much in the wrong place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Over the last two years, the only jobs whose salary haven't been seriously eroded are members of the board of directors of large corporations, and government officials.
Everybody else is either losing their job, afraid of losing their job, or is being faced with all kinds of ridiculous contortion to hold on to what little they've still got.
Our current system seems to see the middle class as pointless and irrelevant, and is committedly working to make it vanish.Scientist are simply one more group being loaded into the breach.
There're tremendously too few young people becoming scientists, to face the challenges besetting mankind today.
The fact that our society would rather devote billions upon endless billions on the most shallow and ridiculous of human endeavors, and then fail to make even the most mediocre contributions to solving the problems of our day suggests that our society's priorities and focus, and very much in the wrong place.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29915049</id>
	<title>Re:how many scientists are enough?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256849040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And when someone does solve that mystery and cure Parkinson's disease, the company will get bought out by Pfizer, chopped up, and the group that discovered it will get laid off while the executives make millions, then the VCs from Goldman's will also make tens of millions and be sipping mai tai's while the people who cured Parkinson's are preparing their resume.</p><p>Maybe that's why there's a shortage of scientists.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And when someone does solve that mystery and cure Parkinson 's disease , the company will get bought out by Pfizer , chopped up , and the group that discovered it will get laid off while the executives make millions , then the VCs from Goldman 's will also make tens of millions and be sipping mai tai 's while the people who cured Parkinson 's are preparing their resume.Maybe that 's why there 's a shortage of scientists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And when someone does solve that mystery and cure Parkinson's disease, the company will get bought out by Pfizer, chopped up, and the group that discovered it will get laid off while the executives make millions, then the VCs from Goldman's will also make tens of millions and be sipping mai tai's while the people who cured Parkinson's are preparing their resume.Maybe that's why there's a shortage of scientists.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905369</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905163</id>
	<title>Re:how many scientists are enough?</title>
	<author>infaustus</author>
	<datestamp>1256739360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are many small, unglamorous problems in science whose solutions are nonetheless important.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are many small , unglamorous problems in science whose solutions are nonetheless important .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are many small, unglamorous problems in science whose solutions are nonetheless important.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904821</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904647</id>
	<title>Faulty Logic</title>
	<author>n8r0n</author>
	<datestamp>1256736000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, by this rationale, in order to get more top talent in science, we need to let more talent choose other fields, leaving a scarcity of science grads, which will drive up salaries, and lead more top talent back into science?  That's kind of like the argument that cold water boils faster than hot water.  Of course, lots of people think that's true, too.</p><p>Along the same lines, I'd like to hear the author's explanation of why employees in finance continue to get paid more and more, even as more talent floods into that profession.  </p><p>Not every price is set solely by supply and demand.  In this case, I think culture has a lot to do with it, as do negotiating skills (which geeks don't generally have in abundance).  Science and math types are still considered dorks, and the leeches who work on Wall St. or Madison Ave are the cool kids.  Fewer science students isn't going to change that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , by this rationale , in order to get more top talent in science , we need to let more talent choose other fields , leaving a scarcity of science grads , which will drive up salaries , and lead more top talent back into science ?
That 's kind of like the argument that cold water boils faster than hot water .
Of course , lots of people think that 's true , too.Along the same lines , I 'd like to hear the author 's explanation of why employees in finance continue to get paid more and more , even as more talent floods into that profession .
Not every price is set solely by supply and demand .
In this case , I think culture has a lot to do with it , as do negotiating skills ( which geeks do n't generally have in abundance ) .
Science and math types are still considered dorks , and the leeches who work on Wall St. or Madison Ave are the cool kids .
Fewer science students is n't going to change that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, by this rationale, in order to get more top talent in science, we need to let more talent choose other fields, leaving a scarcity of science grads, which will drive up salaries, and lead more top talent back into science?
That's kind of like the argument that cold water boils faster than hot water.
Of course, lots of people think that's true, too.Along the same lines, I'd like to hear the author's explanation of why employees in finance continue to get paid more and more, even as more talent floods into that profession.
Not every price is set solely by supply and demand.
In this case, I think culture has a lot to do with it, as do negotiating skills (which geeks don't generally have in abundance).
Science and math types are still considered dorks, and the leeches who work on Wall St. or Madison Ave are the cool kids.
Fewer science students isn't going to change that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29906029</id>
	<title>About the complaint for CEO with high pay check</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256745900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you own stocks or mutual funds and you never voted, you are part of the problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you own stocks or mutual funds and you never voted , you are part of the problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you own stocks or mutual funds and you never voted, you are part of the problem.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29908423</id>
	<title>Re:Covered Before</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256819580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And let's not even go to the Electrical Engineering degree I originally considered. Unless you're doing it for sheer love, it's a waste of time.</p></div><p>WTF are you talking about? I make $180K designing hardware as an EE, and I'm on track to retire at age 50. I know plenty of others doing as well. Most places I know are hurting for good hardware designers because all the last generation went into CS. I'm working an R&amp;D project  now to replace computing clusters with FPGA grids.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And let 's not even go to the Electrical Engineering degree I originally considered .
Unless you 're doing it for sheer love , it 's a waste of time.WTF are you talking about ?
I make $ 180K designing hardware as an EE , and I 'm on track to retire at age 50 .
I know plenty of others doing as well .
Most places I know are hurting for good hardware designers because all the last generation went into CS .
I 'm working an R&amp;D project now to replace computing clusters with FPGA grids .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And let's not even go to the Electrical Engineering degree I originally considered.
Unless you're doing it for sheer love, it's a waste of time.WTF are you talking about?
I make $180K designing hardware as an EE, and I'm on track to retire at age 50.
I know plenty of others doing as well.
Most places I know are hurting for good hardware designers because all the last generation went into CS.
I'm working an R&amp;D project  now to replace computing clusters with FPGA grids.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904849</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29906177</id>
	<title>Re:What about just doing what you love?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256747040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The American Dental Association has it right and very tightly controls the number of dental students schools can accept in order to keep demand for dentists high and salaries in the very comfortable range.</p></div><p>Do you see anything wrong with this picture?  Something akin to throwing milk down the drain and destroying crops to raise prices, while people who would have otherwise been able to pay for them starve, like we did during the Great Depression (and still do)?</p><p>I understand that within our economic system, wasting talent and creating artificial scarcity makes perfect sense, but that doesn't change the fact that we're depriving ourselves.  Having less dentists does not further the goal of fixing teeth, nor does having less scientists and engineers further the goals of understanding the world and engineering solutions to its problems, any more than destroying food feeds people.  Instead of playing these games with supply and demand, maybe we should try to figure out a way to keep ourselves from having to do so.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The American Dental Association has it right and very tightly controls the number of dental students schools can accept in order to keep demand for dentists high and salaries in the very comfortable range.Do you see anything wrong with this picture ?
Something akin to throwing milk down the drain and destroying crops to raise prices , while people who would have otherwise been able to pay for them starve , like we did during the Great Depression ( and still do ) ? I understand that within our economic system , wasting talent and creating artificial scarcity makes perfect sense , but that does n't change the fact that we 're depriving ourselves .
Having less dentists does not further the goal of fixing teeth , nor does having less scientists and engineers further the goals of understanding the world and engineering solutions to its problems , any more than destroying food feeds people .
Instead of playing these games with supply and demand , maybe we should try to figure out a way to keep ourselves from having to do so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The American Dental Association has it right and very tightly controls the number of dental students schools can accept in order to keep demand for dentists high and salaries in the very comfortable range.Do you see anything wrong with this picture?
Something akin to throwing milk down the drain and destroying crops to raise prices, while people who would have otherwise been able to pay for them starve, like we did during the Great Depression (and still do)?I understand that within our economic system, wasting talent and creating artificial scarcity makes perfect sense, but that doesn't change the fact that we're depriving ourselves.
Having less dentists does not further the goal of fixing teeth, nor does having less scientists and engineers further the goals of understanding the world and engineering solutions to its problems, any more than destroying food feeds people.
Instead of playing these games with supply and demand, maybe we should try to figure out a way to keep ourselves from having to do so.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904759</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904735</id>
	<title>Re:Money on both sides of the equation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256736480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>yup and careers in science are the only ways they can do that... right</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>yup and careers in science are the only ways they can do that... right</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yup and careers in science are the only ways they can do that... right</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904619</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905771</id>
	<title>Re:Faulty Logic</title>
	<author>tsotha</author>
	<datestamp>1256743920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Along the same lines, I'd like to hear the author's explanation of why employees in finance continue to get paid more and more, even as more talent floods into that profession.</p></div></blockquote><p>This is OBE.  There are a lot of finance guy looking for a job.  Graduates in investment banking today have almost no hope of employment unless they graduated from the very top universities.  Having said that, let me say the very top guys in finance are probably worth the money to their employers.  It's far more competitive than science - how good you are in an absolute sense is irrelevant.  What matters is how good you are in relation to everyone else, and an almost-imperceptible difference in competence can mean the difference between making or losing a billion dollars.  It's not much different than prize fighters - all the guys at the top are pretty close in raw ability, but the one who's actually the best pulls down multiples of the #2 guy's earnings.
</p><p>For scientists an almost imperceptible difference in competence is, well, almost imperceptible.  You can't demand a huge salary as a new physics grad because there are hundreds more who could probably do the job as well as you.  How many Einsteins are out there, really?  One every couple hundred years?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Along the same lines , I 'd like to hear the author 's explanation of why employees in finance continue to get paid more and more , even as more talent floods into that profession.This is OBE .
There are a lot of finance guy looking for a job .
Graduates in investment banking today have almost no hope of employment unless they graduated from the very top universities .
Having said that , let me say the very top guys in finance are probably worth the money to their employers .
It 's far more competitive than science - how good you are in an absolute sense is irrelevant .
What matters is how good you are in relation to everyone else , and an almost-imperceptible difference in competence can mean the difference between making or losing a billion dollars .
It 's not much different than prize fighters - all the guys at the top are pretty close in raw ability , but the one who 's actually the best pulls down multiples of the # 2 guy 's earnings .
For scientists an almost imperceptible difference in competence is , well , almost imperceptible .
You ca n't demand a huge salary as a new physics grad because there are hundreds more who could probably do the job as well as you .
How many Einsteins are out there , really ?
One every couple hundred years ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Along the same lines, I'd like to hear the author's explanation of why employees in finance continue to get paid more and more, even as more talent floods into that profession.This is OBE.
There are a lot of finance guy looking for a job.
Graduates in investment banking today have almost no hope of employment unless they graduated from the very top universities.
Having said that, let me say the very top guys in finance are probably worth the money to their employers.
It's far more competitive than science - how good you are in an absolute sense is irrelevant.
What matters is how good you are in relation to everyone else, and an almost-imperceptible difference in competence can mean the difference between making or losing a billion dollars.
It's not much different than prize fighters - all the guys at the top are pretty close in raw ability, but the one who's actually the best pulls down multiples of the #2 guy's earnings.
For scientists an almost imperceptible difference in competence is, well, almost imperceptible.
You can't demand a huge salary as a new physics grad because there are hundreds more who could probably do the job as well as you.
How many Einsteins are out there, really?
One every couple hundred years?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904647</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904721</id>
	<title>Re:What about just doing what you love?</title>
	<author>recharged95</author>
	<datestamp>1256736480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"<i>Final thought - how often is it that we look back on these studies five or ten years later to find out they were somewhere around, oh, dead wrong</i>"
<br>
<br>
because science (i.e. by the 'academics') typically results in 80\% wrong facts, and 20\% absolute fact. Academics can't accept this, cause science is supposed to always produce 100\% fact: i.e. it's philosophically bad in our society of 'yes and no' that science is sometimes "right".
<br>
And religion is said to be 100\% correct due to 100\% faith.
<br>
<br>
(And that's why there will always be a religion-science conflict)
<br>
<br>
I usually find articles like these are to motivate or push someone's political agenda...and not in the name of science.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Final thought - how often is it that we look back on these studies five or ten years later to find out they were somewhere around , oh , dead wrong " because science ( i.e .
by the 'academics ' ) typically results in 80 \ % wrong facts , and 20 \ % absolute fact .
Academics ca n't accept this , cause science is supposed to always produce 100 \ % fact : i.e .
it 's philosophically bad in our society of 'yes and no ' that science is sometimes " right " .
And religion is said to be 100 \ % correct due to 100 \ % faith .
( And that 's why there will always be a religion-science conflict ) I usually find articles like these are to motivate or push someone 's political agenda...and not in the name of science .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Final thought - how often is it that we look back on these studies five or ten years later to find out they were somewhere around, oh, dead wrong"


because science (i.e.
by the 'academics') typically results in 80\% wrong facts, and 20\% absolute fact.
Academics can't accept this, cause science is supposed to always produce 100\% fact: i.e.
it's philosophically bad in our society of 'yes and no' that science is sometimes "right".
And religion is said to be 100\% correct due to 100\% faith.
(And that's why there will always be a religion-science conflict)


I usually find articles like these are to motivate or push someone's political agenda...and not in the name of science.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904517</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29908125</id>
	<title>Re:how many scientists are enough?</title>
	<author>gtall</author>
	<datestamp>1256815200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"95\% of academic scientists and maybe 80\% of engineers produce nothing useful in their lifetimes."</p><p>My experience is the opposite. Most scientists and engineers I've met might not be producing the next grand unified theory of whatever but are in the trenches producing the intricate web of details required for science and engineering to advance. There is only a finite amount of room at the top for stars. Once those slots are filled, everyone else who might be doing extraordinary work simply don't get recognized.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" 95 \ % of academic scientists and maybe 80 \ % of engineers produce nothing useful in their lifetimes .
" My experience is the opposite .
Most scientists and engineers I 've met might not be producing the next grand unified theory of whatever but are in the trenches producing the intricate web of details required for science and engineering to advance .
There is only a finite amount of room at the top for stars .
Once those slots are filled , everyone else who might be doing extraordinary work simply do n't get recognized .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"95\% of academic scientists and maybe 80\% of engineers produce nothing useful in their lifetimes.
"My experience is the opposite.
Most scientists and engineers I've met might not be producing the next grand unified theory of whatever but are in the trenches producing the intricate web of details required for science and engineering to advance.
There is only a finite amount of room at the top for stars.
Once those slots are filled, everyone else who might be doing extraordinary work simply don't get recognized.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904821</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29906661</id>
	<title>Re:What about just doing what you love?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256751420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Then change the bills! Dammit, don't let the sociohistorical concept of wealth get in the way of your dreams!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then change the bills !
Dammit , do n't let the sociohistorical concept of wealth get in the way of your dreams !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then change the bills!
Dammit, don't let the sociohistorical concept of wealth get in the way of your dreams!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904839</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29908999</id>
	<title>Re:Covered Before</title>
	<author>radtea</author>
	<datestamp>1256825220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>"Adjusted for IQ, quantitative skills, and working hours, jobs in science are the lowest paid in the United States." [greenspun.com]</i></p><p>Which is why you find so few women in the sciences.  Women are far more sensible than men about career choices, not having been filled with idiotic propaganda all their lives about the value of sacrificing their lives (often literally) to "be a provider for their family."  That's why when a job is really dangerous, dirty, or underpaid, it is almost certainly done by a man.  And if all you know about someone is that they died on the job, you can predict their sex with 98\% accuracy.</p><p>I'll believe that conditions in science and engineering have improved not when the best men are retained in the field, but when we see a lot more women.</p><p>While women in the sciences do face some discrimination--just as women doctors and lawyers used to--that is an effect of their being so few of them, not a cause.  The cause is that women aren't idiots, and can see that a career in the sciences is a bad bargain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Adjusted for IQ , quantitative skills , and working hours , jobs in science are the lowest paid in the United States .
" [ greenspun.com ] Which is why you find so few women in the sciences .
Women are far more sensible than men about career choices , not having been filled with idiotic propaganda all their lives about the value of sacrificing their lives ( often literally ) to " be a provider for their family .
" That 's why when a job is really dangerous , dirty , or underpaid , it is almost certainly done by a man .
And if all you know about someone is that they died on the job , you can predict their sex with 98 \ % accuracy.I 'll believe that conditions in science and engineering have improved not when the best men are retained in the field , but when we see a lot more women.While women in the sciences do face some discrimination--just as women doctors and lawyers used to--that is an effect of their being so few of them , not a cause .
The cause is that women are n't idiots , and can see that a career in the sciences is a bad bargain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Adjusted for IQ, quantitative skills, and working hours, jobs in science are the lowest paid in the United States.
" [greenspun.com]Which is why you find so few women in the sciences.
Women are far more sensible than men about career choices, not having been filled with idiotic propaganda all their lives about the value of sacrificing their lives (often literally) to "be a provider for their family.
"  That's why when a job is really dangerous, dirty, or underpaid, it is almost certainly done by a man.
And if all you know about someone is that they died on the job, you can predict their sex with 98\% accuracy.I'll believe that conditions in science and engineering have improved not when the best men are retained in the field, but when we see a lot more women.While women in the sciences do face some discrimination--just as women doctors and lawyers used to--that is an effect of their being so few of them, not a cause.
The cause is that women aren't idiots, and can see that a career in the sciences is a bad bargain.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904849</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29910359</id>
	<title>Re:What about just doing what you love?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256831280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes it does.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes it does .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes it does.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905027</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29909515</id>
	<title>Re:Seriously! Pay really is the issue!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256827800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>But I can't live on what they make.</p></div></blockquote><p>Please define "can't."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But I ca n't live on what they make.Please define " ca n't .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But I can't live on what they make.Please define "can't.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905295</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29918551</id>
	<title>Re:Money on both sides of the equation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256821140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They are intelligent but because of the upbringing in a capitalist society desire money more than anything.</p> </div><p>You have a deep misunderstanding of human motivation and history.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They are intelligent but because of the upbringing in a capitalist society desire money more than anything .
You have a deep misunderstanding of human motivation and history .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are intelligent but because of the upbringing in a capitalist society desire money more than anything.
You have a deep misunderstanding of human motivation and history.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904619</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904759</id>
	<title>Re:What about just doing what you love?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256736600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh come on!  Are you a product of parents of the 70s "free love" and "intellectual exploration" process?  Who in their right mind chooses a job based on "loving" to do it?  <br> <br>Sure, people choose something they're interested in, but most rational people want to make money so that they can live a relaxing life instead of a disgruntled on like you seem to lead, as evidenced by your spite toward gaining wealth through investment, and the idea that politicians are dirty, filthy rich.  I bet you vote for Change, too.  <br> <br>These studies are important not just because it shows us how best to earn an income but also because it shows us where our society's deficits are. If we need fewer science professionals, we obviously need something else for them to do, and I'm sure if I RTFA I'd see it mentions what we do need.  <br> <br>Regardless, supply of professionals in a certain area definitely affects income, which influences career choices. How many of you thought IT professionals would be so valuable you'd live a rich life, and now you're doing Exchange server tweaking for some corporate branch in the middle of nowhere.  Can any of you honestly say that you chose an IT career because you love to tweak Exchange servers?  <br> <br>The American Dental Association has it right and very tightly controls the number of dental students schools can accept in order to keep demand for dentists high and salaries in the very comfortable range.  I wish Science did that.  It would increase the mystique of the field, like MDs currently have.  All MDs do is tweak patients like they're an Exchange server.  They gather complaints from the patient/user and look up in some book how to fix it if they don't already know how.  The only thing that makes us NOT doctors is that we don't have the password/prescription-pad, because med schools are tightly regulated to keep salaries and demand high.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh come on !
Are you a product of parents of the 70s " free love " and " intellectual exploration " process ?
Who in their right mind chooses a job based on " loving " to do it ?
Sure , people choose something they 're interested in , but most rational people want to make money so that they can live a relaxing life instead of a disgruntled on like you seem to lead , as evidenced by your spite toward gaining wealth through investment , and the idea that politicians are dirty , filthy rich .
I bet you vote for Change , too .
These studies are important not just because it shows us how best to earn an income but also because it shows us where our society 's deficits are .
If we need fewer science professionals , we obviously need something else for them to do , and I 'm sure if I RTFA I 'd see it mentions what we do need .
Regardless , supply of professionals in a certain area definitely affects income , which influences career choices .
How many of you thought IT professionals would be so valuable you 'd live a rich life , and now you 're doing Exchange server tweaking for some corporate branch in the middle of nowhere .
Can any of you honestly say that you chose an IT career because you love to tweak Exchange servers ?
The American Dental Association has it right and very tightly controls the number of dental students schools can accept in order to keep demand for dentists high and salaries in the very comfortable range .
I wish Science did that .
It would increase the mystique of the field , like MDs currently have .
All MDs do is tweak patients like they 're an Exchange server .
They gather complaints from the patient/user and look up in some book how to fix it if they do n't already know how .
The only thing that makes us NOT doctors is that we do n't have the password/prescription-pad , because med schools are tightly regulated to keep salaries and demand high .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh come on!
Are you a product of parents of the 70s "free love" and "intellectual exploration" process?
Who in their right mind chooses a job based on "loving" to do it?
Sure, people choose something they're interested in, but most rational people want to make money so that they can live a relaxing life instead of a disgruntled on like you seem to lead, as evidenced by your spite toward gaining wealth through investment, and the idea that politicians are dirty, filthy rich.
I bet you vote for Change, too.
These studies are important not just because it shows us how best to earn an income but also because it shows us where our society's deficits are.
If we need fewer science professionals, we obviously need something else for them to do, and I'm sure if I RTFA I'd see it mentions what we do need.
Regardless, supply of professionals in a certain area definitely affects income, which influences career choices.
How many of you thought IT professionals would be so valuable you'd live a rich life, and now you're doing Exchange server tweaking for some corporate branch in the middle of nowhere.
Can any of you honestly say that you chose an IT career because you love to tweak Exchange servers?
The American Dental Association has it right and very tightly controls the number of dental students schools can accept in order to keep demand for dentists high and salaries in the very comfortable range.
I wish Science did that.
It would increase the mystique of the field, like MDs currently have.
All MDs do is tweak patients like they're an Exchange server.
They gather complaints from the patient/user and look up in some book how to fix it if they don't already know how.
The only thing that makes us NOT doctors is that we don't have the password/prescription-pad, because med schools are tightly regulated to keep salaries and demand high.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904517</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29907997</id>
	<title>Re:Brain Drain</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256813040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do you by Europe mean UK?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you by Europe mean UK ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you by Europe mean UK?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904691</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905389</id>
	<title>Re:What about just doing what you love?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256741280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It does pay good money in India and China<br>Scientists and engineers are needed when a country makes things but when it buys things it needs only managers and salesmen</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It does pay good money in India and ChinaScientists and engineers are needed when a country makes things but when it buys things it needs only managers and salesmen</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It does pay good money in India and ChinaScientists and engineers are needed when a country makes things but when it buys things it needs only managers and salesmen</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904839</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29906353</id>
	<title>Graduate Education, Anyone?</title>
	<author>ocop</author>
	<datestamp>1256748600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Reading their paper (RTF...P?), the words "masters", "doctorate", and "phd" don't appear outside of the footnotes.  Wouldn't a large portion of the very best science students pursue a graduate education?  Aren't people arguing we need more of those, not undergrads with a relatively generic degree in the sciences?  The authors are asking the wrong questions.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Reading their paper ( RTF...P ?
) , the words " masters " , " doctorate " , and " phd " do n't appear outside of the footnotes .
Would n't a large portion of the very best science students pursue a graduate education ?
Are n't people arguing we need more of those , not undergrads with a relatively generic degree in the sciences ?
The authors are asking the wrong questions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reading their paper (RTF...P?
), the words "masters", "doctorate", and "phd" don't appear outside of the footnotes.
Wouldn't a large portion of the very best science students pursue a graduate education?
Aren't people arguing we need more of those, not undergrads with a relatively generic degree in the sciences?
The authors are asking the wrong questions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904821</id>
	<title>Re:how many scientists are enough?</title>
	<author>rm999</author>
	<datestamp>1256736960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would make the fairly obvious argument that the number of scientists is largely irrelevant compared to the amount of work they produce. A single Einstein is worth an infinite number of mediocre physicists who never end up producing any work in their careers. This is important, because (at least in my experience in academia), 95\% of academic scientists and maybe 80\% of engineers produce nothing useful in their lifetimes.</p><p>While there may be a glut of scientists, there is no glut of *good* scientists; we always need those. Let's not kid ourselves - the number of possible problems scientists and engineers can solve has not gone down over time. If anything, it has gone way up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would make the fairly obvious argument that the number of scientists is largely irrelevant compared to the amount of work they produce .
A single Einstein is worth an infinite number of mediocre physicists who never end up producing any work in their careers .
This is important , because ( at least in my experience in academia ) , 95 \ % of academic scientists and maybe 80 \ % of engineers produce nothing useful in their lifetimes.While there may be a glut of scientists , there is no glut of * good * scientists ; we always need those .
Let 's not kid ourselves - the number of possible problems scientists and engineers can solve has not gone down over time .
If anything , it has gone way up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would make the fairly obvious argument that the number of scientists is largely irrelevant compared to the amount of work they produce.
A single Einstein is worth an infinite number of mediocre physicists who never end up producing any work in their careers.
This is important, because (at least in my experience in academia), 95\% of academic scientists and maybe 80\% of engineers produce nothing useful in their lifetimes.While there may be a glut of scientists, there is no glut of *good* scientists; we always need those.
Let's not kid ourselves - the number of possible problems scientists and engineers can solve has not gone down over time.
If anything, it has gone way up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904509</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29919103</id>
	<title>actually, conflict bw science and *some* religions</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256823900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's no conflict bw science and many (most?) organized religions; it's only SOME organized religions that create problems. For example, I'm a (bad<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:) catholic and I've never seen it opposed to science (the church changed a lot after 1960 or so, and I was born in 1972<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:). I've seen some people within the church opposed to some scientific ideas (or doing many other dumb things<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:) but not coming from the catholic church.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's no conflict bw science and many ( most ?
) organized religions ; it 's only SOME organized religions that create problems .
For example , I 'm a ( bad : ) catholic and I 've never seen it opposed to science ( the church changed a lot after 1960 or so , and I was born in 1972 : ) .
I 've seen some people within the church opposed to some scientific ideas ( or doing many other dumb things : ) but not coming from the catholic church .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's no conflict bw science and many (most?
) organized religions; it's only SOME organized religions that create problems.
For example, I'm a (bad :) catholic and I've never seen it opposed to science (the church changed a lot after 1960 or so, and I was born in 1972 :).
I've seen some people within the church opposed to some scientific ideas (or doing many other dumb things :) but not coming from the catholic church.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905195</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29914819</id>
	<title>You are a teacher</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256848200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>not a scientist, teachers have gotten the shaft in this country since its' inception. Try private industry and your salary will go up, your hours will go down and your quality of life will improve beyond measure. It is a sad fact that though teachers should rank near the top of the salary charts, they are in fact used and abused because so many teach for the love of the job vs. the money to be made. If your employer KNOWS you won't leave what is their incentive to give you a raise, then add to it the fact that cheap a$$ taxpayers are responsible for insuring there is enough money for teachers and you have a recipe for disaster, sadly...</p><p>Signed,<br>a former JR college chemistry teacher</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>not a scientist , teachers have gotten the shaft in this country since its ' inception .
Try private industry and your salary will go up , your hours will go down and your quality of life will improve beyond measure .
It is a sad fact that though teachers should rank near the top of the salary charts , they are in fact used and abused because so many teach for the love of the job vs. the money to be made .
If your employer KNOWS you wo n't leave what is their incentive to give you a raise , then add to it the fact that cheap a $ $ taxpayers are responsible for insuring there is enough money for teachers and you have a recipe for disaster , sadly...Signed,a former JR college chemistry teacher</tokentext>
<sentencetext>not a scientist, teachers have gotten the shaft in this country since its' inception.
Try private industry and your salary will go up, your hours will go down and your quality of life will improve beyond measure.
It is a sad fact that though teachers should rank near the top of the salary charts, they are in fact used and abused because so many teach for the love of the job vs. the money to be made.
If your employer KNOWS you won't leave what is their incentive to give you a raise, then add to it the fact that cheap a$$ taxpayers are responsible for insuring there is enough money for teachers and you have a recipe for disaster, sadly...Signed,a former JR college chemistry teacher</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904731</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29909629</id>
	<title>Re:More articles like this please</title>
	<author>stevebyan</author>
	<datestamp>1256828400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>For anyone whose interested, the <a href="http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/" title="npr.org" rel="nofollow">Planet Money blog and podcast</a> [npr.org] is a great place to start.  Their reporting and research is done by actual economists rather than ideologues and talking heads</p></div><p>Planet Money is a joke. None of their correspondents are economists. David Kestenbaum is a journalist who happens to have a PhD in physics. Adam Davidson is not an economist; his background is journalism. Davidson clearly has a Milton Friedman bias in his economic reporting; just look at his blog posts on the subject of economic stimulus.</p><p>For a critical look at NPR (Nice Polite Republicans) check out the <a href="http://nprcheck.blogspot.com/" title="blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">NPR Check</a> [blogspot.com] blog.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For anyone whose interested , the Planet Money blog and podcast [ npr.org ] is a great place to start .
Their reporting and research is done by actual economists rather than ideologues and talking headsPlanet Money is a joke .
None of their correspondents are economists .
David Kestenbaum is a journalist who happens to have a PhD in physics .
Adam Davidson is not an economist ; his background is journalism .
Davidson clearly has a Milton Friedman bias in his economic reporting ; just look at his blog posts on the subject of economic stimulus.For a critical look at NPR ( Nice Polite Republicans ) check out the NPR Check [ blogspot.com ] blog .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For anyone whose interested, the Planet Money blog and podcast [npr.org] is a great place to start.
Their reporting and research is done by actual economists rather than ideologues and talking headsPlanet Money is a joke.
None of their correspondents are economists.
David Kestenbaum is a journalist who happens to have a PhD in physics.
Adam Davidson is not an economist; his background is journalism.
Davidson clearly has a Milton Friedman bias in his economic reporting; just look at his blog posts on the subject of economic stimulus.For a critical look at NPR (Nice Polite Republicans) check out the NPR Check [blogspot.com] blog.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29906647</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905319</id>
	<title>Re:What about just doing what you love?</title>
	<author>interkin3tic</author>
	<datestamp>1256740680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>because science (i.e. by the 'academics') typically results in 80\% wrong facts, and 20\% absolute fact. Academics can't accept this, cause science is supposed to always produce 100\% fact</p></div><p>Wrong.  They can't accept it because in research, things almost <i>never</i> turn out to be "wrong facts" or "absolute fact."  Much like everything else in life, it's a simpleton who sees only black and white.  I'd say it's actually more like 20\% wrong, 75\% "not completely sure one way or the other", 5\% "I'd bet good money on it."</p><p>There aren't absolute facts in science, only theories that have withstood so much testing that no one bothers challenging it any further.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>because science ( i.e .
by the 'academics ' ) typically results in 80 \ % wrong facts , and 20 \ % absolute fact .
Academics ca n't accept this , cause science is supposed to always produce 100 \ % factWrong .
They ca n't accept it because in research , things almost never turn out to be " wrong facts " or " absolute fact .
" Much like everything else in life , it 's a simpleton who sees only black and white .
I 'd say it 's actually more like 20 \ % wrong , 75 \ % " not completely sure one way or the other " , 5 \ % " I 'd bet good money on it .
" There are n't absolute facts in science , only theories that have withstood so much testing that no one bothers challenging it any further .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>because science (i.e.
by the 'academics') typically results in 80\% wrong facts, and 20\% absolute fact.
Academics can't accept this, cause science is supposed to always produce 100\% factWrong.
They can't accept it because in research, things almost never turn out to be "wrong facts" or "absolute fact.
"  Much like everything else in life, it's a simpleton who sees only black and white.
I'd say it's actually more like 20\% wrong, 75\% "not completely sure one way or the other", 5\% "I'd bet good money on it.
"There aren't absolute facts in science, only theories that have withstood so much testing that no one bothers challenging it any further.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904721</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29906853</id>
	<title>Phd in physics from MIT working in Finace</title>
	<author>Sdoh</author>
	<datestamp>1256753700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Disclamer: see subj.</p><p>Seen both sides, reasonably successful in both areas, prefer finance because:</p><p>1. Less BS, more meritocracy (surprise!). Science does not have money =&gt; in science you need to BS big times to get grants. The outcome of research is often probabilistic and luck could matter more than hard work. When the research is done by a large group often the loudest voice gets most of the credit.</p><p>2. Sense of achievement: In science you work on the problem only 100 ppl in the world could understand. The rest are constantly asking: "Why are you wasting your time and taxpayers money doing this?". Seeing B- student making 10X your salary does not help either.</p><p>3. It is next to impossible to get fired from govt. lab. After 10-15 years of existence a good part of its workforce is staying there just because they can not find job anywhere else. Working in such environment could be very demotivating ( anyone from NASA or Fermilab want to comment? )</p><p>3a. More and more people stay in science just because they can not find job anywhere else or they just afraid to change their field.</p><p>4. Immigration issues do not make it better. It is easier to get Green card working in the bank than working in academia.</p><p>As a side comment: I few of my friends with PhDs left for Canada, Europe, and Russia  within last 3 years. Some from academia some from finance.  Some of them were doing top notch research, some were paying &gt;$100K of taxes each year. This country shoots itself in the foot by not keeping PhDs from top schools.</p><p>5. Just for Slashdot: It is easier to get laid.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)<br><a href="http://www.fashionmeetsfinance.com/" title="fashionmeetsfinance.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.fashionmeetsfinance.com/</a> [fashionmeetsfinance.com]</p><p>The drawbacks are obvious: 60 hours/week working schedule, little or no vacations, occasional junk from taxi driver that "It is my personal fault that he can not pay his mortgage". Should I explain that most people working in finance are actually serving the society by providing financial services and lowering transaction costs?</p><p>Also it is not a closed club. From what I see, vertical mobility in high frequency finance will probably beat other industries.</p><p>Anyway, this rant is getting too long. Will appreciate comments.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Disclamer : see subj.Seen both sides , reasonably successful in both areas , prefer finance because : 1 .
Less BS , more meritocracy ( surprise ! ) .
Science does not have money = &gt; in science you need to BS big times to get grants .
The outcome of research is often probabilistic and luck could matter more than hard work .
When the research is done by a large group often the loudest voice gets most of the credit.2 .
Sense of achievement : In science you work on the problem only 100 ppl in the world could understand .
The rest are constantly asking : " Why are you wasting your time and taxpayers money doing this ? " .
Seeing B- student making 10X your salary does not help either.3 .
It is next to impossible to get fired from govt .
lab. After 10-15 years of existence a good part of its workforce is staying there just because they can not find job anywhere else .
Working in such environment could be very demotivating ( anyone from NASA or Fermilab want to comment ?
) 3a. More and more people stay in science just because they can not find job anywhere else or they just afraid to change their field.4 .
Immigration issues do not make it better .
It is easier to get Green card working in the bank than working in academia.As a side comment : I few of my friends with PhDs left for Canada , Europe , and Russia within last 3 years .
Some from academia some from finance .
Some of them were doing top notch research , some were paying &gt; $ 100K of taxes each year .
This country shoots itself in the foot by not keeping PhDs from top schools.5 .
Just for Slashdot : It is easier to get laid .
: ) http : //www.fashionmeetsfinance.com/ [ fashionmeetsfinance.com ] The drawbacks are obvious : 60 hours/week working schedule , little or no vacations , occasional junk from taxi driver that " It is my personal fault that he can not pay his mortgage " .
Should I explain that most people working in finance are actually serving the society by providing financial services and lowering transaction costs ? Also it is not a closed club .
From what I see , vertical mobility in high frequency finance will probably beat other industries.Anyway , this rant is getting too long .
Will appreciate comments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Disclamer: see subj.Seen both sides, reasonably successful in both areas, prefer finance because:1.
Less BS, more meritocracy (surprise!).
Science does not have money =&gt; in science you need to BS big times to get grants.
The outcome of research is often probabilistic and luck could matter more than hard work.
When the research is done by a large group often the loudest voice gets most of the credit.2.
Sense of achievement: In science you work on the problem only 100 ppl in the world could understand.
The rest are constantly asking: "Why are you wasting your time and taxpayers money doing this?".
Seeing B- student making 10X your salary does not help either.3.
It is next to impossible to get fired from govt.
lab. After 10-15 years of existence a good part of its workforce is staying there just because they can not find job anywhere else.
Working in such environment could be very demotivating ( anyone from NASA or Fermilab want to comment?
)3a. More and more people stay in science just because they can not find job anywhere else or they just afraid to change their field.4.
Immigration issues do not make it better.
It is easier to get Green card working in the bank than working in academia.As a side comment: I few of my friends with PhDs left for Canada, Europe, and Russia  within last 3 years.
Some from academia some from finance.
Some of them were doing top notch research, some were paying &gt;$100K of taxes each year.
This country shoots itself in the foot by not keeping PhDs from top schools.5.
Just for Slashdot: It is easier to get laid.
:)http://www.fashionmeetsfinance.com/ [fashionmeetsfinance.com]The drawbacks are obvious: 60 hours/week working schedule, little or no vacations, occasional junk from taxi driver that "It is my personal fault that he can not pay his mortgage".
Should I explain that most people working in finance are actually serving the society by providing financial services and lowering transaction costs?Also it is not a closed club.
From what I see, vertical mobility in high frequency finance will probably beat other industries.Anyway, this rant is getting too long.
Will appreciate comments.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905399</id>
	<title>What's science done for us lately?</title>
	<author>Animats</author>
	<datestamp>1256741340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
What's science done for us lately?  The high-energy physics people aren't any closer to a clear theory of how physics works down at the bottom than they were thirty years ago.  They're just confused in a different way.  There hasn't been a major breakthrough in nuclear power since the first nuclear plant came on line over half a century ago.  The rocket scientists are doing worse than they did in the '50s and '60s.  Aircraft are about the same size as 30 years ago, and a little slower.  On the medical side, life expectancy hasn't gone up by much in fifty years, although more of the problems of old people can be patched for a while now.  Materials are a little better; plastics are slightly better than in the 1950s, and we have carbon fiber golf clubs now. Big deal.  Yes, computers and phones are much better.  Semiconductors are far better.
</p><p>
Business has recognized this, and doesn't put money into basic R&amp;D any more.  The big wins aren't there.  Maybe science, like oil, has peaked. We've made the easy discoveries.
</p><p>
So why put more money into science?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's science done for us lately ?
The high-energy physics people are n't any closer to a clear theory of how physics works down at the bottom than they were thirty years ago .
They 're just confused in a different way .
There has n't been a major breakthrough in nuclear power since the first nuclear plant came on line over half a century ago .
The rocket scientists are doing worse than they did in the '50s and '60s .
Aircraft are about the same size as 30 years ago , and a little slower .
On the medical side , life expectancy has n't gone up by much in fifty years , although more of the problems of old people can be patched for a while now .
Materials are a little better ; plastics are slightly better than in the 1950s , and we have carbon fiber golf clubs now .
Big deal .
Yes , computers and phones are much better .
Semiconductors are far better .
Business has recognized this , and does n't put money into basic R&amp;D any more .
The big wins are n't there .
Maybe science , like oil , has peaked .
We 've made the easy discoveries .
So why put more money into science ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
What's science done for us lately?
The high-energy physics people aren't any closer to a clear theory of how physics works down at the bottom than they were thirty years ago.
They're just confused in a different way.
There hasn't been a major breakthrough in nuclear power since the first nuclear plant came on line over half a century ago.
The rocket scientists are doing worse than they did in the '50s and '60s.
Aircraft are about the same size as 30 years ago, and a little slower.
On the medical side, life expectancy hasn't gone up by much in fifty years, although more of the problems of old people can be patched for a while now.
Materials are a little better; plastics are slightly better than in the 1950s, and we have carbon fiber golf clubs now.
Big deal.
Yes, computers and phones are much better.
Semiconductors are far better.
Business has recognized this, and doesn't put money into basic R&amp;D any more.
The big wins aren't there.
Maybe science, like oil, has peaked.
We've made the easy discoveries.
So why put more money into science?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904911</id>
	<title>Re:how many scientists are enough?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256737380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>My guess is that the number required is <b>of the order log(population), or even possibly a fixed constant after a certain population size.
</b></p> </div><p>Can you put that in English please? I was a Liberal Arts major...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>My guess is that the number required is of the order log ( population ) , or even possibly a fixed constant after a certain population size .
Can you put that in English please ?
I was a Liberal Arts major.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My guess is that the number required is of the order log(population), or even possibly a fixed constant after a certain population size.
Can you put that in English please?
I was a Liberal Arts major...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904509</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905121</id>
	<title>Re:So money is still the sole motivator?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256739000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Scientists ARE motivated by more than money.</p><p>It isn't really the nurturing environment that it would be if they actually thought they needed people.<br>It is more what economics people call a tournament system.  And how many people do you want to share your grant<br>with.  Come on?  Really?</p><p>Anyone who says that science needs more people is thinking of Newton, Einstein, and other great minds.<br>You have to win the tournament, before they actually want you.  Until then they are always pushing you toward<br>the door.</p><p>Where you go after, now that is based on money.  I went to IT.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Scientists ARE motivated by more than money.It is n't really the nurturing environment that it would be if they actually thought they needed people.It is more what economics people call a tournament system .
And how many people do you want to share your grantwith .
Come on ?
Really ? Anyone who says that science needs more people is thinking of Newton , Einstein , and other great minds.You have to win the tournament , before they actually want you .
Until then they are always pushing you towardthe door.Where you go after , now that is based on money .
I went to IT .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Scientists ARE motivated by more than money.It isn't really the nurturing environment that it would be if they actually thought they needed people.It is more what economics people call a tournament system.
And how many people do you want to share your grantwith.
Come on?
Really?Anyone who says that science needs more people is thinking of Newton, Einstein, and other great minds.You have to win the tournament, before they actually want you.
Until then they are always pushing you towardthe door.Where you go after, now that is based on money.
I went to IT.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904617</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29908067</id>
	<title>Re:More articles like this please</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1256814060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> We have to tolerate the inequality as a way to achieve greater prosperity and opportunity for all</p></div><p>I think David Mitchell's commentary on that rather summed up my view.  He said 'correct me if I'm wrong, but those sound like the words of an evil man'.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We have to tolerate the inequality as a way to achieve greater prosperity and opportunity for allI think David Mitchell 's commentary on that rather summed up my view .
He said 'correct me if I 'm wrong , but those sound like the words of an evil man' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> We have to tolerate the inequality as a way to achieve greater prosperity and opportunity for allI think David Mitchell's commentary on that rather summed up my view.
He said 'correct me if I'm wrong, but those sound like the words of an evil man'.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905217</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29907089</id>
	<title>Re:What's science done for us lately?</title>
	<author>Fulcrum of Evil</author>
	<datestamp>1256756760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Let's see: we are on the cusp of real fusion tech thanks to one Dr Bussard (Deceased), and fuck business. They don't see anything but the balance sheet and the next earnings call. I wouldn't expect them to understand basic research.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's see : we are on the cusp of real fusion tech thanks to one Dr Bussard ( Deceased ) , and fuck business .
They do n't see anything but the balance sheet and the next earnings call .
I would n't expect them to understand basic research .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's see: we are on the cusp of real fusion tech thanks to one Dr Bussard (Deceased), and fuck business.
They don't see anything but the balance sheet and the next earnings call.
I wouldn't expect them to understand basic research.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905399</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904869</id>
	<title>Re:What about just doing what you love?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256737260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><b>ECONOMIES DO NOT WORK THAT WAY</b></p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>/Morbo</p><p>(the filter is broken. inserting this so that it will let me use caps.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ECONOMIES DO NOT WORK THAT WAY /Morbo ( the filter is broken .
inserting this so that it will let me use caps .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ECONOMIES DO NOT WORK THAT WAY /Morbo(the filter is broken.
inserting this so that it will let me use caps.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904517</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905079</id>
	<title>Re:how many scientists are enough?</title>
	<author>Grishnakh</author>
	<datestamp>1256738700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't confuse science and engineering; they're two radically different disciplines with totally different goals.</p><p>Yes, most academic scientists probably don't produce much of value, but that's just like how a paleontologist, for instance, only has a certain chance of finding some great fossil that significantly adds to our knowledge of dinosaurs.  This isn't that much because of the paleontologist's skill, but more because of chance: will he find that fossil, or not?  Scientists don't create truth, they search for it.  If they find something really useful, then they're remembered for generations.  If they don't succeed in their search, they're forgotten.</p><p>Engineers don't search for anything.  They create things.  Even the most mediocre engineer can create useful things.  So I really doubt your claim about 80\% of engineers creating nothing useful.  If they're employed as engineers, they must be producing something useful, or else they wouldn't receive a paycheck.  Now, how useful that product is to society is debatable, of course.  The engineers who created the Ford Pinto, for instance, didn't exactly create something wonderful, and considering how that car killed people, it probably had negative utility.  However, they did the work that their employers asked of them, and as management was in control and refused to allow engineers to improve the design, it was they who were responsible for any deaths.  Less spectacularly, many engineers work on things which are ultimately trashed before seeing production.  I've seen my share of that in my own work.  But again, just because management decides to trash something doesn't mean it isn't "useful", it just wasn't profitable enough for them.</p><p>As for how many scientists are needed, that depends on how much science a society wants to do.  If you want to do a lot, then you need more people working on the problem.  If you don't care much about learning new things, then you don't need many scientists.  I'd say that our society doesn't really need that many scientists, because it really isn't that interesting in finding out new things and doesn't want to invest the money needed to do so, because it doesn't return a profit quickly enough.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't confuse science and engineering ; they 're two radically different disciplines with totally different goals.Yes , most academic scientists probably do n't produce much of value , but that 's just like how a paleontologist , for instance , only has a certain chance of finding some great fossil that significantly adds to our knowledge of dinosaurs .
This is n't that much because of the paleontologist 's skill , but more because of chance : will he find that fossil , or not ?
Scientists do n't create truth , they search for it .
If they find something really useful , then they 're remembered for generations .
If they do n't succeed in their search , they 're forgotten.Engineers do n't search for anything .
They create things .
Even the most mediocre engineer can create useful things .
So I really doubt your claim about 80 \ % of engineers creating nothing useful .
If they 're employed as engineers , they must be producing something useful , or else they would n't receive a paycheck .
Now , how useful that product is to society is debatable , of course .
The engineers who created the Ford Pinto , for instance , did n't exactly create something wonderful , and considering how that car killed people , it probably had negative utility .
However , they did the work that their employers asked of them , and as management was in control and refused to allow engineers to improve the design , it was they who were responsible for any deaths .
Less spectacularly , many engineers work on things which are ultimately trashed before seeing production .
I 've seen my share of that in my own work .
But again , just because management decides to trash something does n't mean it is n't " useful " , it just was n't profitable enough for them.As for how many scientists are needed , that depends on how much science a society wants to do .
If you want to do a lot , then you need more people working on the problem .
If you do n't care much about learning new things , then you do n't need many scientists .
I 'd say that our society does n't really need that many scientists , because it really is n't that interesting in finding out new things and does n't want to invest the money needed to do so , because it does n't return a profit quickly enough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't confuse science and engineering; they're two radically different disciplines with totally different goals.Yes, most academic scientists probably don't produce much of value, but that's just like how a paleontologist, for instance, only has a certain chance of finding some great fossil that significantly adds to our knowledge of dinosaurs.
This isn't that much because of the paleontologist's skill, but more because of chance: will he find that fossil, or not?
Scientists don't create truth, they search for it.
If they find something really useful, then they're remembered for generations.
If they don't succeed in their search, they're forgotten.Engineers don't search for anything.
They create things.
Even the most mediocre engineer can create useful things.
So I really doubt your claim about 80\% of engineers creating nothing useful.
If they're employed as engineers, they must be producing something useful, or else they wouldn't receive a paycheck.
Now, how useful that product is to society is debatable, of course.
The engineers who created the Ford Pinto, for instance, didn't exactly create something wonderful, and considering how that car killed people, it probably had negative utility.
However, they did the work that their employers asked of them, and as management was in control and refused to allow engineers to improve the design, it was they who were responsible for any deaths.
Less spectacularly, many engineers work on things which are ultimately trashed before seeing production.
I've seen my share of that in my own work.
But again, just because management decides to trash something doesn't mean it isn't "useful", it just wasn't profitable enough for them.As for how many scientists are needed, that depends on how much science a society wants to do.
If you want to do a lot, then you need more people working on the problem.
If you don't care much about learning new things, then you don't need many scientists.
I'd say that our society doesn't really need that many scientists, because it really isn't that interesting in finding out new things and doesn't want to invest the money needed to do so, because it doesn't return a profit quickly enough.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904821</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29908489</id>
	<title>Re:More articles like this please</title>
	<author>TerribleNews</author>
	<datestamp>1256820240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>
Frankly, I'd just rather be rich....I'm willing to do just about whatever it takes to get there...</p></div><p>Look, if you'd <em>really</em> wanted to be part of the club, you'd have been born into a richer family. Sorry for your poor foresight in the womb.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>
Life is short, I'd rather live comfortably the rest of my years, rather than be poor, scraping for a living an idealistic...</p></div><p>Yes, and that is exactly why the system works. People, even fairly rational and intelligent people, are convinced that A) there is a way to get into the upper echelon of society, and B) that is the <em>only</em> way to be happy and/or comfortable. </p><p>The fact of the matter is, you are really unlikely to ever make it there and that there are many, many other ways to be happy. But most of those don't increase the GDP as much as working you like a mule until you die.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Frankly , I 'd just rather be rich....I 'm willing to do just about whatever it takes to get there...Look , if you 'd really wanted to be part of the club , you 'd have been born into a richer family .
Sorry for your poor foresight in the womb .
Life is short , I 'd rather live comfortably the rest of my years , rather than be poor , scraping for a living an idealistic...Yes , and that is exactly why the system works .
People , even fairly rational and intelligent people , are convinced that A ) there is a way to get into the upper echelon of society , and B ) that is the only way to be happy and/or comfortable .
The fact of the matter is , you are really unlikely to ever make it there and that there are many , many other ways to be happy .
But most of those do n't increase the GDP as much as working you like a mule until you die .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Frankly, I'd just rather be rich....I'm willing to do just about whatever it takes to get there...Look, if you'd really wanted to be part of the club, you'd have been born into a richer family.
Sorry for your poor foresight in the womb.
Life is short, I'd rather live comfortably the rest of my years, rather than be poor, scraping for a living an idealistic...Yes, and that is exactly why the system works.
People, even fairly rational and intelligent people, are convinced that A) there is a way to get into the upper echelon of society, and B) that is the only way to be happy and/or comfortable.
The fact of the matter is, you are really unlikely to ever make it there and that there are many, many other ways to be happy.
But most of those don't increase the GDP as much as working you like a mule until you die.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29906159</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904921</id>
	<title>B-Ark not full</title>
	<author>syousef</author>
	<datestamp>1256737440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We need more people in the B-Ark. More insurance salesmen, tv producers. Scientists are in the A-Ark and that's already full.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We need more people in the B-Ark .
More insurance salesmen , tv producers .
Scientists are in the A-Ark and that 's already full .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We need more people in the B-Ark.
More insurance salesmen, tv producers.
Scientists are in the A-Ark and that's already full.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29911899</id>
	<title>Re:how many scientists are enough?</title>
	<author>mog007</author>
	<datestamp>1256836980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A single Einstein is worth an infinite number of mediocre physicists who never end up producing any work in their careers.</p></div><p>I'm an engineering student, not a science student, but that statement strikes me as profoundly ignorant.  If it were for people who had failed, like the hundreds who tried to measure the aether back in the 19th century, Einstein's brilliant ideas would never have taken hold.</p><p>If it weren't for the works of Galileo, Newton's advances to the laws of motion, light, and maybe even calculus, would not have been realized.</p><p>All successful scientists stand on the shoulders of their unsuccessful forebears, Einstein was no different.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A single Einstein is worth an infinite number of mediocre physicists who never end up producing any work in their careers.I 'm an engineering student , not a science student , but that statement strikes me as profoundly ignorant .
If it were for people who had failed , like the hundreds who tried to measure the aether back in the 19th century , Einstein 's brilliant ideas would never have taken hold.If it were n't for the works of Galileo , Newton 's advances to the laws of motion , light , and maybe even calculus , would not have been realized.All successful scientists stand on the shoulders of their unsuccessful forebears , Einstein was no different .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A single Einstein is worth an infinite number of mediocre physicists who never end up producing any work in their careers.I'm an engineering student, not a science student, but that statement strikes me as profoundly ignorant.
If it were for people who had failed, like the hundreds who tried to measure the aether back in the 19th century, Einstein's brilliant ideas would never have taken hold.If it weren't for the works of Galileo, Newton's advances to the laws of motion, light, and maybe even calculus, would not have been realized.All successful scientists stand on the shoulders of their unsuccessful forebears, Einstein was no different.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904821</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29906159</id>
	<title>Re:More articles like this please</title>
	<author>cayenne8</author>
	<datestamp>1256746920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"The dirty little secret is Goldman Sach's keeps all the prosperity and opportunity for themselves and their rich friends, and the rest of us will never see it unless we manage to join their exclusive little club. "</i> <p>
Anyone know a good way to get in and join the GS club??</p><p>
Frankly, I'd just rather be rich....I'm willing to do just about whatever it takes to get there...</p><p>
Life is short, I'd rather live comfortably the rest of my years, rather than be poor, scraping for a living an idealistic...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The dirty little secret is Goldman Sach 's keeps all the prosperity and opportunity for themselves and their rich friends , and the rest of us will never see it unless we manage to join their exclusive little club .
" Anyone know a good way to get in and join the GS club ? ?
Frankly , I 'd just rather be rich....I 'm willing to do just about whatever it takes to get there.. . Life is short , I 'd rather live comfortably the rest of my years , rather than be poor , scraping for a living an idealistic.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The dirty little secret is Goldman Sach's keeps all the prosperity and opportunity for themselves and their rich friends, and the rest of us will never see it unless we manage to join their exclusive little club.
" 
Anyone know a good way to get in and join the GS club??
Frankly, I'd just rather be rich....I'm willing to do just about whatever it takes to get there...
Life is short, I'd rather live comfortably the rest of my years, rather than be poor, scraping for a living an idealistic...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905217</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29908881</id>
	<title>We need World War III</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256824320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nothing kicks start technology advancement like a war.<br> <br>
Even if it means nuclear winter, so be it. The incompetent deserve to die.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nothing kicks start technology advancement like a war .
Even if it means nuclear winter , so be it .
The incompetent deserve to die .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nothing kicks start technology advancement like a war.
Even if it means nuclear winter, so be it.
The incompetent deserve to die.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904763</id>
	<title>As someone in science...</title>
	<author>kidtexas</author>
	<datestamp>1256736660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The summary got at least one sentence right.  Incentives to stay in science are very small. I finished my graduate work not to long ago, and I'd make more money in almost any field compared to staying in physics.  I know a number of people who left the field to do finance or something else.  The thinking is: "If I have to work 80 hour weeks, I might as well be making several hundred thousand."  Go to any of the top colleges/universities, and a large amount of the students want to go into finance or some other money making field.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The summary got at least one sentence right .
Incentives to stay in science are very small .
I finished my graduate work not to long ago , and I 'd make more money in almost any field compared to staying in physics .
I know a number of people who left the field to do finance or something else .
The thinking is : " If I have to work 80 hour weeks , I might as well be making several hundred thousand .
" Go to any of the top colleges/universities , and a large amount of the students want to go into finance or some other money making field .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The summary got at least one sentence right.
Incentives to stay in science are very small.
I finished my graduate work not to long ago, and I'd make more money in almost any field compared to staying in physics.
I know a number of people who left the field to do finance or something else.
The thinking is: "If I have to work 80 hour weeks, I might as well be making several hundred thousand.
"  Go to any of the top colleges/universities, and a large amount of the students want to go into finance or some other money making field.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29909011</id>
	<title>Re:how many scientists are enough?</title>
	<author>littlewink</author>
	<datestamp>1256825280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <i>A single Einstein is worth an infinite number of mediocre physicists who never end up producing any work in their careers. </i></p></div> </blockquote><p>Often histories show a winner-take-all attitude toward scientific progress. Such an attitude ignores that many, if not most, great advancements result from periods of intense competition between highly-skilled scientists. It's a crap shoot as to who gets credit.</p><p>Today we might be praising Poincare instead of Einstein. Poincare was Einstein's equal or better in most fields but he didn't "click" as fast on certain aspects of the theory. Poincare, Lorentz, Fitzerald, Larmor and others had worked out the math.  At the time Einstein published, Poincare and others were running neck-and-neck with Einstein. But Einstein saw the missing piece of the puzzle first and so is often credited with creating all of relativity theory out of thin air, which is far from the truth. Given another month Poincare or someone else would have cracked the nut. Poincare was certainly leading in the early part of the race.</p><p>My point is, even without Einstein, a better understanding of the theory of relativity was imminent.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A single Einstein is worth an infinite number of mediocre physicists who never end up producing any work in their careers .
Often histories show a winner-take-all attitude toward scientific progress .
Such an attitude ignores that many , if not most , great advancements result from periods of intense competition between highly-skilled scientists .
It 's a crap shoot as to who gets credit.Today we might be praising Poincare instead of Einstein .
Poincare was Einstein 's equal or better in most fields but he did n't " click " as fast on certain aspects of the theory .
Poincare , Lorentz , Fitzerald , Larmor and others had worked out the math .
At the time Einstein published , Poincare and others were running neck-and-neck with Einstein .
But Einstein saw the missing piece of the puzzle first and so is often credited with creating all of relativity theory out of thin air , which is far from the truth .
Given another month Poincare or someone else would have cracked the nut .
Poincare was certainly leading in the early part of the race.My point is , even without Einstein , a better understanding of the theory of relativity was imminent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> A single Einstein is worth an infinite number of mediocre physicists who never end up producing any work in their careers.
Often histories show a winner-take-all attitude toward scientific progress.
Such an attitude ignores that many, if not most, great advancements result from periods of intense competition between highly-skilled scientists.
It's a crap shoot as to who gets credit.Today we might be praising Poincare instead of Einstein.
Poincare was Einstein's equal or better in most fields but he didn't "click" as fast on certain aspects of the theory.
Poincare, Lorentz, Fitzerald, Larmor and others had worked out the math.
At the time Einstein published, Poincare and others were running neck-and-neck with Einstein.
But Einstein saw the missing piece of the puzzle first and so is often credited with creating all of relativity theory out of thin air, which is far from the truth.
Given another month Poincare or someone else would have cracked the nut.
Poincare was certainly leading in the early part of the race.My point is, even without Einstein, a better understanding of the theory of relativity was imminent.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904821</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29907151</id>
	<title>Re:More articles like this please</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256757660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I sold my soul to consulting for the greenbacks. Why the heck should bust my tail doing real work?</p><p>My friend got out over a decade ago. He was one of the "rocket scientists" on the street. I'm jealous, he's rich and retired.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I sold my soul to consulting for the greenbacks .
Why the heck should bust my tail doing real work ? My friend got out over a decade ago .
He was one of the " rocket scientists " on the street .
I 'm jealous , he 's rich and retired .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I sold my soul to consulting for the greenbacks.
Why the heck should bust my tail doing real work?My friend got out over a decade ago.
He was one of the "rocket scientists" on the street.
I'm jealous, he's rich and retired.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905217</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29909049</id>
	<title>Re:Brain Drain</title>
	<author>littlewink</author>
	<datestamp>1256825460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <i>Weren't most of the USA's scientists working on the big name projects of the last 50 years foreign born anyway?</i></p></div> </blockquote><p>

Not nearly. Immigrants compose a fraction of researchers. And this is true of the Manhattan Project. But it's easier to write and sell stories about the big names.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Were n't most of the USA 's scientists working on the big name projects of the last 50 years foreign born anyway ?
Not nearly .
Immigrants compose a fraction of researchers .
And this is true of the Manhattan Project .
But it 's easier to write and sell stories about the big names .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Weren't most of the USA's scientists working on the big name projects of the last 50 years foreign born anyway?
Not nearly.
Immigrants compose a fraction of researchers.
And this is true of the Manhattan Project.
But it's easier to write and sell stories about the big names.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904691</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29912199</id>
	<title>Re:What about just doing what you love?</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1256837940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>To paraphrase Office Space, if everybody did what they loved, there would be a severe shortage of janitors.</i></p><p>Only Stanley Spedowski would remain, wielding his mop with pride!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To paraphrase Office Space , if everybody did what they loved , there would be a severe shortage of janitors.Only Stanley Spedowski would remain , wielding his mop with pride !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To paraphrase Office Space, if everybody did what they loved, there would be a severe shortage of janitors.Only Stanley Spedowski would remain, wielding his mop with pride!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904851</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29911905</id>
	<title>What an achievement!</title>
	<author>sean.peters</author>
	<datestamp>1256836980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Well you read wrong. Equality of income distribution is quantified by the Gini coefficient [wikipedia.org]. Wealth is less evenly distributed in the US than many places (ie Europe), but there's more than 40 countries ahead of us. China and Mexico for instance.</p></div></blockquote><p>Hey, everybody! We're not as screwed up as China and Mexico! USA! USA!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well you read wrong .
Equality of income distribution is quantified by the Gini coefficient [ wikipedia.org ] .
Wealth is less evenly distributed in the US than many places ( ie Europe ) , but there 's more than 40 countries ahead of us .
China and Mexico for instance.Hey , everybody !
We 're not as screwed up as China and Mexico !
USA ! USA !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well you read wrong.
Equality of income distribution is quantified by the Gini coefficient [wikipedia.org].
Wealth is less evenly distributed in the US than many places (ie Europe), but there's more than 40 countries ahead of us.
China and Mexico for instance.Hey, everybody!
We're not as screwed up as China and Mexico!
USA! USA!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29906647</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29906647</id>
	<title>Re:More articles like this please</title>
	<author>kryptKnight</author>
	<datestamp>1256751300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's time to bring some facts to this thread.  Monetary policy is complicated, most people don't understand it, and impassioned hyperbolizing isn't helpful.<p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>..the Fed (by printing money and giving it to them at zero percent even if it destroys the dollar)</p></div><p>The Federal Reserve does not print money.  Maybe you were speaking metaphorically, but you're still wrong.  The Federal Reserve can influence interest rates, and it can change the size of the the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money\_supply" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">money supply</a> [wikipedia.org] by issuing and recalling treasury bills and by adjusting the reserve requirement..  Those functions allow the Fed to alter the price of money, but that's not equivalent to printing more money.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I was reading earlier this week the U.S. now has the greatest income inequality in the world except for Singapore and Hong Kong which are tiny city states</p></div><p>Well you read wrong.  Equality of income distribution is quantified by the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini\_coefficient" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Gini coefficient</a> [wikipedia.org].  Wealth is less evenly distributed in the US than many places (ie Europe), but there's more than 40 countries ahead of us.  China and Mexico for instance. See <a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/aa/Gini\_Coefficient\_World\_Human\_Development\_Report\_2007-2008.png" title="wikimedia.org" rel="nofollow">this map</a> [wikimedia.org] for more detail.
</p><p>
For anyone whose interested, the <a href="http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/" title="npr.org" rel="nofollow">Planet Money blog and podcast</a> [npr.org] is a great place to start.  Their reporting and research is done by actual economists rather than ideologues and talking heads, and they explain <i>why</i> things are the way they are and how they got there.  Like I said, our current financial situation is kinda FUBAR, but approaching it with a level head and trying to understand what's really going on is better than getting angry and playing the blame game.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's time to bring some facts to this thread .
Monetary policy is complicated , most people do n't understand it , and impassioned hyperbolizing is n't helpful .
..the Fed ( by printing money and giving it to them at zero percent even if it destroys the dollar ) The Federal Reserve does not print money .
Maybe you were speaking metaphorically , but you 're still wrong .
The Federal Reserve can influence interest rates , and it can change the size of the the money supply [ wikipedia.org ] by issuing and recalling treasury bills and by adjusting the reserve requirement.. Those functions allow the Fed to alter the price of money , but that 's not equivalent to printing more money.I was reading earlier this week the U.S. now has the greatest income inequality in the world except for Singapore and Hong Kong which are tiny city statesWell you read wrong .
Equality of income distribution is quantified by the Gini coefficient [ wikipedia.org ] .
Wealth is less evenly distributed in the US than many places ( ie Europe ) , but there 's more than 40 countries ahead of us .
China and Mexico for instance .
See this map [ wikimedia.org ] for more detail .
For anyone whose interested , the Planet Money blog and podcast [ npr.org ] is a great place to start .
Their reporting and research is done by actual economists rather than ideologues and talking heads , and they explain why things are the way they are and how they got there .
Like I said , our current financial situation is kinda FUBAR , but approaching it with a level head and trying to understand what 's really going on is better than getting angry and playing the blame game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's time to bring some facts to this thread.
Monetary policy is complicated, most people don't understand it, and impassioned hyperbolizing isn't helpful.
..the Fed (by printing money and giving it to them at zero percent even if it destroys the dollar)The Federal Reserve does not print money.
Maybe you were speaking metaphorically, but you're still wrong.
The Federal Reserve can influence interest rates, and it can change the size of the the money supply [wikipedia.org] by issuing and recalling treasury bills and by adjusting the reserve requirement..  Those functions allow the Fed to alter the price of money, but that's not equivalent to printing more money.I was reading earlier this week the U.S. now has the greatest income inequality in the world except for Singapore and Hong Kong which are tiny city statesWell you read wrong.
Equality of income distribution is quantified by the Gini coefficient [wikipedia.org].
Wealth is less evenly distributed in the US than many places (ie Europe), but there's more than 40 countries ahead of us.
China and Mexico for instance.
See this map [wikimedia.org] for more detail.
For anyone whose interested, the Planet Money blog and podcast [npr.org] is a great place to start.
Their reporting and research is done by actual economists rather than ideologues and talking heads, and they explain why things are the way they are and how they got there.
Like I said, our current financial situation is kinda FUBAR, but approaching it with a level head and trying to understand what's really going on is better than getting angry and playing the blame game.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905217</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29907969</id>
	<title>Re:how many scientists are enough?</title>
	<author>qc\_dk</author>
	<datestamp>1256812680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A single Einstein is worth an infinite number of mediocre physicists who never end up producing any work in their careers.</p></div><p>
The problem is that for every celebrity physicist like Einstein there are hundred of "mediocre" physicists who happened to test or champion the wrong idea, but that does not mean that their work was useless. It was very necessary to help form the ideas that ended up working. </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A single Einstein is worth an infinite number of mediocre physicists who never end up producing any work in their careers .
The problem is that for every celebrity physicist like Einstein there are hundred of " mediocre " physicists who happened to test or champion the wrong idea , but that does not mean that their work was useless .
It was very necessary to help form the ideas that ended up working .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A single Einstein is worth an infinite number of mediocre physicists who never end up producing any work in their careers.
The problem is that for every celebrity physicist like Einstein there are hundred of "mediocre" physicists who happened to test or champion the wrong idea, but that does not mean that their work was useless.
It was very necessary to help form the ideas that ended up working. 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904821</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29906725</id>
	<title>Re:What about just doing what you love?</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1256752080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The American Dental Association has it right and very tightly controls the number of dental students schools can accept in order to keep demand for dentists high and salaries in the very comfortable range.</i></p><p>The ADA has it absolutely wrong!  We supposedly live in a free society not a dictatorship.</p><p><i>I wish Science did that.</i></p><p>I wish anyone who has the inclination and ability as well as desire to learn could do so.  Live free or die, not live as a slave.</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The American Dental Association has it right and very tightly controls the number of dental students schools can accept in order to keep demand for dentists high and salaries in the very comfortable range.The ADA has it absolutely wrong !
We supposedly live in a free society not a dictatorship.I wish Science did that.I wish anyone who has the inclination and ability as well as desire to learn could do so .
Live free or die , not live as a slave .
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The American Dental Association has it right and very tightly controls the number of dental students schools can accept in order to keep demand for dentists high and salaries in the very comfortable range.The ADA has it absolutely wrong!
We supposedly live in a free society not a dictatorship.I wish Science did that.I wish anyone who has the inclination and ability as well as desire to learn could do so.
Live free or die, not live as a slave.
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904759</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904691</id>
	<title>Brain Drain</title>
	<author>BodeNGE</author>
	<datestamp>1256736300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>You've got yourselves a brain drain.  Growing up in Australia as a geek I had the sole intention of getting out of the country, going to university in Europe and finding a decent, well paid job there.  In Australia there was no funding or development, no highly paid jobs, little basic research at all, and as a student cash was the big draw to get out.  The brain drain was almost epidemic.  The USA wasn't an option due to your ridiculous Green Card Lottery.  Very glad I did too as I simply had more, and better opportunities.  There are some truly excellent innovations that still come out of Australia built literally on a shoestring.  Realtime over-the-horizon radar that can image a supercarrier off the coast of Japan is one example, and it is constructed from thousands of hand wound wire, wrapped around cotton reels.  So it is possible to have success (albeit non-financial) in the midst of a brain drain.<br>
Reducing the Green Card quotas further, and kicking foreigners out of Science will certainly reduce the number of graduates, and the intelligence of the nation.  Weren't most of the USA's scientists working on the big name projects of the last 50 years foreign born anyway?</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 've got yourselves a brain drain .
Growing up in Australia as a geek I had the sole intention of getting out of the country , going to university in Europe and finding a decent , well paid job there .
In Australia there was no funding or development , no highly paid jobs , little basic research at all , and as a student cash was the big draw to get out .
The brain drain was almost epidemic .
The USA was n't an option due to your ridiculous Green Card Lottery .
Very glad I did too as I simply had more , and better opportunities .
There are some truly excellent innovations that still come out of Australia built literally on a shoestring .
Realtime over-the-horizon radar that can image a supercarrier off the coast of Japan is one example , and it is constructed from thousands of hand wound wire , wrapped around cotton reels .
So it is possible to have success ( albeit non-financial ) in the midst of a brain drain .
Reducing the Green Card quotas further , and kicking foreigners out of Science will certainly reduce the number of graduates , and the intelligence of the nation .
Were n't most of the USA 's scientists working on the big name projects of the last 50 years foreign born anyway ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You've got yourselves a brain drain.
Growing up in Australia as a geek I had the sole intention of getting out of the country, going to university in Europe and finding a decent, well paid job there.
In Australia there was no funding or development, no highly paid jobs, little basic research at all, and as a student cash was the big draw to get out.
The brain drain was almost epidemic.
The USA wasn't an option due to your ridiculous Green Card Lottery.
Very glad I did too as I simply had more, and better opportunities.
There are some truly excellent innovations that still come out of Australia built literally on a shoestring.
Realtime over-the-horizon radar that can image a supercarrier off the coast of Japan is one example, and it is constructed from thousands of hand wound wire, wrapped around cotton reels.
So it is possible to have success (albeit non-financial) in the midst of a brain drain.
Reducing the Green Card quotas further, and kicking foreigners out of Science will certainly reduce the number of graduates, and the intelligence of the nation.
Weren't most of the USA's scientists working on the big name projects of the last 50 years foreign born anyway?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29910305</id>
	<title>Re:Seriously! Pay really is the issue!!!</title>
	<author>Quirkz</author>
	<datestamp>1256831160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As a counterpoint, I got a degree in physics. Towards the end of my four years I dabbled with research and then ran in horror from the idea of grad school once I got a glimpse of what that would be like. I found myself a place in computers (first in web programming, now as a network admin and an after hours browser game creator) and I couldn't be happier. Years of advanced education (at least at an educational institution--I still learn plenty on my own) just aren't for me, nor is a job doing high science.

Like you I do still spend my lunches and evenings reading up on things I love, like science and ancient history, and I get a great deal from that, but I wouldn't want to do it for a living. (Oddly I don't read much physics, but I can't get enough of the other sciences that I simply couldn't fit into my schedule in college, like chemistry, biology, geology, and the like.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>As a counterpoint , I got a degree in physics .
Towards the end of my four years I dabbled with research and then ran in horror from the idea of grad school once I got a glimpse of what that would be like .
I found myself a place in computers ( first in web programming , now as a network admin and an after hours browser game creator ) and I could n't be happier .
Years of advanced education ( at least at an educational institution--I still learn plenty on my own ) just are n't for me , nor is a job doing high science .
Like you I do still spend my lunches and evenings reading up on things I love , like science and ancient history , and I get a great deal from that , but I would n't want to do it for a living .
( Oddly I do n't read much physics , but I ca n't get enough of the other sciences that I simply could n't fit into my schedule in college , like chemistry , biology , geology , and the like .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a counterpoint, I got a degree in physics.
Towards the end of my four years I dabbled with research and then ran in horror from the idea of grad school once I got a glimpse of what that would be like.
I found myself a place in computers (first in web programming, now as a network admin and an after hours browser game creator) and I couldn't be happier.
Years of advanced education (at least at an educational institution--I still learn plenty on my own) just aren't for me, nor is a job doing high science.
Like you I do still spend my lunches and evenings reading up on things I love, like science and ancient history, and I get a great deal from that, but I wouldn't want to do it for a living.
(Oddly I don't read much physics, but I can't get enough of the other sciences that I simply couldn't fit into my schedule in college, like chemistry, biology, geology, and the like.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905295</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905025</id>
	<title>Re:What about just doing what you love?</title>
	<author>Attila Dimedici</author>
	<datestamp>1256738100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>. Who really cares what some frigtarded academic thinks anyway? </p></div><p>The people who advise high school students what they should major in in college.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>.
Who really cares what some frigtarded academic thinks anyway ?
The people who advise high school students what they should major in in college .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.
Who really cares what some frigtarded academic thinks anyway?
The people who advise high school students what they should major in in college.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904517</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905581</id>
	<title>Re:What about just doing what you love?</title>
	<author>plague911</author>
	<datestamp>1256742540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"I work in the fields I love, and I'd recommend it to everyone else. If you want to do science, do science. If you don't then don't. Who really cares what some frigtarded academic thinks anyway?" That statement is soooo ironic its funny.  You seem to indicate that science is such a worthwhile career path. Than in the next sentence you degrade academics.... do you even realize that scientists are "frigtarded academics"? Thats mentality is another reason why many of the best and brightest are leaving the field..... there is little respect for academics any more... little respect = little pay= individuals who loose motivation and go for better paying more respected positions...</htmltext>
<tokenext>" I work in the fields I love , and I 'd recommend it to everyone else .
If you want to do science , do science .
If you do n't then do n't .
Who really cares what some frigtarded academic thinks anyway ?
" That statement is soooo ironic its funny .
You seem to indicate that science is such a worthwhile career path .
Than in the next sentence you degrade academics.... do you even realize that scientists are " frigtarded academics " ?
Thats mentality is another reason why many of the best and brightest are leaving the field..... there is little respect for academics any more... little respect = little pay = individuals who loose motivation and go for better paying more respected positions.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I work in the fields I love, and I'd recommend it to everyone else.
If you want to do science, do science.
If you don't then don't.
Who really cares what some frigtarded academic thinks anyway?
" That statement is soooo ironic its funny.
You seem to indicate that science is such a worthwhile career path.
Than in the next sentence you degrade academics.... do you even realize that scientists are "frigtarded academics"?
Thats mentality is another reason why many of the best and brightest are leaving the field..... there is little respect for academics any more... little respect = little pay= individuals who loose motivation and go for better paying more respected positions...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904517</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29906971</id>
	<title>Re:What about just doing what you love?</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1256755260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>if everybody did what they loved, there would be a severe shortage of janitors.</i></p><p>Having worked as a janitor, and garbageman, I have worked with people who loved doing it. Depending on where they work the work isn't demanding and you can drift through the day.  The pay wasn't well but if you watched your spending you could have survived on it.  Take college classes when not working and in a few years you could start your own janitorial or cleaning services business if you have the drive.  Of course you'd then be an accountant,  manager, and or salesman depending on if you took on partners.</p><p>And of course if fewer, less, people worked as janitors then their pay would go up.</p><p><i>And I would bet that in practice, it ends up being one of the last factors considered. Whether or not you can make enough money to buy food and pay rent is going to be a much more important part of the decision.</i></p><p>In high school I was split between majoring in Computer Engineering and a Marine Science, perhaps marine bio.  I chose CE but if I had known then what I know now I would have done a double major, both CE and MS.</p><p><i>The free market has spoken.</i></p><p>No, the free market has not spoken.  There is no free market.</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>if everybody did what they loved , there would be a severe shortage of janitors.Having worked as a janitor , and garbageman , I have worked with people who loved doing it .
Depending on where they work the work is n't demanding and you can drift through the day .
The pay was n't well but if you watched your spending you could have survived on it .
Take college classes when not working and in a few years you could start your own janitorial or cleaning services business if you have the drive .
Of course you 'd then be an accountant , manager , and or salesman depending on if you took on partners.And of course if fewer , less , people worked as janitors then their pay would go up.And I would bet that in practice , it ends up being one of the last factors considered .
Whether or not you can make enough money to buy food and pay rent is going to be a much more important part of the decision.In high school I was split between majoring in Computer Engineering and a Marine Science , perhaps marine bio .
I chose CE but if I had known then what I know now I would have done a double major , both CE and MS.The free market has spoken.No , the free market has not spoken .
There is no free market .
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if everybody did what they loved, there would be a severe shortage of janitors.Having worked as a janitor, and garbageman, I have worked with people who loved doing it.
Depending on where they work the work isn't demanding and you can drift through the day.
The pay wasn't well but if you watched your spending you could have survived on it.
Take college classes when not working and in a few years you could start your own janitorial or cleaning services business if you have the drive.
Of course you'd then be an accountant,  manager, and or salesman depending on if you took on partners.And of course if fewer, less, people worked as janitors then their pay would go up.And I would bet that in practice, it ends up being one of the last factors considered.
Whether or not you can make enough money to buy food and pay rent is going to be a much more important part of the decision.In high school I was split between majoring in Computer Engineering and a Marine Science, perhaps marine bio.
I chose CE but if I had known then what I know now I would have done a double major, both CE and MS.The free market has spoken.No, the free market has not spoken.
There is no free market.
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904851</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904475</id>
	<title>More articles like this please</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256734920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I want my salary to go up</htmltext>
<tokenext>I want my salary to go up</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I want my salary to go up</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29910465</id>
	<title>Re:how many scientists are enough?</title>
	<author>shiftless</author>
	<datestamp>1256831640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The engineers who created the Ford Pinto, for instance, didn't exactly create something wonderful, and considering how that car killed people, it probably had negative utility.</i></p><p>I don't disagree with your overall argument, but this is a poor example. Ford built and sold millions of Pintos. They did in fact create something wonderful; a small, cheap car that young people could afford to purchase and operate. Even today the Pinto is still providing good service for drag racing and other uses. Out of the many <b>millions</b> of Pintos built, and tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of wrecks involving Pintos, only 500 or so caught fire, which is a vanishingly small percentage. The Pinto is certainly an example of what bad publicity can do to a company, but NOT an example of bad engineering.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The engineers who created the Ford Pinto , for instance , did n't exactly create something wonderful , and considering how that car killed people , it probably had negative utility.I do n't disagree with your overall argument , but this is a poor example .
Ford built and sold millions of Pintos .
They did in fact create something wonderful ; a small , cheap car that young people could afford to purchase and operate .
Even today the Pinto is still providing good service for drag racing and other uses .
Out of the many millions of Pintos built , and tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of wrecks involving Pintos , only 500 or so caught fire , which is a vanishingly small percentage .
The Pinto is certainly an example of what bad publicity can do to a company , but NOT an example of bad engineering .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The engineers who created the Ford Pinto, for instance, didn't exactly create something wonderful, and considering how that car killed people, it probably had negative utility.I don't disagree with your overall argument, but this is a poor example.
Ford built and sold millions of Pintos.
They did in fact create something wonderful; a small, cheap car that young people could afford to purchase and operate.
Even today the Pinto is still providing good service for drag racing and other uses.
Out of the many millions of Pintos built, and tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of wrecks involving Pintos, only 500 or so caught fire, which is a vanishingly small percentage.
The Pinto is certainly an example of what bad publicity can do to a company, but NOT an example of bad engineering.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905079</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29909361</id>
	<title>Asst. Prof. making  $55,000/year</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256827020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm also an assistant professor in a technical field.  I feel a bit swindled at having to work ridiculously hard trying to get papers out while teaching and applying for grants.  I work much harder than my grad-school friends who went into law, business, or finance, and they are all making &gt; $120,000/year.  Furthermore, the tenure process at many institutions is so broken that it rewards lots of crap papers with incremental results much more than a single good paper.  (And if you happen to spend time working on a problem that interests you, but which you don't solve, then you're screwed.)</p><p>I'm lucky in that I have decent social skills, so I've reduced my efforts to something commensurate with the salary.  If I don't make tenure, I'll leave academia and go into a more lucrative field.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm also an assistant professor in a technical field .
I feel a bit swindled at having to work ridiculously hard trying to get papers out while teaching and applying for grants .
I work much harder than my grad-school friends who went into law , business , or finance , and they are all making &gt; $ 120,000/year .
Furthermore , the tenure process at many institutions is so broken that it rewards lots of crap papers with incremental results much more than a single good paper .
( And if you happen to spend time working on a problem that interests you , but which you do n't solve , then you 're screwed .
) I 'm lucky in that I have decent social skills , so I 've reduced my efforts to something commensurate with the salary .
If I do n't make tenure , I 'll leave academia and go into a more lucrative field .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm also an assistant professor in a technical field.
I feel a bit swindled at having to work ridiculously hard trying to get papers out while teaching and applying for grants.
I work much harder than my grad-school friends who went into law, business, or finance, and they are all making &gt; $120,000/year.
Furthermore, the tenure process at many institutions is so broken that it rewards lots of crap papers with incremental results much more than a single good paper.
(And if you happen to spend time working on a problem that interests you, but which you don't solve, then you're screwed.
)I'm lucky in that I have decent social skills, so I've reduced my efforts to something commensurate with the salary.
If I don't make tenure, I'll leave academia and go into a more lucrative field.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904731</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904897</id>
	<title>Re:More articles like this please</title>
	<author>CharlyFoxtrot</author>
	<datestamp>1256737320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's easy, just commission studies from the university of Bejing. It's bound to agree.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's easy , just commission studies from the university of Bejing .
It 's bound to agree .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's easy, just commission studies from the university of Bejing.
It's bound to agree.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904475</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29911823</id>
	<title>Re:More articles like this please</title>
	<author>Gilmoure</author>
	<datestamp>1256836560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Um... two history majors I know, one's a sys-admin of a bunch of Sun boxes and the other's an editor of a magazine. An English Lit major's an Exchange admin and the fine arts major (dropout) is third tier tech support. I do know one comp sci graduate; she's a print maker (intaglio press) and water color artist. Oh yeah, my buddy with construction management degree; he now runs a bank. Go figuh.</p><p>The only place I see folks working the fields of their degrees is here at the doe lab I work at and those are just the researchers.</p><p>Only advice I have for my daughter, when it's time for her to go to college, is go for what you really like, but get a job in college ITS department. Even if she gets employed in her field, she'll be office star for being able to think around computers .</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Um... two history majors I know , one 's a sys-admin of a bunch of Sun boxes and the other 's an editor of a magazine .
An English Lit major 's an Exchange admin and the fine arts major ( dropout ) is third tier tech support .
I do know one comp sci graduate ; she 's a print maker ( intaglio press ) and water color artist .
Oh yeah , my buddy with construction management degree ; he now runs a bank .
Go figuh.The only place I see folks working the fields of their degrees is here at the doe lab I work at and those are just the researchers.Only advice I have for my daughter , when it 's time for her to go to college , is go for what you really like , but get a job in college ITS department .
Even if she gets employed in her field , she 'll be office star for being able to think around computers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Um... two history majors I know, one's a sys-admin of a bunch of Sun boxes and the other's an editor of a magazine.
An English Lit major's an Exchange admin and the fine arts major (dropout) is third tier tech support.
I do know one comp sci graduate; she's a print maker (intaglio press) and water color artist.
Oh yeah, my buddy with construction management degree; he now runs a bank.
Go figuh.The only place I see folks working the fields of their degrees is here at the doe lab I work at and those are just the researchers.Only advice I have for my daughter, when it's time for her to go to college, is go for what you really like, but get a job in college ITS department.
Even if she gets employed in her field, she'll be office star for being able to think around computers .</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905305</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905863</id>
	<title>Very soon, most people not needed.</title>
	<author>Maxo-Texas</author>
	<datestamp>1256744460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Once we get decent robots (and they can now pick loose nuts out of a bin), 99\% of jobs (even low skill ones) go away.<br>Buy a grocery shelf stocker robot for $50k and let go 6 people.  It's never sick and works on holidays.<br>50 stockers lose their job and are replaced by one repairman-- but with proper design, even he is a minimum wagejob ("check code: A5, replace module 3")<br>If you can read a piece of paper and enter numbers, your job is threatened in the near future.</p><p>We have to find a better way than scarcity to distribute time at the beach, good food, and other resources or it is going to get extremely ugly within the next 20 to 30 years.</p><p>Too many people- no value to society- 1\% of people having stuff- 99\% of people not having stuff.  Historically that doesn't go well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Once we get decent robots ( and they can now pick loose nuts out of a bin ) , 99 \ % of jobs ( even low skill ones ) go away.Buy a grocery shelf stocker robot for $ 50k and let go 6 people .
It 's never sick and works on holidays.50 stockers lose their job and are replaced by one repairman-- but with proper design , even he is a minimum wagejob ( " check code : A5 , replace module 3 " ) If you can read a piece of paper and enter numbers , your job is threatened in the near future.We have to find a better way than scarcity to distribute time at the beach , good food , and other resources or it is going to get extremely ugly within the next 20 to 30 years.Too many people- no value to society- 1 \ % of people having stuff- 99 \ % of people not having stuff .
Historically that does n't go well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once we get decent robots (and they can now pick loose nuts out of a bin), 99\% of jobs (even low skill ones) go away.Buy a grocery shelf stocker robot for $50k and let go 6 people.
It's never sick and works on holidays.50 stockers lose their job and are replaced by one repairman-- but with proper design, even he is a minimum wagejob ("check code: A5, replace module 3")If you can read a piece of paper and enter numbers, your job is threatened in the near future.We have to find a better way than scarcity to distribute time at the beach, good food, and other resources or it is going to get extremely ugly within the next 20 to 30 years.Too many people- no value to society- 1\% of people having stuff- 99\% of people not having stuff.
Historically that doesn't go well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905289</id>
	<title>The Argument is "The Market Will Find Equilibrium"</title>
	<author>weston</author>
	<datestamp>1256740440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>So, by this rationale, in order to get more top talent in science, we need to let more talent choose other fields, leaving a scarcity of science grads, which will drive up salaries, and lead more top talent back into science? That's kind of like the argument that cold water boils faster than hot water</i></p><p>Don't see the similarity.</p><p>This is an economic argument about supply and demand for a certain kind of skilled labor. For whatever reason, it's pretty much true that salaries for engineers and scientists have remained more or less flat in real terms over the last 30 years. And in <em>relative</em> terms -- compared to careers in medicine, law, finance, etc, they're increasingly less competitive.</p><p>Who wouldn't consider an alternative field?</p><p>Instead, our business and public leaders seem to believe the solution is to magically increase the supply of this kind of skilled labor via educational (but not career!) incentives and immigration policy. Increased supply should mean decreased price. Decreased price will mean decreased incentive -- <em>particularly</em> for the brightest who will always have other options -- and the labor market will equilibrate accordingly.</p><p>The article argues we should let compensation for skilled engineers rise, and the labor market will equilibrate with more of the brightest with options again choosing science and technology.</p><p><i>Along the same lines, I'd like to hear the author's explanation of why employees in finance continue to get paid more and more, even as more talent floods into that profession. </i></p><p>In theory, this is pretty much to be expected over successive iterations in even an efficient market economy where some people accumulate more wealth than others and some people have a talent for managing it profitably. People with money are happy to pay other people lots of money if they can make them more money.</p><p>In practice, I suspect there are other factors involving perception and asymmetric information.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , by this rationale , in order to get more top talent in science , we need to let more talent choose other fields , leaving a scarcity of science grads , which will drive up salaries , and lead more top talent back into science ?
That 's kind of like the argument that cold water boils faster than hot waterDo n't see the similarity.This is an economic argument about supply and demand for a certain kind of skilled labor .
For whatever reason , it 's pretty much true that salaries for engineers and scientists have remained more or less flat in real terms over the last 30 years .
And in relative terms -- compared to careers in medicine , law , finance , etc , they 're increasingly less competitive.Who would n't consider an alternative field ? Instead , our business and public leaders seem to believe the solution is to magically increase the supply of this kind of skilled labor via educational ( but not career !
) incentives and immigration policy .
Increased supply should mean decreased price .
Decreased price will mean decreased incentive -- particularly for the brightest who will always have other options -- and the labor market will equilibrate accordingly.The article argues we should let compensation for skilled engineers rise , and the labor market will equilibrate with more of the brightest with options again choosing science and technology.Along the same lines , I 'd like to hear the author 's explanation of why employees in finance continue to get paid more and more , even as more talent floods into that profession .
In theory , this is pretty much to be expected over successive iterations in even an efficient market economy where some people accumulate more wealth than others and some people have a talent for managing it profitably .
People with money are happy to pay other people lots of money if they can make them more money.In practice , I suspect there are other factors involving perception and asymmetric information .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, by this rationale, in order to get more top talent in science, we need to let more talent choose other fields, leaving a scarcity of science grads, which will drive up salaries, and lead more top talent back into science?
That's kind of like the argument that cold water boils faster than hot waterDon't see the similarity.This is an economic argument about supply and demand for a certain kind of skilled labor.
For whatever reason, it's pretty much true that salaries for engineers and scientists have remained more or less flat in real terms over the last 30 years.
And in relative terms -- compared to careers in medicine, law, finance, etc, they're increasingly less competitive.Who wouldn't consider an alternative field?Instead, our business and public leaders seem to believe the solution is to magically increase the supply of this kind of skilled labor via educational (but not career!
) incentives and immigration policy.
Increased supply should mean decreased price.
Decreased price will mean decreased incentive -- particularly for the brightest who will always have other options -- and the labor market will equilibrate accordingly.The article argues we should let compensation for skilled engineers rise, and the labor market will equilibrate with more of the brightest with options again choosing science and technology.Along the same lines, I'd like to hear the author's explanation of why employees in finance continue to get paid more and more, even as more talent floods into that profession.
In theory, this is pretty much to be expected over successive iterations in even an efficient market economy where some people accumulate more wealth than others and some people have a talent for managing it profitably.
People with money are happy to pay other people lots of money if they can make them more money.In practice, I suspect there are other factors involving perception and asymmetric information.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904647</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29912545</id>
	<title>Re:What about just doing what you love?</title>
	<author>NFN\_NLN</author>
	<datestamp>1256839200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't give a rusty fuck what some study says people should or should not go into. I work in the fields I love, and I'd recommend it to everyone else. If you want to do science, do science. If you don't then don't. Who really cares what some frigtarded academic thinks anyway? Final thought - how often is it that we look back on these studies five or ten years later to find out they were somewhere around, oh, dead wrong. if these guys are such friggin' geniuses at predicting the future they should go make $Billions in the stock market.</p><p>If all you care about is money than go into politics or join the mob (it's ethically about the same).</p></div><p>Great, now we're going to have an entire generation where 90\% of males are professional video game testers and 99\% of females work with "special needs" children.</p><p>"...work in the field [you] love.." it's like you've never seen an episode of Dirty Jobs.  Granted I think the guy that castrated sheep with this own teeth actually did love his job, but that is a special case.  No, I'm not making this up: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QErgjt\_GYBk&amp;feature=player\_embedded#t=4m43s" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QErgjt\_GYBk&amp;feature=player\_embedded#t=4m43s</a> [youtube.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know about the rest of you , but I do n't give a rusty fuck what some study says people should or should not go into .
I work in the fields I love , and I 'd recommend it to everyone else .
If you want to do science , do science .
If you do n't then do n't .
Who really cares what some frigtarded academic thinks anyway ?
Final thought - how often is it that we look back on these studies five or ten years later to find out they were somewhere around , oh , dead wrong .
if these guys are such friggin ' geniuses at predicting the future they should go make $ Billions in the stock market.If all you care about is money than go into politics or join the mob ( it 's ethically about the same ) .Great , now we 're going to have an entire generation where 90 \ % of males are professional video game testers and 99 \ % of females work with " special needs " children .
" ...work in the field [ you ] love.. " it 's like you 've never seen an episode of Dirty Jobs .
Granted I think the guy that castrated sheep with this own teeth actually did love his job , but that is a special case .
No , I 'm not making this up : http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = QErgjt \ _GYBk&amp;feature = player \ _embedded # t = 4m43s [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't give a rusty fuck what some study says people should or should not go into.
I work in the fields I love, and I'd recommend it to everyone else.
If you want to do science, do science.
If you don't then don't.
Who really cares what some frigtarded academic thinks anyway?
Final thought - how often is it that we look back on these studies five or ten years later to find out they were somewhere around, oh, dead wrong.
if these guys are such friggin' geniuses at predicting the future they should go make $Billions in the stock market.If all you care about is money than go into politics or join the mob (it's ethically about the same).Great, now we're going to have an entire generation where 90\% of males are professional video game testers and 99\% of females work with "special needs" children.
"...work in the field [you] love.." it's like you've never seen an episode of Dirty Jobs.
Granted I think the guy that castrated sheep with this own teeth actually did love his job, but that is a special case.
No, I'm not making this up: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QErgjt\_GYBk&amp;feature=player\_embedded#t=4m43s [youtube.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904517</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29906435</id>
	<title>Re:Faulty Logic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256749320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That's kind of like the argument that cold water boils faster than hot water.  Of course, lots of people think that's true, too.</p></div><p>But very hot water does freeze faster than cold water. Some of the water evaporates leaving less water to freeze. So in some roundabout, unintended way, it is an apt analogy, as the desired goal is reached by reducing the amount in the "pool".

Not saying you're wrong, just that maybe you should stick with something safe like car analogies.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's kind of like the argument that cold water boils faster than hot water .
Of course , lots of people think that 's true , too.But very hot water does freeze faster than cold water .
Some of the water evaporates leaving less water to freeze .
So in some roundabout , unintended way , it is an apt analogy , as the desired goal is reached by reducing the amount in the " pool " .
Not saying you 're wrong , just that maybe you should stick with something safe like car analogies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's kind of like the argument that cold water boils faster than hot water.
Of course, lots of people think that's true, too.But very hot water does freeze faster than cold water.
Some of the water evaporates leaving less water to freeze.
So in some roundabout, unintended way, it is an apt analogy, as the desired goal is reached by reducing the amount in the "pool".
Not saying you're wrong, just that maybe you should stick with something safe like car analogies.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904647</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904643</id>
	<title>people following the money</title>
	<author>jschen</author>
	<datestamp>1256736000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>As noted in the article, Wall Street is a major draw for the top students. While in grad school, even my professor mentioned to me on several occasions that I probably would make a lot more afterwards if I left research and did investment banking, private equity, patent law, management consulting, or any of a number of other jobs, though he hoped I would stick with academic chemistry. I am looking  for an academic post now, but I certainly can see the draw of the more lucrative fields. For one example, when McKinsey was recruiting PhD's at our institute a few years ago, first year total compensation was estimated at $130-165k. That's quite a bit higher than what the total compensation would have been at the time for the coveted entry level PhD positions at the top pharmaceutical companies, and the compensation in the business world would rise much more quickly in subsequent years. Doing good science is hard, and during the tougher times in grad school, it was extremely tempting to jump ship.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As noted in the article , Wall Street is a major draw for the top students .
While in grad school , even my professor mentioned to me on several occasions that I probably would make a lot more afterwards if I left research and did investment banking , private equity , patent law , management consulting , or any of a number of other jobs , though he hoped I would stick with academic chemistry .
I am looking for an academic post now , but I certainly can see the draw of the more lucrative fields .
For one example , when McKinsey was recruiting PhD 's at our institute a few years ago , first year total compensation was estimated at $ 130-165k .
That 's quite a bit higher than what the total compensation would have been at the time for the coveted entry level PhD positions at the top pharmaceutical companies , and the compensation in the business world would rise much more quickly in subsequent years .
Doing good science is hard , and during the tougher times in grad school , it was extremely tempting to jump ship .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As noted in the article, Wall Street is a major draw for the top students.
While in grad school, even my professor mentioned to me on several occasions that I probably would make a lot more afterwards if I left research and did investment banking, private equity, patent law, management consulting, or any of a number of other jobs, though he hoped I would stick with academic chemistry.
I am looking  for an academic post now, but I certainly can see the draw of the more lucrative fields.
For one example, when McKinsey was recruiting PhD's at our institute a few years ago, first year total compensation was estimated at $130-165k.
That's quite a bit higher than what the total compensation would have been at the time for the coveted entry level PhD positions at the top pharmaceutical companies, and the compensation in the business world would rise much more quickly in subsequent years.
Doing good science is hard, and during the tougher times in grad school, it was extremely tempting to jump ship.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29908763</id>
	<title>Re:Seriously! Pay really is the issue!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256823420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You make $175K doing what now?  I have an MS in Computer Science and I make $50K as a web developer.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/cries</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You make $ 175K doing what now ?
I have an MS in Computer Science and I make $ 50K as a web developer .
/cries</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You make $175K doing what now?
I have an MS in Computer Science and I make $50K as a web developer.
/cries</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905295</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29908511</id>
	<title>Re:Over-simplify much?</title>
	<author>LatencyKills</author>
	<datestamp>1256820420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can't speak for a terminal masters program, but I can say that my PhD was essential free (at least in a monetary sense- the cost to my social life would need to be debated separately).  I got my PhD in physics from Rice University.  The first six months cost me perhaps $7k.  After that I was an employee of the university (first as a teaching assistant, then as a research assistant) and my tuition was waved.  I even earned a stipend of about $10k.  Lived frugally (rent $175/month with four other people in one apartment, split the phone and electric five ways, ate more Ramen noodles than you can imagine, drove a beater), and six years later had a PhD.  That said, my best friend went from college straight into work and today he's earning more than I do (though not a great deal more).  Still, I have the PhD, and by and large my job is very technically oriented with a minimum of management BS.  I'm happy with the decision I made.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't speak for a terminal masters program , but I can say that my PhD was essential free ( at least in a monetary sense- the cost to my social life would need to be debated separately ) .
I got my PhD in physics from Rice University .
The first six months cost me perhaps $ 7k .
After that I was an employee of the university ( first as a teaching assistant , then as a research assistant ) and my tuition was waved .
I even earned a stipend of about $ 10k .
Lived frugally ( rent $ 175/month with four other people in one apartment , split the phone and electric five ways , ate more Ramen noodles than you can imagine , drove a beater ) , and six years later had a PhD .
That said , my best friend went from college straight into work and today he 's earning more than I do ( though not a great deal more ) .
Still , I have the PhD , and by and large my job is very technically oriented with a minimum of management BS .
I 'm happy with the decision I made .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't speak for a terminal masters program, but I can say that my PhD was essential free (at least in a monetary sense- the cost to my social life would need to be debated separately).
I got my PhD in physics from Rice University.
The first six months cost me perhaps $7k.
After that I was an employee of the university (first as a teaching assistant, then as a research assistant) and my tuition was waved.
I even earned a stipend of about $10k.
Lived frugally (rent $175/month with four other people in one apartment, split the phone and electric five ways, ate more Ramen noodles than you can imagine, drove a beater), and six years later had a PhD.
That said, my best friend went from college straight into work and today he's earning more than I do (though not a great deal more).
Still, I have the PhD, and by and large my job is very technically oriented with a minimum of management BS.
I'm happy with the decision I made.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904767</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29907191</id>
	<title>Re:What about just doing what you love?</title>
	<author>Bazer</author>
	<datestamp>1256757960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>To paraphrase Office Space, if everybody did what they loved,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div><p>... we'd have advanced in robotics so much, anyone could afford an automatic robot janitor.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... sorry, I had my reality distortion field on.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>To paraphrase Office Space , if everybody did what they loved , ...... we 'd have advanced in robotics so much , anyone could afford an automatic robot janitor .
... sorry , I had my reality distortion field on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To paraphrase Office Space, if everybody did what they loved, ...... we'd have advanced in robotics so much, anyone could afford an automatic robot janitor.
... sorry, I had my reality distortion field on.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904851</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904791</id>
	<title>Re:What about just doing what you love?</title>
	<author>ObsessiveMathsFreak</author>
	<datestamp>1256736720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><b> <i>Communist!!!</i> </b></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Communist ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Communist!!
! </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904517</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29912157</id>
	<title>Re:Very soon, most people not needed.</title>
	<author>socrplayr813</author>
	<datestamp>1256837820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mostly true, but your 99\% estimate is too high.  Someone still has to design and manufacture the robots.  And research jobs will not go away.  There's always more stuff to learn.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mostly true , but your 99 \ % estimate is too high .
Someone still has to design and manufacture the robots .
And research jobs will not go away .
There 's always more stuff to learn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mostly true, but your 99\% estimate is too high.
Someone still has to design and manufacture the robots.
And research jobs will not go away.
There's always more stuff to learn.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905863</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905195</id>
	<title>Re:What about just doing what you love?</title>
	<author>c6gunner</author>
	<datestamp>1256739720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>because science (i.e. by the 'academics') typically results in 80\% wrong facts, and 20\% absolute fact. Academics can't accept this, cause science is supposed to always produce 100\% fact: i.e. it's philosophically bad in our society of 'yes and no' that science is sometimes "right".</p> </div><p>Leaving aside the fact that your last sentence makes absolutely no sense, you're completely wrong about the rest of it.  Every scientist knows that much of what they study will probably turn out to be wrong.  That's why a "theory" in science is the highest level that an idea can attain - because even the most conclusively proven theory can be overturned if the right evidence is discovered.  So yeah, the majority of our theories may turn out to be wrong, but it doesn't matter because we won't know about it until we discover <i>better</i> theories through the scientific method.  Science isn't about finding the "right" answers, it's about constantly finding <b>better</b> answers.</p><p>There's an Isaac Asimov quote which serves to underline this idea:</p><p>"When people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."</p><p><div class="quote"><p>(And that's why there will always be a religion-science conflict)</p> </div><p>No, the reason there's a conflict between religion and science is because power-hungry fascists like to keep the public ignorant so that they can control them.  It goes something like this:</p><p>You tell your followers that lightning is created by an all-powerful Magic Man who can destroy them at will.  But it's ok, because you have the inside track to the head honcho, and you'll keep them safe as long as they bring you lots of meat, wine, and gold to "sacrifice" to him.  Then some smarmy guy with glasses comes along and starts talking about electrons, and suddenly your magical explanation starts to sound less plausible to your flock.  That's bad for business.  So you send out your buddies to tell everyone that "Electromagnetism is just a theory!".  You bribe the local lords to pass laws outlawing its teaching.  You do whatever you can to try and keep your followers ignorant and, like all good fools, they happily help you do it.</p><p>There's no conflict between science and generic Deistic beliefs. It's only organized religion that keep creating problems.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>because science ( i.e .
by the 'academics ' ) typically results in 80 \ % wrong facts , and 20 \ % absolute fact .
Academics ca n't accept this , cause science is supposed to always produce 100 \ % fact : i.e .
it 's philosophically bad in our society of 'yes and no ' that science is sometimes " right " .
Leaving aside the fact that your last sentence makes absolutely no sense , you 're completely wrong about the rest of it .
Every scientist knows that much of what they study will probably turn out to be wrong .
That 's why a " theory " in science is the highest level that an idea can attain - because even the most conclusively proven theory can be overturned if the right evidence is discovered .
So yeah , the majority of our theories may turn out to be wrong , but it does n't matter because we wo n't know about it until we discover better theories through the scientific method .
Science is n't about finding the " right " answers , it 's about constantly finding better answers.There 's an Isaac Asimov quote which serves to underline this idea : " When people thought the Earth was flat , they were wrong .
When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong .
But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat , then your view is wronger than both of them put together .
" ( And that 's why there will always be a religion-science conflict ) No , the reason there 's a conflict between religion and science is because power-hungry fascists like to keep the public ignorant so that they can control them .
It goes something like this : You tell your followers that lightning is created by an all-powerful Magic Man who can destroy them at will .
But it 's ok , because you have the inside track to the head honcho , and you 'll keep them safe as long as they bring you lots of meat , wine , and gold to " sacrifice " to him .
Then some smarmy guy with glasses comes along and starts talking about electrons , and suddenly your magical explanation starts to sound less plausible to your flock .
That 's bad for business .
So you send out your buddies to tell everyone that " Electromagnetism is just a theory ! " .
You bribe the local lords to pass laws outlawing its teaching .
You do whatever you can to try and keep your followers ignorant and , like all good fools , they happily help you do it.There 's no conflict between science and generic Deistic beliefs .
It 's only organized religion that keep creating problems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>because science (i.e.
by the 'academics') typically results in 80\% wrong facts, and 20\% absolute fact.
Academics can't accept this, cause science is supposed to always produce 100\% fact: i.e.
it's philosophically bad in our society of 'yes and no' that science is sometimes "right".
Leaving aside the fact that your last sentence makes absolutely no sense, you're completely wrong about the rest of it.
Every scientist knows that much of what they study will probably turn out to be wrong.
That's why a "theory" in science is the highest level that an idea can attain - because even the most conclusively proven theory can be overturned if the right evidence is discovered.
So yeah, the majority of our theories may turn out to be wrong, but it doesn't matter because we won't know about it until we discover better theories through the scientific method.
Science isn't about finding the "right" answers, it's about constantly finding better answers.There's an Isaac Asimov quote which serves to underline this idea:"When people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong.
When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong.
But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together.
"(And that's why there will always be a religion-science conflict) No, the reason there's a conflict between religion and science is because power-hungry fascists like to keep the public ignorant so that they can control them.
It goes something like this:You tell your followers that lightning is created by an all-powerful Magic Man who can destroy them at will.
But it's ok, because you have the inside track to the head honcho, and you'll keep them safe as long as they bring you lots of meat, wine, and gold to "sacrifice" to him.
Then some smarmy guy with glasses comes along and starts talking about electrons, and suddenly your magical explanation starts to sound less plausible to your flock.
That's bad for business.
So you send out your buddies to tell everyone that "Electromagnetism is just a theory!".
You bribe the local lords to pass laws outlawing its teaching.
You do whatever you can to try and keep your followers ignorant and, like all good fools, they happily help you do it.There's no conflict between science and generic Deistic beliefs.
It's only organized religion that keep creating problems.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904721</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905217</id>
	<title>Re:More articles like this please</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256739840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You should probably consider a nice career in banking and move to Wall Street then.  Its not exactly a secret that the big Wall Street banks have pretty much devoured the U.S. economy and they run the government, insuring that their success will be guaranteed by the Congress, the President and his Wall Street friendly administration(same for Dems and Republicans), the Fed (by printing money and giving it to them at zero percent even if it destroys the dollar) and in times of the trouble the U.S. taxpayer.  They are a huge percentage of the U.S. economy now and their compensation dwarves pretty much every other career.</p><p>I was reading earlier this week the U.S. now has the greatest income inequality in the world except for Singapore and Hong Kong which are tiny city states.  Last time we had income inequality at this level was in the 1920's right before the Great Depression.  Lord Brian Griffiths of Fforestfach, vice chairman at Goldman Sachs Intl., a life peer under England's nobility scheme, and Christian theorist of "biblically based wealth creation."   recently said: "We have to tolerate the inequality as a way to achieve greater prosperity and opportunity for all."  The dirty little secret is Goldman Sach's keeps all the prosperity and opportunity for themselves and their rich friends, and the rest of us will never see it unless we manage to join their exclusive little club.  We've pretty much returned to aristocracy and are certainly in a plutocracy with a tinge of kleptocracy since when Wall Street screwed up they smoothed it over by outright legalized theft from the rest of us.</p><p>The article doesn't spell it out but all of America's best and brightest are going to Wall Street and big business, not science. Unless they are idealists or altruists they go there because that's where the easy money is.  Its mostly money being produced via elaborate legalized Ponzi schemes but that doesn't change the fact if you make it on Wall Steet you get money for nothing and chicks for free.   Whose going to enter the exciting world of Physics when they can have that, at least while the party lasts, and it appears after a brief glitch its back bigger and better than ever.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You should probably consider a nice career in banking and move to Wall Street then .
Its not exactly a secret that the big Wall Street banks have pretty much devoured the U.S. economy and they run the government , insuring that their success will be guaranteed by the Congress , the President and his Wall Street friendly administration ( same for Dems and Republicans ) , the Fed ( by printing money and giving it to them at zero percent even if it destroys the dollar ) and in times of the trouble the U.S. taxpayer. They are a huge percentage of the U.S. economy now and their compensation dwarves pretty much every other career.I was reading earlier this week the U.S. now has the greatest income inequality in the world except for Singapore and Hong Kong which are tiny city states .
Last time we had income inequality at this level was in the 1920 's right before the Great Depression .
Lord Brian Griffiths of Fforestfach , vice chairman at Goldman Sachs Intl. , a life peer under England 's nobility scheme , and Christian theorist of " biblically based wealth creation .
" recently said : " We have to tolerate the inequality as a way to achieve greater prosperity and opportunity for all .
" The dirty little secret is Goldman Sach 's keeps all the prosperity and opportunity for themselves and their rich friends , and the rest of us will never see it unless we manage to join their exclusive little club .
We 've pretty much returned to aristocracy and are certainly in a plutocracy with a tinge of kleptocracy since when Wall Street screwed up they smoothed it over by outright legalized theft from the rest of us.The article does n't spell it out but all of America 's best and brightest are going to Wall Street and big business , not science .
Unless they are idealists or altruists they go there because that 's where the easy money is .
Its mostly money being produced via elaborate legalized Ponzi schemes but that does n't change the fact if you make it on Wall Steet you get money for nothing and chicks for free .
Whose going to enter the exciting world of Physics when they can have that , at least while the party lasts , and it appears after a brief glitch its back bigger and better than ever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You should probably consider a nice career in banking and move to Wall Street then.
Its not exactly a secret that the big Wall Street banks have pretty much devoured the U.S. economy and they run the government, insuring that their success will be guaranteed by the Congress, the President and his Wall Street friendly administration(same for Dems and Republicans), the Fed (by printing money and giving it to them at zero percent even if it destroys the dollar) and in times of the trouble the U.S. taxpayer.  They are a huge percentage of the U.S. economy now and their compensation dwarves pretty much every other career.I was reading earlier this week the U.S. now has the greatest income inequality in the world except for Singapore and Hong Kong which are tiny city states.
Last time we had income inequality at this level was in the 1920's right before the Great Depression.
Lord Brian Griffiths of Fforestfach, vice chairman at Goldman Sachs Intl., a life peer under England's nobility scheme, and Christian theorist of "biblically based wealth creation.
"   recently said: "We have to tolerate the inequality as a way to achieve greater prosperity and opportunity for all.
"  The dirty little secret is Goldman Sach's keeps all the prosperity and opportunity for themselves and their rich friends, and the rest of us will never see it unless we manage to join their exclusive little club.
We've pretty much returned to aristocracy and are certainly in a plutocracy with a tinge of kleptocracy since when Wall Street screwed up they smoothed it over by outright legalized theft from the rest of us.The article doesn't spell it out but all of America's best and brightest are going to Wall Street and big business, not science.
Unless they are idealists or altruists they go there because that's where the easy money is.
Its mostly money being produced via elaborate legalized Ponzi schemes but that doesn't change the fact if you make it on Wall Steet you get money for nothing and chicks for free.
Whose going to enter the exciting world of Physics when they can have that, at least while the party lasts, and it appears after a brief glitch its back bigger and better than ever.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904475</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905725</id>
	<title>Re:As Rutherford said...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256743560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not that bankers aren't destructive in their own cute little way, but weren't nuclear weapons designed by the very engineers you try to contrast them with?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not that bankers are n't destructive in their own cute little way , but were n't nuclear weapons designed by the very engineers you try to contrast them with ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not that bankers aren't destructive in their own cute little way, but weren't nuclear weapons designed by the very engineers you try to contrast them with?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904553</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905091</id>
	<title>Re:As Rutherford said...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256738820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd bet your comment would be almost identical if the headline was, "US Scientists staying in discipline - pays less, but is more rewarding".</p><p>Isn't it just about as likely that top talent stays in science and engineering fields because they are much more intellectually rewarding and substantive, and that only the mediocre people leave and enter banking and other fields because those fields are not as intellectually intensive?</p><p>I think you could easily construct a few plausible lines of reasoning here.</p><p>What you're demonstrating is hindsight bias - It's easy to pick which justification and explanation is right when you already know the outcome.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd bet your comment would be almost identical if the headline was , " US Scientists staying in discipline - pays less , but is more rewarding " .Is n't it just about as likely that top talent stays in science and engineering fields because they are much more intellectually rewarding and substantive , and that only the mediocre people leave and enter banking and other fields because those fields are not as intellectually intensive ? I think you could easily construct a few plausible lines of reasoning here.What you 're demonstrating is hindsight bias - It 's easy to pick which justification and explanation is right when you already know the outcome .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd bet your comment would be almost identical if the headline was, "US Scientists staying in discipline - pays less, but is more rewarding".Isn't it just about as likely that top talent stays in science and engineering fields because they are much more intellectually rewarding and substantive, and that only the mediocre people leave and enter banking and other fields because those fields are not as intellectually intensive?I think you could easily construct a few plausible lines of reasoning here.What you're demonstrating is hindsight bias - It's easy to pick which justification and explanation is right when you already know the outcome.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904553</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29906035</id>
	<title>Re:how many scientists are enough?</title>
	<author>triffid\_98</author>
	<datestamp>1256745900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <i>The engineers who created the Ford Pinto, for instance, didn't exactly create something wonderful, and considering how that car killed people, it probably had negative utility. However, they did the work that their employers asked of them, and as management was in control and refused to allow engineers to improve the design, it was they who were responsible for any deaths. Less spectacularly, many engineers work on things which are ultimately trashed before seeing production. I've seen my share of that in my own work. But again, just because management decides to trash something doesn't mean it isn't "useful", it just wasn't profitable enough for them.</i></p></div> </blockquote><p>
As a fun fact I would point out that those engineers had specified a lined gas tank for that very reason, but management decided to cheapen the design and deliver a bare steel tank instead. I still see these cars on the road occasionally so they must have done something right.
<br> <br>
From my personal experience (computer) engineering pays a reasonable starting wage but there is no career path to speak of unless you jump into management. I do plenty to keep my skills up to date and all that really does is keep me at the same senior level salary I had 7 years ago...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The engineers who created the Ford Pinto , for instance , did n't exactly create something wonderful , and considering how that car killed people , it probably had negative utility .
However , they did the work that their employers asked of them , and as management was in control and refused to allow engineers to improve the design , it was they who were responsible for any deaths .
Less spectacularly , many engineers work on things which are ultimately trashed before seeing production .
I 've seen my share of that in my own work .
But again , just because management decides to trash something does n't mean it is n't " useful " , it just was n't profitable enough for them .
As a fun fact I would point out that those engineers had specified a lined gas tank for that very reason , but management decided to cheapen the design and deliver a bare steel tank instead .
I still see these cars on the road occasionally so they must have done something right .
From my personal experience ( computer ) engineering pays a reasonable starting wage but there is no career path to speak of unless you jump into management .
I do plenty to keep my skills up to date and all that really does is keep me at the same senior level salary I had 7 years ago.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> The engineers who created the Ford Pinto, for instance, didn't exactly create something wonderful, and considering how that car killed people, it probably had negative utility.
However, they did the work that their employers asked of them, and as management was in control and refused to allow engineers to improve the design, it was they who were responsible for any deaths.
Less spectacularly, many engineers work on things which are ultimately trashed before seeing production.
I've seen my share of that in my own work.
But again, just because management decides to trash something doesn't mean it isn't "useful", it just wasn't profitable enough for them.
As a fun fact I would point out that those engineers had specified a lined gas tank for that very reason, but management decided to cheapen the design and deliver a bare steel tank instead.
I still see these cars on the road occasionally so they must have done something right.
From my personal experience (computer) engineering pays a reasonable starting wage but there is no career path to speak of unless you jump into management.
I do plenty to keep my skills up to date and all that really does is keep me at the same senior level salary I had 7 years ago...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905079</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29907041</id>
	<title>the real problem</title>
	<author>inflamed</author>
	<datestamp>1256756100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is silly.

Good scientists are hard workers, not necessarily the smartest thinkers.  Accumulating experience and data is a tedious and painstaking effort, and one which is fraught with self-doubt.  It is a selfless pursuit which, while offering a small reward (learning something new) at the end, is mostly motivated by a desire to make a real and meaningful contribution to the world and the state of human existence.

Science does not offer adequate living wages.  I think that everyone should make around $50,000.  I argue that we need to cut the salaries that marketing, advertising, and salespeople make.  If competition in the marketplace means playing meaningless games to distract customers while their pockets are picked, what can be said for the number of business graduates churned out?</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is silly .
Good scientists are hard workers , not necessarily the smartest thinkers .
Accumulating experience and data is a tedious and painstaking effort , and one which is fraught with self-doubt .
It is a selfless pursuit which , while offering a small reward ( learning something new ) at the end , is mostly motivated by a desire to make a real and meaningful contribution to the world and the state of human existence .
Science does not offer adequate living wages .
I think that everyone should make around $ 50,000 .
I argue that we need to cut the salaries that marketing , advertising , and salespeople make .
If competition in the marketplace means playing meaningless games to distract customers while their pockets are picked , what can be said for the number of business graduates churned out ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is silly.
Good scientists are hard workers, not necessarily the smartest thinkers.
Accumulating experience and data is a tedious and painstaking effort, and one which is fraught with self-doubt.
It is a selfless pursuit which, while offering a small reward (learning something new) at the end, is mostly motivated by a desire to make a real and meaningful contribution to the world and the state of human existence.
Science does not offer adequate living wages.
I think that everyone should make around $50,000.
I argue that we need to cut the salaries that marketing, advertising, and salespeople make.
If competition in the marketplace means playing meaningless games to distract customers while their pockets are picked, what can be said for the number of business graduates churned out?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29908283</id>
	<title>Consider the source</title>
	<author>DaveV1.0</author>
	<datestamp>1256817540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Study Suggests U.S. Could Use Fewer, Not More Science Students*<br>*The headline of this story has been changed, see note at end.<br>by Yudhijit Bhattacharjee</p></div></blockquote><blockquote><div><p>B. Lindsay Lowella<br>Harold Salzmanb,c<br>Hamutal Bernsteina<br>Everett Hendersonc<br>a Institute for the Study of International Migration, Georgetown University<br>B. Lindsay Lowell: lowellbl@georgetown.edu<br>b Heldrich Center for Workforce Development, Rutgers University &amp;<br>c The Urban Institute<br>Hal Salzman: HSalzman@Rutgers.edu</p></div></blockquote><p>in a study published by the Institute for the Study of International Migration.</p><p>Not exactly unbiased, eh?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Study Suggests U.S. Could Use Fewer , Not More Science Students * * The headline of this story has been changed , see note at end.by Yudhijit BhattacharjeeB .
Lindsay LowellaHarold Salzmanb,cHamutal BernsteinaEverett Hendersonca Institute for the Study of International Migration , Georgetown UniversityB .
Lindsay Lowell : lowellbl @ georgetown.edub Heldrich Center for Workforce Development , Rutgers University &amp;c The Urban InstituteHal Salzman : HSalzman @ Rutgers.eduin a study published by the Institute for the Study of International Migration.Not exactly unbiased , eh ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Study Suggests U.S. Could Use Fewer, Not More Science Students**The headline of this story has been changed, see note at end.by Yudhijit BhattacharjeeB.
Lindsay LowellaHarold Salzmanb,cHamutal BernsteinaEverett Hendersonca Institute for the Study of International Migration, Georgetown UniversityB.
Lindsay Lowell: lowellbl@georgetown.edub Heldrich Center for Workforce Development, Rutgers University &amp;c The Urban InstituteHal Salzman: HSalzman@Rutgers.eduin a study published by the Institute for the Study of International Migration.Not exactly unbiased, eh?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29906753</id>
	<title>Re:Very soon, most people not needed.</title>
	<author>tutori</author>
	<datestamp>1256752440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Historically that doesn't go well.</p></div><p>Yeah, but historically those 1\% didn't have fighting robots to defend their wealth...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Historically that does n't go well.Yeah , but historically those 1 \ % did n't have fighting robots to defend their wealth.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Historically that doesn't go well.Yeah, but historically those 1\% didn't have fighting robots to defend their wealth...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905863</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904731</id>
	<title>Re:More articles like this please</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256736480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm an assistant professor and I can see this type of thing going on first hand.  I get paid okay but expectations of the promotion and tenure committee in terms of papers, research funding and teaching requires 50-60 hours a week of work minimum most week.  My record is 110 hours over 7 days, what a nightmare.  The reason for this situation is that science funding by the federal government has been more or less flat for about a decade but the number of professors has increased and the expectations of the universities from professors have gone up. <br> <br> My students take one look at me and immediately make a career decision in another job besides academics or even science in general.  I don't blame them either, even I hate my job sometimes and I couldn't ever imagine myself of being anything but a scientist -- but at this point, I have one more year to go for tenure but taking that dream position at the coffee shop in western Colorado and skiing all winter is starting to sound really good.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm an assistant professor and I can see this type of thing going on first hand .
I get paid okay but expectations of the promotion and tenure committee in terms of papers , research funding and teaching requires 50-60 hours a week of work minimum most week .
My record is 110 hours over 7 days , what a nightmare .
The reason for this situation is that science funding by the federal government has been more or less flat for about a decade but the number of professors has increased and the expectations of the universities from professors have gone up .
My students take one look at me and immediately make a career decision in another job besides academics or even science in general .
I do n't blame them either , even I hate my job sometimes and I could n't ever imagine myself of being anything but a scientist -- but at this point , I have one more year to go for tenure but taking that dream position at the coffee shop in western Colorado and skiing all winter is starting to sound really good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm an assistant professor and I can see this type of thing going on first hand.
I get paid okay but expectations of the promotion and tenure committee in terms of papers, research funding and teaching requires 50-60 hours a week of work minimum most week.
My record is 110 hours over 7 days, what a nightmare.
The reason for this situation is that science funding by the federal government has been more or less flat for about a decade but the number of professors has increased and the expectations of the universities from professors have gone up.
My students take one look at me and immediately make a career decision in another job besides academics or even science in general.
I don't blame them either, even I hate my job sometimes and I couldn't ever imagine myself of being anything but a scientist -- but at this point, I have one more year to go for tenure but taking that dream position at the coffee shop in western Colorado and skiing all winter is starting to sound really good.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904475</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904677</id>
	<title>Re:Really</title>
	<author>Fulcrum of Evil</author>
	<datestamp>1256736180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, big tech has spent the last decade telling congress that they need lots of foreigners because they just can't find any local talent: you'd think they'd raise the salary a bit if that were true.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , big tech has spent the last decade telling congress that they need lots of foreigners because they just ca n't find any local talent : you 'd think they 'd raise the salary a bit if that were true .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, big tech has spent the last decade telling congress that they need lots of foreigners because they just can't find any local talent: you'd think they'd raise the salary a bit if that were true.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904491</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905361</id>
	<title>Re:As Rutherford said...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256741100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can't become rich working as a scientist or engineer in traditional careers - working for a corporation or a university.  Either of them owns any patents you create and gets rich off of them for you in exchange for paying you a regular salary.</p><p>The only people who get rich off of science or engineering have to do it outside of those structures, and it's very rare to find investors and leap all the other hurtles.  The system is set up to happily enjoy the benefits of the scientists' and engineers' work, without them having any real say in the matter because that's the only game in town.  It used to be that the compensation was a reliable, significant wage, but that isn't the case any more.  There aren't nearly enough jobs for scientists and engineers compared to the number of trained scientists and engineers available, and that depresses the wages.  If we're serious about promoting education in science and engineering, (and we should be, because those educations do a lot to improve society) then we also need to be serious about promoting job creation in science and engineering.  We can do it through tax credits, zoning regulations, NSF funding, and a variety of other means, but we need to bite the bullet and do it.  Every year we don't, hundreds of thousands of undergraduate students who want to do science and engineering look at the lack of graduate positions and jobs in the outside market, and do something else (like finance) instead.  We're remodeling our society one year at a time, and as we've seen, if we're not careful the result may not be to our liking.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You ca n't become rich working as a scientist or engineer in traditional careers - working for a corporation or a university .
Either of them owns any patents you create and gets rich off of them for you in exchange for paying you a regular salary.The only people who get rich off of science or engineering have to do it outside of those structures , and it 's very rare to find investors and leap all the other hurtles .
The system is set up to happily enjoy the benefits of the scientists ' and engineers ' work , without them having any real say in the matter because that 's the only game in town .
It used to be that the compensation was a reliable , significant wage , but that is n't the case any more .
There are n't nearly enough jobs for scientists and engineers compared to the number of trained scientists and engineers available , and that depresses the wages .
If we 're serious about promoting education in science and engineering , ( and we should be , because those educations do a lot to improve society ) then we also need to be serious about promoting job creation in science and engineering .
We can do it through tax credits , zoning regulations , NSF funding , and a variety of other means , but we need to bite the bullet and do it .
Every year we do n't , hundreds of thousands of undergraduate students who want to do science and engineering look at the lack of graduate positions and jobs in the outside market , and do something else ( like finance ) instead .
We 're remodeling our society one year at a time , and as we 've seen , if we 're not careful the result may not be to our liking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can't become rich working as a scientist or engineer in traditional careers - working for a corporation or a university.
Either of them owns any patents you create and gets rich off of them for you in exchange for paying you a regular salary.The only people who get rich off of science or engineering have to do it outside of those structures, and it's very rare to find investors and leap all the other hurtles.
The system is set up to happily enjoy the benefits of the scientists' and engineers' work, without them having any real say in the matter because that's the only game in town.
It used to be that the compensation was a reliable, significant wage, but that isn't the case any more.
There aren't nearly enough jobs for scientists and engineers compared to the number of trained scientists and engineers available, and that depresses the wages.
If we're serious about promoting education in science and engineering, (and we should be, because those educations do a lot to improve society) then we also need to be serious about promoting job creation in science and engineering.
We can do it through tax credits, zoning regulations, NSF funding, and a variety of other means, but we need to bite the bullet and do it.
Every year we don't, hundreds of thousands of undergraduate students who want to do science and engineering look at the lack of graduate positions and jobs in the outside market, and do something else (like finance) instead.
We're remodeling our society one year at a time, and as we've seen, if we're not careful the result may not be to our liking.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904553</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29907457</id>
	<title>Re:Stupd rationale</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256847360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The honest and hard problem is that it's hard to tell what 'high-performing' means.  It may take years, or even decades (see Nobel prize) to determine what was 'high-performing' science.  In the mean time, people need to eat, sleep, have kids, spouces, vacations, etc.  It's not so easy as compiling this quarter's numbers.  As a grad student, I can think of no even slightly objective way to determine who in my class will produce better science in their lifetime, yet I guarantee such will be obvious in 30 years.</p><p>Unfortunately, instead of paying everyone high wages in hopes of keeping the best and most productive, we pay everyone the lowest wages because even they don't know if they're good enough to command the big bucks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The honest and hard problem is that it 's hard to tell what 'high-performing ' means .
It may take years , or even decades ( see Nobel prize ) to determine what was 'high-performing ' science .
In the mean time , people need to eat , sleep , have kids , spouces , vacations , etc .
It 's not so easy as compiling this quarter 's numbers .
As a grad student , I can think of no even slightly objective way to determine who in my class will produce better science in their lifetime , yet I guarantee such will be obvious in 30 years.Unfortunately , instead of paying everyone high wages in hopes of keeping the best and most productive , we pay everyone the lowest wages because even they do n't know if they 're good enough to command the big bucks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The honest and hard problem is that it's hard to tell what 'high-performing' means.
It may take years, or even decades (see Nobel prize) to determine what was 'high-performing' science.
In the mean time, people need to eat, sleep, have kids, spouces, vacations, etc.
It's not so easy as compiling this quarter's numbers.
As a grad student, I can think of no even slightly objective way to determine who in my class will produce better science in their lifetime, yet I guarantee such will be obvious in 30 years.Unfortunately, instead of paying everyone high wages in hopes of keeping the best and most productive, we pay everyone the lowest wages because even they don't know if they're good enough to command the big bucks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904725</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29922785</id>
	<title>Re:More articles like this please</title>
	<author>sweart</author>
	<datestamp>1256912220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't know of any actual studies, but there has been a LOT of anecdotal evidence in the physics community that says the bright kids who could have been physicists have been migrating to Wall Street for the past decade or so.  This brings to mind a column in the NYTimes this morning* about that popular topic, compensation in the financial industry... The columnist, Floyd Norris, points out that the problem is not really that finance folks are overpaid; the problem is that there is so much money available to pay them, since profits in the finance industry have shot up, far in excess of anything in the past. The climb began in 1990. Um, let's see, what happened in 1990, I think somebody was elected President... oddly, among many possible causes for the sudden surge of money to the rich, Norris fails to mention the lapse of any regulation (not only were legal regulations reduced, but actual enforcement of existing regulations all but disappeared). *http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/30/business/30norris.html?\_r=1&amp;ref=business</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know of any actual studies , but there has been a LOT of anecdotal evidence in the physics community that says the bright kids who could have been physicists have been migrating to Wall Street for the past decade or so .
This brings to mind a column in the NYTimes this morning * about that popular topic , compensation in the financial industry... The columnist , Floyd Norris , points out that the problem is not really that finance folks are overpaid ; the problem is that there is so much money available to pay them , since profits in the finance industry have shot up , far in excess of anything in the past .
The climb began in 1990 .
Um , let 's see , what happened in 1990 , I think somebody was elected President... oddly , among many possible causes for the sudden surge of money to the rich , Norris fails to mention the lapse of any regulation ( not only were legal regulations reduced , but actual enforcement of existing regulations all but disappeared ) .
* http : //www.nytimes.com/2009/10/30/business/30norris.html ? \ _r = 1&amp;ref = business</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know of any actual studies, but there has been a LOT of anecdotal evidence in the physics community that says the bright kids who could have been physicists have been migrating to Wall Street for the past decade or so.
This brings to mind a column in the NYTimes this morning* about that popular topic, compensation in the financial industry... The columnist, Floyd Norris, points out that the problem is not really that finance folks are overpaid; the problem is that there is so much money available to pay them, since profits in the finance industry have shot up, far in excess of anything in the past.
The climb began in 1990.
Um, let's see, what happened in 1990, I think somebody was elected President... oddly, among many possible causes for the sudden surge of money to the rich, Norris fails to mention the lapse of any regulation (not only were legal regulations reduced, but actual enforcement of existing regulations all but disappeared).
*http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/30/business/30norris.html?\_r=1&amp;ref=business</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905217</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905305</id>
	<title>Re:More articles like this please</title>
	<author>jellomizer</author>
	<datestamp>1256740560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Study of Math and Science shouldn't always bring you directly to an academic type of work.  Colleges and University tend to forget (at least after they are done with they're advertising)  that most students are going to school so they can get a good job.  Schools do a horrible job providing students an idea what type of work is available outside college.  In my Computer Science Program they told me my options were Programmer, or Teach Computer Science. (Which is better then other majors)  What do you do with a History Degree well you teach history. What about Physics... In some ways colleges idea of Majors is rather outdated, and designed purely for a career track in education.   Computer Science and Business,  Computer Science and Art.  Physics and Engineering. History and Mathmatics... However most people can't do a double major.  But colleges should really create custom type majors to help students with a career path.  Also really letting people know what type of jobs are out there to do.  Computer Science and English for technical writers.<br>We need more Math and science not less.  We are in a society where people are afraid to looking at problems objectively or blindly taking a look at numbers without really understanding them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Study of Math and Science should n't always bring you directly to an academic type of work .
Colleges and University tend to forget ( at least after they are done with they 're advertising ) that most students are going to school so they can get a good job .
Schools do a horrible job providing students an idea what type of work is available outside college .
In my Computer Science Program they told me my options were Programmer , or Teach Computer Science .
( Which is better then other majors ) What do you do with a History Degree well you teach history .
What about Physics... In some ways colleges idea of Majors is rather outdated , and designed purely for a career track in education .
Computer Science and Business , Computer Science and Art .
Physics and Engineering .
History and Mathmatics... However most people ca n't do a double major .
But colleges should really create custom type majors to help students with a career path .
Also really letting people know what type of jobs are out there to do .
Computer Science and English for technical writers.We need more Math and science not less .
We are in a society where people are afraid to looking at problems objectively or blindly taking a look at numbers without really understanding them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Study of Math and Science shouldn't always bring you directly to an academic type of work.
Colleges and University tend to forget (at least after they are done with they're advertising)  that most students are going to school so they can get a good job.
Schools do a horrible job providing students an idea what type of work is available outside college.
In my Computer Science Program they told me my options were Programmer, or Teach Computer Science.
(Which is better then other majors)  What do you do with a History Degree well you teach history.
What about Physics... In some ways colleges idea of Majors is rather outdated, and designed purely for a career track in education.
Computer Science and Business,  Computer Science and Art.
Physics and Engineering.
History and Mathmatics... However most people can't do a double major.
But colleges should really create custom type majors to help students with a career path.
Also really letting people know what type of jobs are out there to do.
Computer Science and English for technical writers.We need more Math and science not less.
We are in a society where people are afraid to looking at problems objectively or blindly taking a look at numbers without really understanding them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904731</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904741</id>
	<title>What country are these doofuses living in?</title>
	<author>category\_five</author>
	<datestamp>1256736540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The summary implies that reducing the number of science graduates would provide an incentive for companies to increase the pay of scientists and engineers. I counter that a reduced amount of science graduates would simply increase the number of H1B visas granted which will in turn drive down the pay for native scientists and engineers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The summary implies that reducing the number of science graduates would provide an incentive for companies to increase the pay of scientists and engineers .
I counter that a reduced amount of science graduates would simply increase the number of H1B visas granted which will in turn drive down the pay for native scientists and engineers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The summary implies that reducing the number of science graduates would provide an incentive for companies to increase the pay of scientists and engineers.
I counter that a reduced amount of science graduates would simply increase the number of H1B visas granted which will in turn drive down the pay for native scientists and engineers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905385</id>
	<title>Re:What about just doing what you love?</title>
	<author>whovian</author>
	<datestamp>1256741220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>If you want to do science, do science.</p></div><p>But what if science doesn't pay the bills?</p></div><p>Find a spouse/partner who isn't in science who can pay the bills.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you want to do science , do science.But what if science does n't pay the bills ? Find a spouse/partner who is n't in science who can pay the bills .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you want to do science, do science.But what if science doesn't pay the bills?Find a spouse/partner who isn't in science who can pay the bills.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904839</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904617</id>
	<title>So money is still the sole motivator?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256735880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I had hoped that the best scientist and engineers would be motivated by something more than just money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I had hoped that the best scientist and engineers would be motivated by something more than just money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had hoped that the best scientist and engineers would be motivated by something more than just money.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904709</id>
	<title>That's stupid.</title>
	<author>Hacker\_PingWu</author>
	<datestamp>1256736420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have yet to read the actual article, what I am replying to is the slashdot clipping. I'll read the article later just for arguing points and completion.</p><p>This is moronic. I don't know *how* they are calculating that 'the supply has actually remained steady over the past 30 years,' but if that is true, that demonstrates<br>a growing need for science and technology students, not that it's fine. The US was the world leader in science, technology and manufacturing coming out of WW II, and our<br>society has revolved around progressive upgrading and retooling of our industrial output.</p><p>The total population growth of the US from 1979 to 2008 according to the US Census Bureau was approximately 80 million people. You have to consider retiring, and emigrating persons in your picture when you are trying to estimate how many science sector persons we have produced, and kept in the last whole generation. So, if our number of graduating science, engineering and manufacturing sector students has remained the *same* for the *past 30 years*, we are ALL in a LOT of trouble.</p><p>I'd say that their conclusions, contrary to what they speculate as 'needing fewer Science students' shows data explaining how the scientific, industrial and manufacturing sectors of our country have been decaying for the past 30 years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have yet to read the actual article , what I am replying to is the slashdot clipping .
I 'll read the article later just for arguing points and completion.This is moronic .
I do n't know * how * they are calculating that 'the supply has actually remained steady over the past 30 years, ' but if that is true , that demonstratesa growing need for science and technology students , not that it 's fine .
The US was the world leader in science , technology and manufacturing coming out of WW II , and oursociety has revolved around progressive upgrading and retooling of our industrial output.The total population growth of the US from 1979 to 2008 according to the US Census Bureau was approximately 80 million people .
You have to consider retiring , and emigrating persons in your picture when you are trying to estimate how many science sector persons we have produced , and kept in the last whole generation .
So , if our number of graduating science , engineering and manufacturing sector students has remained the * same * for the * past 30 years * , we are ALL in a LOT of trouble.I 'd say that their conclusions , contrary to what they speculate as 'needing fewer Science students ' shows data explaining how the scientific , industrial and manufacturing sectors of our country have been decaying for the past 30 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have yet to read the actual article, what I am replying to is the slashdot clipping.
I'll read the article later just for arguing points and completion.This is moronic.
I don't know *how* they are calculating that 'the supply has actually remained steady over the past 30 years,' but if that is true, that demonstratesa growing need for science and technology students, not that it's fine.
The US was the world leader in science, technology and manufacturing coming out of WW II, and oursociety has revolved around progressive upgrading and retooling of our industrial output.The total population growth of the US from 1979 to 2008 according to the US Census Bureau was approximately 80 million people.
You have to consider retiring, and emigrating persons in your picture when you are trying to estimate how many science sector persons we have produced, and kept in the last whole generation.
So, if our number of graduating science, engineering and manufacturing sector students has remained the *same* for the *past 30 years*, we are ALL in a LOT of trouble.I'd say that their conclusions, contrary to what they speculate as 'needing fewer Science students' shows data explaining how the scientific, industrial and manufacturing sectors of our country have been decaying for the past 30 years.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29910025</id>
	<title>Re:how many scientists are enough?</title>
	<author>IICV</author>
	<datestamp>1256830080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>How many of those next Einsteins have gone off to work in something totally unrelated because of financial concerns?</p></div></blockquote><p>

I know, they might even end up working in the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein#Patent\_office" title="wikipedia.org">Swiss patent office</a> [wikipedia.org] just to feed their families!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How many of those next Einsteins have gone off to work in something totally unrelated because of financial concerns ?
I know , they might even end up working in the Swiss patent office [ wikipedia.org ] just to feed their families !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How many of those next Einsteins have gone off to work in something totally unrelated because of financial concerns?
I know, they might even end up working in the Swiss patent office [wikipedia.org] just to feed their families!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905087</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29908291</id>
	<title>Re:What's science done for us lately?</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1256817660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What's science done for us lately?</p></div><p>What a ridiculous question to ask on the Internet.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's science done for us lately ? What a ridiculous question to ask on the Internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's science done for us lately?What a ridiculous question to ask on the Internet.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905399</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905051</id>
	<title>Re:how many scientists are enough?</title>
	<author>the eric conspiracy</author>
	<datestamp>1256738400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd extend that to include the idea that to be a really good scientist you have to love what you are doing.</p><p>For people like that money beyond the basic necessities is not much of a consideration. They don't keep score that way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd extend that to include the idea that to be a really good scientist you have to love what you are doing.For people like that money beyond the basic necessities is not much of a consideration .
They do n't keep score that way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd extend that to include the idea that to be a really good scientist you have to love what you are doing.For people like that money beyond the basic necessities is not much of a consideration.
They don't keep score that way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904821</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905395</id>
	<title>Re:Incentives!?!?!?</title>
	<author>frank\_adrian314159</author>
	<datestamp>1256741280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ya know, I used to think this way about my career.  But as I get closer to retirement now and as my 401K has shrunk, I have second thoughts about not having taken a safe government job and being retired by now on a generous pension instead.  Yes, I would have missed out on the excitement of the work I did, but at least I wouldn't be worried about my old age.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ya know , I used to think this way about my career .
But as I get closer to retirement now and as my 401K has shrunk , I have second thoughts about not having taken a safe government job and being retired by now on a generous pension instead .
Yes , I would have missed out on the excitement of the work I did , but at least I would n't be worried about my old age .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ya know, I used to think this way about my career.
But as I get closer to retirement now and as my 401K has shrunk, I have second thoughts about not having taken a safe government job and being retired by now on a generous pension instead.
Yes, I would have missed out on the excitement of the work I did, but at least I wouldn't be worried about my old age.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904957</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904951</id>
	<title>Re:What about just doing what you love?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256737620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Who in their right mind chooses a job based on "loving" to do it?</p> </div><p><div class="quote"><p>but most rational people want to make money so that they can live a relaxing life instead of a disgruntled on[sic]</p></div><p>
I'd say that having a job you enjoy doing, even if it doesn't pay massive amounts, is better than pursuing a career simply to make money. I'd rather live within my means (a &pound;20,000 pounds a year or so is enough for a quite comfortable life) and do a job I enjoy than earn &pound;100,000 and hate my life.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who in their right mind chooses a job based on " loving " to do it ?
but most rational people want to make money so that they can live a relaxing life instead of a disgruntled on [ sic ] I 'd say that having a job you enjoy doing , even if it does n't pay massive amounts , is better than pursuing a career simply to make money .
I 'd rather live within my means ( a   20,000 pounds a year or so is enough for a quite comfortable life ) and do a job I enjoy than earn   100,000 and hate my life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who in their right mind chooses a job based on "loving" to do it?
but most rational people want to make money so that they can live a relaxing life instead of a disgruntled on[sic]
I'd say that having a job you enjoy doing, even if it doesn't pay massive amounts, is better than pursuing a career simply to make money.
I'd rather live within my means (a £20,000 pounds a year or so is enough for a quite comfortable life) and do a job I enjoy than earn £100,000 and hate my life.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904759</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29910111</id>
	<title>Re:Seriously! Pay really is the issue!!!</title>
	<author>Absolut187</author>
	<datestamp>1256830380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Similar situation.  Got a computer engineering degree from a top-5 comp E program.<br>Went to work as an engineer - starting salary: 40k.</p><p>Realized how little that is, and went to law school.<br>Now making $120k as a patent attorney.<br>Its pretty dry, but I don't think I could ever go back to engineering salaries.</p><p>I would prefer to be working for NASA, DOD, NSA, etc.<br>But I'm not going to spend 6 years getting a PhD (vs 3 for law school), and then go to work for $60k - HALF my current salary.</p><p>I'm not an economist so I can't say for sure WHY engineers make so little compared to, say, attorneys.  But I suspect it has something to do with outsourcing, importing too many cheap engineers from other countries, and a fucked-up culture that values athleticism more than anything else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Similar situation .
Got a computer engineering degree from a top-5 comp E program.Went to work as an engineer - starting salary : 40k.Realized how little that is , and went to law school.Now making $ 120k as a patent attorney.Its pretty dry , but I do n't think I could ever go back to engineering salaries.I would prefer to be working for NASA , DOD , NSA , etc.But I 'm not going to spend 6 years getting a PhD ( vs 3 for law school ) , and then go to work for $ 60k - HALF my current salary.I 'm not an economist so I ca n't say for sure WHY engineers make so little compared to , say , attorneys .
But I suspect it has something to do with outsourcing , importing too many cheap engineers from other countries , and a fucked-up culture that values athleticism more than anything else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Similar situation.
Got a computer engineering degree from a top-5 comp E program.Went to work as an engineer - starting salary: 40k.Realized how little that is, and went to law school.Now making $120k as a patent attorney.Its pretty dry, but I don't think I could ever go back to engineering salaries.I would prefer to be working for NASA, DOD, NSA, etc.But I'm not going to spend 6 years getting a PhD (vs 3 for law school), and then go to work for $60k - HALF my current salary.I'm not an economist so I can't say for sure WHY engineers make so little compared to, say, attorneys.
But I suspect it has something to do with outsourcing, importing too many cheap engineers from other countries, and a fucked-up culture that values athleticism more than anything else.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905295</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905939</id>
	<title>Oh I never saw that coming</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256745000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Overpaid Scientist with huge salary and mammoth bonuses, even when they don't deliver" I hear that one all the time.  But business executives, far dumber than the scientists, you never ever hear about stupidly high salaries with insane, more than the wettest dream bonuses, gee, you never ever hear about that.  Nooooo.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Overpaid Scientist with huge salary and mammoth bonuses , even when they do n't deliver " I hear that one all the time .
But business executives , far dumber than the scientists , you never ever hear about stupidly high salaries with insane , more than the wettest dream bonuses , gee , you never ever hear about that .
Nooooo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Overpaid Scientist with huge salary and mammoth bonuses, even when they don't deliver" I hear that one all the time.
But business executives, far dumber than the scientists, you never ever hear about stupidly high salaries with insane, more than the wettest dream bonuses, gee, you never ever hear about that.
Nooooo.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29908269</id>
	<title>Re:Seriously! Pay really is the issue!!!</title>
	<author>randomsearch</author>
	<datestamp>1256817360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a reply to the comments complaining about pay in academia.  I'm familiar only with the UK system, so perhaps this doesn't apply to the US.</p><p>Yes, academic jobs aren't paid as well as industry.  Yes, you can survive on academic pay, and quite comfortably.  Yes, stipends for PhDs in Computer Science are plentiful in the UK and more than sufficient to live comfortably on (assuming you're not supporting a family, though I know people who are doing PhDs and have kids).</p><p>When I finish my PhD, I think I will be disappointed with my financial reward if I get an academic research position.  The salary will likely be about 29 000 UKP and I'd expect a lot more in industry.  Having done 7 years of full-time education to get there, it won't have been financially beneficial to do so, and I don't feel "valued" by society for the skills I have learnt and the dedication I have shown.</p><p>Lots of talented people do go to industry, or more likely merchant banking, for the money.</p><p>However, I don't think we lose much by these people making that choice.  In academia, you have to be self-motivated, have a passion for learning and prioritise academic integrity, creativity, freedom and the ideals of aiding progress and contributing to society in a long-term and abstract way over making money.  I'm not saying making money is inferior to research: but academia is not about money.  I'm quite happy for people to go chasing large amounts of cash in stressful and (in my opinion) less fulfilling careers - they free up space for me in academia.</p><p>Please, don't make excuses about not being able to live on academic salaries (at least in the UK).  A professor might earn 60-80 000 UKP and that is plenty to bring up a family.  Consulting can bring much more.</p><p>Academic life has many benefits other than your wage - flexibility, increased holiday, freedom, prestige etc. They count for a huge amount.</p><p>Working in academia can be a greatly rewarding experience, the money is sufficient, and this if reflected by the continuous stream of talented individuals applying for PhDs and research positions.  If you want higher salaries, then please make that choice without complaining that academia should pay more to tempt you away from other options.</p><p>RS</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a reply to the comments complaining about pay in academia .
I 'm familiar only with the UK system , so perhaps this does n't apply to the US.Yes , academic jobs are n't paid as well as industry .
Yes , you can survive on academic pay , and quite comfortably .
Yes , stipends for PhDs in Computer Science are plentiful in the UK and more than sufficient to live comfortably on ( assuming you 're not supporting a family , though I know people who are doing PhDs and have kids ) .When I finish my PhD , I think I will be disappointed with my financial reward if I get an academic research position .
The salary will likely be about 29 000 UKP and I 'd expect a lot more in industry .
Having done 7 years of full-time education to get there , it wo n't have been financially beneficial to do so , and I do n't feel " valued " by society for the skills I have learnt and the dedication I have shown.Lots of talented people do go to industry , or more likely merchant banking , for the money.However , I do n't think we lose much by these people making that choice .
In academia , you have to be self-motivated , have a passion for learning and prioritise academic integrity , creativity , freedom and the ideals of aiding progress and contributing to society in a long-term and abstract way over making money .
I 'm not saying making money is inferior to research : but academia is not about money .
I 'm quite happy for people to go chasing large amounts of cash in stressful and ( in my opinion ) less fulfilling careers - they free up space for me in academia.Please , do n't make excuses about not being able to live on academic salaries ( at least in the UK ) .
A professor might earn 60-80 000 UKP and that is plenty to bring up a family .
Consulting can bring much more.Academic life has many benefits other than your wage - flexibility , increased holiday , freedom , prestige etc .
They count for a huge amount.Working in academia can be a greatly rewarding experience , the money is sufficient , and this if reflected by the continuous stream of talented individuals applying for PhDs and research positions .
If you want higher salaries , then please make that choice without complaining that academia should pay more to tempt you away from other options.RS</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a reply to the comments complaining about pay in academia.
I'm familiar only with the UK system, so perhaps this doesn't apply to the US.Yes, academic jobs aren't paid as well as industry.
Yes, you can survive on academic pay, and quite comfortably.
Yes, stipends for PhDs in Computer Science are plentiful in the UK and more than sufficient to live comfortably on (assuming you're not supporting a family, though I know people who are doing PhDs and have kids).When I finish my PhD, I think I will be disappointed with my financial reward if I get an academic research position.
The salary will likely be about 29 000 UKP and I'd expect a lot more in industry.
Having done 7 years of full-time education to get there, it won't have been financially beneficial to do so, and I don't feel "valued" by society for the skills I have learnt and the dedication I have shown.Lots of talented people do go to industry, or more likely merchant banking, for the money.However, I don't think we lose much by these people making that choice.
In academia, you have to be self-motivated, have a passion for learning and prioritise academic integrity, creativity, freedom and the ideals of aiding progress and contributing to society in a long-term and abstract way over making money.
I'm not saying making money is inferior to research: but academia is not about money.
I'm quite happy for people to go chasing large amounts of cash in stressful and (in my opinion) less fulfilling careers - they free up space for me in academia.Please, don't make excuses about not being able to live on academic salaries (at least in the UK).
A professor might earn 60-80 000 UKP and that is plenty to bring up a family.
Consulting can bring much more.Academic life has many benefits other than your wage - flexibility, increased holiday, freedom, prestige etc.
They count for a huge amount.Working in academia can be a greatly rewarding experience, the money is sufficient, and this if reflected by the continuous stream of talented individuals applying for PhDs and research positions.
If you want higher salaries, then please make that choice without complaining that academia should pay more to tempt you away from other options.RS</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905295</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904549</id>
	<title>Only a fool would enter a science or tech field</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256735400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>With outsourcing so prevalent, it's not something you do unless you really love what you do or were somehow grandfathered in...</htmltext>
<tokenext>With outsourcing so prevalent , it 's not something you do unless you really love what you do or were somehow grandfathered in.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With outsourcing so prevalent, it's not something you do unless you really love what you do or were somehow grandfathered in...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904851</id>
	<title>Re:What about just doing what you love?</title>
	<author>tool462</author>
	<datestamp>1256737200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To paraphrase Office Space, if everybody did what they loved, there would be a severe shortage of janitors.</p><p>In reality, how much you enjoy the job is only one factor of many when it comes to deciding your career.  And I would bet that in practice, it ends up being one of the last factors considered.  Whether or not you can make enough money to buy food and pay rent is going to be a much more important part of the decision.</p><p>And unless I'm misreading something, these guys aren't trying to set policy, they published a paper that found that existing policy is misguided and ineffective.  The free market has spoken.  The job market in science and engineering is saturated.  Trying to create policy and incentives to encourage larger numbers of science students ultimately depresses wages, which results in the best of the field moving on to other fields with better prospects.  End result: the same number of new scientists and engineers in the work force, but with less ability on average.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To paraphrase Office Space , if everybody did what they loved , there would be a severe shortage of janitors.In reality , how much you enjoy the job is only one factor of many when it comes to deciding your career .
And I would bet that in practice , it ends up being one of the last factors considered .
Whether or not you can make enough money to buy food and pay rent is going to be a much more important part of the decision.And unless I 'm misreading something , these guys are n't trying to set policy , they published a paper that found that existing policy is misguided and ineffective .
The free market has spoken .
The job market in science and engineering is saturated .
Trying to create policy and incentives to encourage larger numbers of science students ultimately depresses wages , which results in the best of the field moving on to other fields with better prospects .
End result : the same number of new scientists and engineers in the work force , but with less ability on average .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To paraphrase Office Space, if everybody did what they loved, there would be a severe shortage of janitors.In reality, how much you enjoy the job is only one factor of many when it comes to deciding your career.
And I would bet that in practice, it ends up being one of the last factors considered.
Whether or not you can make enough money to buy food and pay rent is going to be a much more important part of the decision.And unless I'm misreading something, these guys aren't trying to set policy, they published a paper that found that existing policy is misguided and ineffective.
The free market has spoken.
The job market in science and engineering is saturated.
Trying to create policy and incentives to encourage larger numbers of science students ultimately depresses wages, which results in the best of the field moving on to other fields with better prospects.
End result: the same number of new scientists and engineers in the work force, but with less ability on average.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904517</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29906131</id>
	<title>Re:More articles like this please</title>
	<author>megaditto</author>
	<datestamp>1256746680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The reason for this situation is that science funding by the federal government has been more or less flat for about a decade</p> </div><p>I was going to give a 'you are full of it' reply, but realized you might actually believe this.<br>So here is some info on the Federal science funding:<br><a href="http://dellweb.bfa.nsf.gov/nsffundhist\_files/frame.htm" title="nsf.gov"> NSF funding history</a> [nsf.gov]<br><a href="http://www.fda.gov/ScienceResearch/SpecialTopics/CriticalPathInitiative/CriticalPathOpportunitiesReports/ucm077262.htm#fig1" title="fda.gov">NIH funding trends</a> [fda.gov]<br><a href="http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/trdef07c.pdf" title="aaas.org">Defence funding</a> [aaas.org] (PDF file)</p><p>I know it's tough, but we must have competition! Unfortunately, that also means that many (most?) people will have to re-tool... Best of luck with your career though.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The reason for this situation is that science funding by the federal government has been more or less flat for about a decade I was going to give a 'you are full of it ' reply , but realized you might actually believe this.So here is some info on the Federal science funding : NSF funding history [ nsf.gov ] NIH funding trends [ fda.gov ] Defence funding [ aaas.org ] ( PDF file ) I know it 's tough , but we must have competition !
Unfortunately , that also means that many ( most ?
) people will have to re-tool... Best of luck with your career though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reason for this situation is that science funding by the federal government has been more or less flat for about a decade I was going to give a 'you are full of it' reply, but realized you might actually believe this.So here is some info on the Federal science funding: NSF funding history [nsf.gov]NIH funding trends [fda.gov]Defence funding [aaas.org] (PDF file)I know it's tough, but we must have competition!
Unfortunately, that also means that many (most?
) people will have to re-tool... Best of luck with your career though.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904731</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904961</id>
	<title>Re:Stupd rationale</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256737680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't imposing your opinion on how they should pay employees, rather than letting employers set wages as they see fit, rather anti-Free Market?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't imposing your opinion on how they should pay employees , rather than letting employers set wages as they see fit , rather anti-Free Market ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't imposing your opinion on how they should pay employees, rather than letting employers set wages as they see fit, rather anti-Free Market?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904725</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29913433</id>
	<title>Re:As Rutherford said...</title>
	<author>mog007</author>
	<datestamp>1256842680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The P = NP problem isn't a problem where EVERYBODY knows the answer.  From the same Wikipedia article:<br>In a 2002 poll of 100 researchers, 61 believed the answer is no, 9 believed the answer is yes, 22 were unsure, and 8 believed the question may be independent of the currently accepted axioms, and so impossible to prove or disprove.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The P = NP problem is n't a problem where EVERYBODY knows the answer .
From the same Wikipedia article : In a 2002 poll of 100 researchers , 61 believed the answer is no , 9 believed the answer is yes , 22 were unsure , and 8 believed the question may be independent of the currently accepted axioms , and so impossible to prove or disprove .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The P = NP problem isn't a problem where EVERYBODY knows the answer.
From the same Wikipedia article:In a 2002 poll of 100 researchers, 61 believed the answer is no, 9 believed the answer is yes, 22 were unsure, and 8 believed the question may be independent of the currently accepted axioms, and so impossible to prove or disprove.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905151</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29908347</id>
	<title>Adam Smith bites you for 7 hp.  Make your save...</title>
	<author>(arg!)Styopa</author>
	<datestamp>1256818560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Um....duh?</p><p>I guess it's important to prove it analytically, but isn't this pretty much the basic misunderstanding of capitalism that our policymakers have had since the Great Society/War on Poverty nonsense since the 60's (at least)?</p><p>- We are dismayed by the heavy use of drugs so instead of addressing WHY people use drugs (or really, the "user" end of the equation at all) we try to build procedural walls around our country out of money.  LOTS of money.</p><p>- We are dismayed by the poverty we witness across the country, so instead of addressing why we have a nearly permanent underclass, we simply legislate that 'companies have to pay them more', which doesn't solve anything - companies just pass these costs on and everyone has to pay more to subsidize the poor as well as now creating an even larger, more permanently-fixed underclass dependent on government largesse.</p><p>- We see the worldwide spread of a sexually-transmitted disease that is extremely lethal, and 100\% totally avoidable.  So we throw $billions at the idea of curing said disease, instead of rightly addressing the conduct that causes its spread.</p><p>We are a nation of consequence avoiders; we want to act heedless of the results of our actions and then seem to insist that somehow we 'deserve' someone to save our sorry asses.  I mean, we're wealthy-enough that we can throw $billions at problems and when nothing improves, we just shrug and throw MORE dollars at it.</p><p>This is precisely the same situation - there are 'calls' for science majors to be paid more, without really addressing that we've morphed into a nonproductive economy where the obsession over THIS MONTH'S or THIS QUARTER'S financial numbers mean that there isn't much focus on long-term, general benefit research.</p><p>Of course, some will read this and misunderstand again, saying that 'we need to open some government-run general research institutions'...instead of recognizing that Adam Smith pulls, he never pushes.  If you feel a push, it's more likely Darwin than Smith.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Um....duh ? I guess it 's important to prove it analytically , but is n't this pretty much the basic misunderstanding of capitalism that our policymakers have had since the Great Society/War on Poverty nonsense since the 60 's ( at least ) ? - We are dismayed by the heavy use of drugs so instead of addressing WHY people use drugs ( or really , the " user " end of the equation at all ) we try to build procedural walls around our country out of money .
LOTS of money.- We are dismayed by the poverty we witness across the country , so instead of addressing why we have a nearly permanent underclass , we simply legislate that 'companies have to pay them more ' , which does n't solve anything - companies just pass these costs on and everyone has to pay more to subsidize the poor as well as now creating an even larger , more permanently-fixed underclass dependent on government largesse.- We see the worldwide spread of a sexually-transmitted disease that is extremely lethal , and 100 \ % totally avoidable .
So we throw $ billions at the idea of curing said disease , instead of rightly addressing the conduct that causes its spread.We are a nation of consequence avoiders ; we want to act heedless of the results of our actions and then seem to insist that somehow we 'deserve ' someone to save our sorry asses .
I mean , we 're wealthy-enough that we can throw $ billions at problems and when nothing improves , we just shrug and throw MORE dollars at it.This is precisely the same situation - there are 'calls ' for science majors to be paid more , without really addressing that we 've morphed into a nonproductive economy where the obsession over THIS MONTH 'S or THIS QUARTER 'S financial numbers mean that there is n't much focus on long-term , general benefit research.Of course , some will read this and misunderstand again , saying that 'we need to open some government-run general research institutions'...instead of recognizing that Adam Smith pulls , he never pushes .
If you feel a push , it 's more likely Darwin than Smith .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Um....duh?I guess it's important to prove it analytically, but isn't this pretty much the basic misunderstanding of capitalism that our policymakers have had since the Great Society/War on Poverty nonsense since the 60's (at least)?- We are dismayed by the heavy use of drugs so instead of addressing WHY people use drugs (or really, the "user" end of the equation at all) we try to build procedural walls around our country out of money.
LOTS of money.- We are dismayed by the poverty we witness across the country, so instead of addressing why we have a nearly permanent underclass, we simply legislate that 'companies have to pay them more', which doesn't solve anything - companies just pass these costs on and everyone has to pay more to subsidize the poor as well as now creating an even larger, more permanently-fixed underclass dependent on government largesse.- We see the worldwide spread of a sexually-transmitted disease that is extremely lethal, and 100\% totally avoidable.
So we throw $billions at the idea of curing said disease, instead of rightly addressing the conduct that causes its spread.We are a nation of consequence avoiders; we want to act heedless of the results of our actions and then seem to insist that somehow we 'deserve' someone to save our sorry asses.
I mean, we're wealthy-enough that we can throw $billions at problems and when nothing improves, we just shrug and throw MORE dollars at it.This is precisely the same situation - there are 'calls' for science majors to be paid more, without really addressing that we've morphed into a nonproductive economy where the obsession over THIS MONTH'S or THIS QUARTER'S financial numbers mean that there isn't much focus on long-term, general benefit research.Of course, some will read this and misunderstand again, saying that 'we need to open some government-run general research institutions'...instead of recognizing that Adam Smith pulls, he never pushes.
If you feel a push, it's more likely Darwin than Smith.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905099</id>
	<title>Re:What about just doing what you love?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256738880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>if these guys are such friggin' geniuses at predicting the future they should go make $Billions in the stock market.</p></div><p>Interesting how you recommend that genuises go make $Billions in the stock market and not go out and make scientific discoveries.  I think many geniuses are taking that advice and avoiding science.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>if these guys are such friggin ' geniuses at predicting the future they should go make $ Billions in the stock market.Interesting how you recommend that genuises go make $ Billions in the stock market and not go out and make scientific discoveries .
I think many geniuses are taking that advice and avoiding science .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if these guys are such friggin' geniuses at predicting the future they should go make $Billions in the stock market.Interesting how you recommend that genuises go make $Billions in the stock market and not go out and make scientific discoveries.
I think many geniuses are taking that advice and avoiding science.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904517</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29909977</id>
	<title>Re:More articles like this please</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256829900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Federal Reserve does not print money. Maybe you were speaking metaphorically, but you're still wrong. The Federal Reserve can influence interest rates, and it can change the size of the the money supply [wikipedia.org] by issuing and recalling treasury bills and by adjusting the reserve requirement.. Those functions allow the Fed to alter the price of money, but that's not equivalent to printing more money.</p><p>??? You are mincing terms.  When the Fed buys a treasury bill, what happens?  The Fed increases the reserve account for the selling party.  The selling party can request a withdrawal and Viola new money.</p><p>So what happens when the Fed's treasury matures?  The fed can roll it over (refinancing the govt debt) or it can accept payment.  So how does the USgov pay the treasury?  It either issues new debt, repays from tax revenue or prints more money.</p><p>This is the basis for "monetizing the debt" arguments.  The belief is that the US treasury can not sell all its debt at auction so, the Fed steps in and purchases the shortage, thus increasing the money supply.  I don't believe there is any fool who believes we will not get out of our mountain of debt without  some above average inflation.  It is the most politically expedient solution.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Federal Reserve does not print money .
Maybe you were speaking metaphorically , but you 're still wrong .
The Federal Reserve can influence interest rates , and it can change the size of the the money supply [ wikipedia.org ] by issuing and recalling treasury bills and by adjusting the reserve requirement.. Those functions allow the Fed to alter the price of money , but that 's not equivalent to printing more money. ? ? ?
You are mincing terms .
When the Fed buys a treasury bill , what happens ?
The Fed increases the reserve account for the selling party .
The selling party can request a withdrawal and Viola new money.So what happens when the Fed 's treasury matures ?
The fed can roll it over ( refinancing the govt debt ) or it can accept payment .
So how does the USgov pay the treasury ?
It either issues new debt , repays from tax revenue or prints more money.This is the basis for " monetizing the debt " arguments .
The belief is that the US treasury can not sell all its debt at auction so , the Fed steps in and purchases the shortage , thus increasing the money supply .
I do n't believe there is any fool who believes we will not get out of our mountain of debt without some above average inflation .
It is the most politically expedient solution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Federal Reserve does not print money.
Maybe you were speaking metaphorically, but you're still wrong.
The Federal Reserve can influence interest rates, and it can change the size of the the money supply [wikipedia.org] by issuing and recalling treasury bills and by adjusting the reserve requirement.. Those functions allow the Fed to alter the price of money, but that's not equivalent to printing more money.???
You are mincing terms.
When the Fed buys a treasury bill, what happens?
The Fed increases the reserve account for the selling party.
The selling party can request a withdrawal and Viola new money.So what happens when the Fed's treasury matures?
The fed can roll it over (refinancing the govt debt) or it can accept payment.
So how does the USgov pay the treasury?
It either issues new debt, repays from tax revenue or prints more money.This is the basis for "monetizing the debt" arguments.
The belief is that the US treasury can not sell all its debt at auction so, the Fed steps in and purchases the shortage, thus increasing the money supply.
I don't believe there is any fool who believes we will not get out of our mountain of debt without  some above average inflation.
It is the most politically expedient solution.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29906647</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905151</id>
	<title>Re:As Rutherford said...</title>
	<author>CodeBuster</author>
	<datestamp>1256739300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The phrase "Well Duh!" comes to mind. I'm mean seriously is this research or just some people sitting around a table in a bar after 10 pints drunkly going</p></div><p>The social sciences, of which economics is a part, must do research and gather evidence to back up their conclusions; even those which should be obvious to everyone. This is really not so different from proofs in other fields where even 'obvious' statements must still be proven or at least investigated. For example everyone 'knew' that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermat's\_Last\_Theorem" title="wikipedia.org">Fermat's Last Theorem</a> [wikipedia.org] was true or at least the evidence <i>strongly</i> suggested that a counter example would not be found. However, it still had to be "proven", no matter how obvious, and that took 358 years from the time that Fermat proposed it. There is another example in the field of computer science where everyone 'knows' that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P\_\%3D\_NP" title="wikipedia.org">P != NP</a> [wikipedia.org], but as of yet nobody has been able to prove that (btw: the proof is worth $1 million from the Clay Mathematics Institute...its one of the <a href="http://www.claymath.org/millennium/" title="claymath.org">Millenium Prize Problems</a> [claymath.org]).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The phrase " Well Duh !
" comes to mind .
I 'm mean seriously is this research or just some people sitting around a table in a bar after 10 pints drunkly goingThe social sciences , of which economics is a part , must do research and gather evidence to back up their conclusions ; even those which should be obvious to everyone .
This is really not so different from proofs in other fields where even 'obvious ' statements must still be proven or at least investigated .
For example everyone 'knew ' that Fermat 's Last Theorem [ wikipedia.org ] was true or at least the evidence strongly suggested that a counter example would not be found .
However , it still had to be " proven " , no matter how obvious , and that took 358 years from the time that Fermat proposed it .
There is another example in the field of computer science where everyone 'knows ' that P ! = NP [ wikipedia.org ] , but as of yet nobody has been able to prove that ( btw : the proof is worth $ 1 million from the Clay Mathematics Institute...its one of the Millenium Prize Problems [ claymath.org ] ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The phrase "Well Duh!
" comes to mind.
I'm mean seriously is this research or just some people sitting around a table in a bar after 10 pints drunkly goingThe social sciences, of which economics is a part, must do research and gather evidence to back up their conclusions; even those which should be obvious to everyone.
This is really not so different from proofs in other fields where even 'obvious' statements must still be proven or at least investigated.
For example everyone 'knew' that Fermat's Last Theorem [wikipedia.org] was true or at least the evidence strongly suggested that a counter example would not be found.
However, it still had to be "proven", no matter how obvious, and that took 358 years from the time that Fermat proposed it.
There is another example in the field of computer science where everyone 'knows' that P != NP [wikipedia.org], but as of yet nobody has been able to prove that (btw: the proof is worth $1 million from the Clay Mathematics Institute...its one of the Millenium Prize Problems [claymath.org]).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904553</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904621</id>
	<title>Re:More articles like this please</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256735880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I want my salary to go up</p></div><p>Heck, I just want a job!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I want my salary to go upHeck , I just want a job !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I want my salary to go upHeck, I just want a job!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904475</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29911069</id>
	<title>Re:Over-simplify much?</title>
	<author>bcrowell</author>
	<datestamp>1256833920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>and spend $60,000 (plus interest, so probably closer to $100,000), say, to get a Masters in Science, and then you think you will only make 40,000-60,000/yr</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Grad students in PhD programs in STEM fields (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, the areas discussed in TFA) almost never pay anything to go to grad school. The school covers their tuition, and they also get paid as TAs and RAs (enough to live on). Even in the worst case, where you're doing a terminal master's and can't get a tution waiver, TA, or RA, you're not necessarily going to need to spend $60k for a 2-year program. <a href="http://registrar.berkeley.edu/Registration/feesched.html" title="berkeley.edu">Grad student fees at UC Berkeley</a> [berkeley.edu] are $11k/year for residents. The rest of the costs would depend on your living situation. E.g., if you have a spouse who can pay the rent, you may not have any other costs at all.
</p><p>
In the physical sciences, very few people enroll in a terminal master's program, mainly because it's kind of useless. It doesn't qualify you to do research or university-level teaching, and it's not needed for almost anything besides research. The main exception I know of is that a lot of K-12 teachers do go back to school to get master's degrees, and they do it <i>because</i> they perceive it as being well worthwhile monetarily (contradicting your argument).
</p><p>I don't know where you got the 40-60k income figure. I teach physics at a community college, which is not exactly the most prestigious or lucrative gig, and I get paid about twice that. (I have a PhD, not a master's.) 40k might be about right as a <i>starting</i> salary for someone who got a master's in math and then went into K-12 teaching (depends on rural vs urban, etc.). But by the time you have significant seniority, it would be a lot higher than that.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>and spend $ 60,000 ( plus interest , so probably closer to $ 100,000 ) , say , to get a Masters in Science , and then you think you will only make 40,000-60,000/yr Grad students in PhD programs in STEM fields ( science , technology , engineering , and mathematics , the areas discussed in TFA ) almost never pay anything to go to grad school .
The school covers their tuition , and they also get paid as TAs and RAs ( enough to live on ) .
Even in the worst case , where you 're doing a terminal master 's and ca n't get a tution waiver , TA , or RA , you 're not necessarily going to need to spend $ 60k for a 2-year program .
Grad student fees at UC Berkeley [ berkeley.edu ] are $ 11k/year for residents .
The rest of the costs would depend on your living situation .
E.g. , if you have a spouse who can pay the rent , you may not have any other costs at all .
In the physical sciences , very few people enroll in a terminal master 's program , mainly because it 's kind of useless .
It does n't qualify you to do research or university-level teaching , and it 's not needed for almost anything besides research .
The main exception I know of is that a lot of K-12 teachers do go back to school to get master 's degrees , and they do it because they perceive it as being well worthwhile monetarily ( contradicting your argument ) .
I do n't know where you got the 40-60k income figure .
I teach physics at a community college , which is not exactly the most prestigious or lucrative gig , and I get paid about twice that .
( I have a PhD , not a master 's .
) 40k might be about right as a starting salary for someone who got a master 's in math and then went into K-12 teaching ( depends on rural vs urban , etc. ) .
But by the time you have significant seniority , it would be a lot higher than that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and spend $60,000 (plus interest, so probably closer to $100,000), say, to get a Masters in Science, and then you think you will only make 40,000-60,000/yr

Grad students in PhD programs in STEM fields (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, the areas discussed in TFA) almost never pay anything to go to grad school.
The school covers their tuition, and they also get paid as TAs and RAs (enough to live on).
Even in the worst case, where you're doing a terminal master's and can't get a tution waiver, TA, or RA, you're not necessarily going to need to spend $60k for a 2-year program.
Grad student fees at UC Berkeley [berkeley.edu] are $11k/year for residents.
The rest of the costs would depend on your living situation.
E.g., if you have a spouse who can pay the rent, you may not have any other costs at all.
In the physical sciences, very few people enroll in a terminal master's program, mainly because it's kind of useless.
It doesn't qualify you to do research or university-level teaching, and it's not needed for almost anything besides research.
The main exception I know of is that a lot of K-12 teachers do go back to school to get master's degrees, and they do it because they perceive it as being well worthwhile monetarily (contradicting your argument).
I don't know where you got the 40-60k income figure.
I teach physics at a community college, which is not exactly the most prestigious or lucrative gig, and I get paid about twice that.
(I have a PhD, not a master's.
) 40k might be about right as a starting salary for someone who got a master's in math and then went into K-12 teaching (depends on rural vs urban, etc.).
But by the time you have significant seniority, it would be a lot higher than that.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904767</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29908963</id>
	<title>Re:In physical sciences, PhD track = no tuition</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256824920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unless you're an international student. My MSc will cost $15,000 a year! Of course, I'll still be making $15,000 afterwards through stipend from my professor's grant and an internal scholarship for international students... but really, even in the sciences, there are some absurdly high charges.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless you 're an international student .
My MSc will cost $ 15,000 a year !
Of course , I 'll still be making $ 15,000 afterwards through stipend from my professor 's grant and an internal scholarship for international students... but really , even in the sciences , there are some absurdly high charges .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless you're an international student.
My MSc will cost $15,000 a year!
Of course, I'll still be making $15,000 afterwards through stipend from my professor's grant and an internal scholarship for international students... but really, even in the sciences, there are some absurdly high charges.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905013</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29907111</id>
	<title>Yes, thank you. Finally you get it right.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256757000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For the past 8 years the federal government has been regulating the US labor market, importing labor into the US. This has driven down wages and increased unemployment for skilled workers. When the federal government interferes with the labor market they drive out the best US students.</p><p>The corporate communist, people like Bill Gates, hate regulation of their corporations but they LOVE to regulate my job.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For the past 8 years the federal government has been regulating the US labor market , importing labor into the US .
This has driven down wages and increased unemployment for skilled workers .
When the federal government interferes with the labor market they drive out the best US students.The corporate communist , people like Bill Gates , hate regulation of their corporations but they LOVE to regulate my job .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For the past 8 years the federal government has been regulating the US labor market, importing labor into the US.
This has driven down wages and increased unemployment for skilled workers.
When the federal government interferes with the labor market they drive out the best US students.The corporate communist, people like Bill Gates, hate regulation of their corporations but they LOVE to regulate my job.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29908171</id>
	<title>It's not about incentive...</title>
	<author>EmagGeek</author>
	<datestamp>1256816160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's about disincentive... these kids who are good at science and math are not idiots. They can see that our culture does not value their talents and prefers to ship their work overseas to low-cost countries where scientists and engineers can be had at a slave's wages. They can see early on that corporations see them as a money hole, not as the producers of the innovative products that the world needs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's about disincentive... these kids who are good at science and math are not idiots .
They can see that our culture does not value their talents and prefers to ship their work overseas to low-cost countries where scientists and engineers can be had at a slave 's wages .
They can see early on that corporations see them as a money hole , not as the producers of the innovative products that the world needs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's about disincentive... these kids who are good at science and math are not idiots.
They can see that our culture does not value their talents and prefers to ship their work overseas to low-cost countries where scientists and engineers can be had at a slave's wages.
They can see early on that corporations see them as a money hole, not as the producers of the innovative products that the world needs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905367</id>
	<title>MultiCore Vs big Single Core</title>
	<author>joocemann</author>
	<datestamp>1256741100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>.... we all know multi-core processing is much more capable of dealing with huge chunks of data, as compared to a single core/thread.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>.... we all know multi-core processing is much more capable of dealing with huge chunks of data , as compared to a single core/thread .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.... we all know multi-core processing is much more capable of dealing with huge chunks of data, as compared to a single core/thread.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29911949</id>
	<title>Re:What about just doing what you love?</title>
	<author>david\_thornley</author>
	<datestamp>1256837160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
It's only a guaranteed job if you get tenure, which isn't easy to do.  Figure $18K a year at grad school for 5 years, get the Ph.D. (and I know a guy who was washed out of a program through faculty incompetence), then scramble for a postdoc that pays a little better, and keep angling for a tenure-track job.  Once you're on the tenure track, work as hard as you can while avoiding offending any tenured faculty to get voted tenure.
</p><p>
Then, once you're making reasonable money (and, one hopes, not burdened by excessive student loan debt), you wind up working typically 50-60 hours a week anyway, so I hope you like your job.  I make well over $50K/year working normal hours, with good benefits, although I don't have the freedom or tenure.
</p><p>
I'm not saying you took the wrong path, or even a bad path.  If you're happy, that's great, and it worked for you.  I'm saying that it's not one open to everybody, it has risks, and it requires sacrifices that may or may not pay off.  If more people try for it, it gets riskier, and the sacrifices get greater.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's only a guaranteed job if you get tenure , which is n't easy to do .
Figure $ 18K a year at grad school for 5 years , get the Ph.D. ( and I know a guy who was washed out of a program through faculty incompetence ) , then scramble for a postdoc that pays a little better , and keep angling for a tenure-track job .
Once you 're on the tenure track , work as hard as you can while avoiding offending any tenured faculty to get voted tenure .
Then , once you 're making reasonable money ( and , one hopes , not burdened by excessive student loan debt ) , you wind up working typically 50-60 hours a week anyway , so I hope you like your job .
I make well over $ 50K/year working normal hours , with good benefits , although I do n't have the freedom or tenure .
I 'm not saying you took the wrong path , or even a bad path .
If you 're happy , that 's great , and it worked for you .
I 'm saying that it 's not one open to everybody , it has risks , and it requires sacrifices that may or may not pay off .
If more people try for it , it gets riskier , and the sacrifices get greater .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
It's only a guaranteed job if you get tenure, which isn't easy to do.
Figure $18K a year at grad school for 5 years, get the Ph.D. (and I know a guy who was washed out of a program through faculty incompetence), then scramble for a postdoc that pays a little better, and keep angling for a tenure-track job.
Once you're on the tenure track, work as hard as you can while avoiding offending any tenured faculty to get voted tenure.
Then, once you're making reasonable money (and, one hopes, not burdened by excessive student loan debt), you wind up working typically 50-60 hours a week anyway, so I hope you like your job.
I make well over $50K/year working normal hours, with good benefits, although I don't have the freedom or tenure.
I'm not saying you took the wrong path, or even a bad path.
If you're happy, that's great, and it worked for you.
I'm saying that it's not one open to everybody, it has risks, and it requires sacrifices that may or may not pay off.
If more people try for it, it gets riskier, and the sacrifices get greater.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29906197</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29906251</id>
	<title>Re:how many scientists are enough?</title>
	<author>Taur0</author>
	<datestamp>1256747700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think the main problem is not just that top talent is no longer going into science and engineering, but that poorer talent is entering. Every university you can think of now has a program where you can graduate with a bachelors in science. It used to be that top schools were the only ones producing anyone who can reasonably call themselves scientists, but now everyone is doing it.

It's even worse for engineering. Here in Canada we have very strict regulations on the certification of our engineers to make sure that they all have the same basic knowledge, but I know people who went into engineering programs that had required entrance averages a full 20\% lower than mine! I wouldn't trust them to engineer a toaster, but they're in fields with a lot more responsibility, like aerospace for example. And that's<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/with/ our strict regulations, I know places in the U.S. have lower standards and the people who graduate from those programs will one day call themselves engineers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the main problem is not just that top talent is no longer going into science and engineering , but that poorer talent is entering .
Every university you can think of now has a program where you can graduate with a bachelors in science .
It used to be that top schools were the only ones producing anyone who can reasonably call themselves scientists , but now everyone is doing it .
It 's even worse for engineering .
Here in Canada we have very strict regulations on the certification of our engineers to make sure that they all have the same basic knowledge , but I know people who went into engineering programs that had required entrance averages a full 20 \ % lower than mine !
I would n't trust them to engineer a toaster , but they 're in fields with a lot more responsibility , like aerospace for example .
And that 's /with/ our strict regulations , I know places in the U.S. have lower standards and the people who graduate from those programs will one day call themselves engineers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the main problem is not just that top talent is no longer going into science and engineering, but that poorer talent is entering.
Every university you can think of now has a program where you can graduate with a bachelors in science.
It used to be that top schools were the only ones producing anyone who can reasonably call themselves scientists, but now everyone is doing it.
It's even worse for engineering.
Here in Canada we have very strict regulations on the certification of our engineers to make sure that they all have the same basic knowledge, but I know people who went into engineering programs that had required entrance averages a full 20\% lower than mine!
I wouldn't trust them to engineer a toaster, but they're in fields with a lot more responsibility, like aerospace for example.
And that's /with/ our strict regulations, I know places in the U.S. have lower standards and the people who graduate from those programs will one day call themselves engineers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904821</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29908091</id>
	<title>Re:Seriously! Pay really is the issue!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256814540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My passion also was the same. So, I have now left my job and started my own company (a single person company ).<br>If my product sells- and there are ample suggestions that it would, then I would go back to school and study the subject which I like - (not physics, AI).</p><p>Now, I am not a good marketing guy at all. Only thing that I have is the confidence that my product is good.</p><p>My whole point is that - if you are really passionate about physics, you should not worry much about the next promotion or whether you would miss out on the career path etc. You have got only one life, and it would be better for all if you are working on the area you are interested in. You need not start a company or such - maybe you can go for a lower stress job wherein you get more time to work on physics. You should at least try to do what you like - otherwise you will not be a happy man overall.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My passion also was the same .
So , I have now left my job and started my own company ( a single person company ) .If my product sells- and there are ample suggestions that it would , then I would go back to school and study the subject which I like - ( not physics , AI ) .Now , I am not a good marketing guy at all .
Only thing that I have is the confidence that my product is good.My whole point is that - if you are really passionate about physics , you should not worry much about the next promotion or whether you would miss out on the career path etc .
You have got only one life , and it would be better for all if you are working on the area you are interested in .
You need not start a company or such - maybe you can go for a lower stress job wherein you get more time to work on physics .
You should at least try to do what you like - otherwise you will not be a happy man overall .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My passion also was the same.
So, I have now left my job and started my own company (a single person company ).If my product sells- and there are ample suggestions that it would, then I would go back to school and study the subject which I like - (not physics, AI).Now, I am not a good marketing guy at all.
Only thing that I have is the confidence that my product is good.My whole point is that - if you are really passionate about physics, you should not worry much about the next promotion or whether you would miss out on the career path etc.
You have got only one life, and it would be better for all if you are working on the area you are interested in.
You need not start a company or such - maybe you can go for a lower stress job wherein you get more time to work on physics.
You should at least try to do what you like - otherwise you will not be a happy man overall.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905295</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905559</id>
	<title>Re:What about just doing what you love?</title>
	<author>TheVelvetFlamebait</author>
	<datestamp>1256742420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Who really cares what some frigtarded academic thinks anyway?</p></div></blockquote><p>If they're right, well, let's just say you were forewarned.</p><blockquote><div><p>Final thought - how often is it that we look back on these studies five or ten years later to find out they were somewhere around, oh, dead wrong. if these guys are such friggin' geniuses at predicting the future they should go make $Billions in the stock market.</p></div></blockquote><p>Yeah, and if you're so great at science, then you would have invented a time machine by now. *cough* Bullshit fallacy! */cough*</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who really cares what some frigtarded academic thinks anyway ? If they 're right , well , let 's just say you were forewarned.Final thought - how often is it that we look back on these studies five or ten years later to find out they were somewhere around , oh , dead wrong .
if these guys are such friggin ' geniuses at predicting the future they should go make $ Billions in the stock market.Yeah , and if you 're so great at science , then you would have invented a time machine by now .
* cough * Bullshit fallacy !
* /cough *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who really cares what some frigtarded academic thinks anyway?If they're right, well, let's just say you were forewarned.Final thought - how often is it that we look back on these studies five or ten years later to find out they were somewhere around, oh, dead wrong.
if these guys are such friggin' geniuses at predicting the future they should go make $Billions in the stock market.Yeah, and if you're so great at science, then you would have invented a time machine by now.
*cough* Bullshit fallacy!
*/cough*
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904517</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904553</id>
	<title>As Rutherford said...</title>
	<author>MosesJones</author>
	<datestamp>1256735400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>But a new paper by sociologists</i></p><p>Ernest Rutherford once said <i> <b>The only possible conclusion the social sciences can draw is: some do, some don't</b> </i></p><p>So while its nice that they've tried to have a firm opinion they really haven't, what they've said is that as the salaries in science and engineering fall behind the likes of banking and other world destruction careers the top people aren't going into science and engineering as much.</p><p>The phrase "Well Duh!" comes to mind.  I'm mean seriously is this research or just some people sitting around a table in a bar after 10 pints drunkly going "you know what, I think that if there is less money in an area that less top people will want to work in it".  Now what they spectacularly fail to note of course is that some of the very, very brightest have become the very, very richest people on the planet as a result of science and engineering (and maths).</p><p>Good god its hard to believe that people not only get degrees in subjects so vague and obvious but also get to do "research" that would leave Homer Simposon feeling that it wasn't stretching him.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But a new paper by sociologistsErnest Rutherford once said The only possible conclusion the social sciences can draw is : some do , some do n't So while its nice that they 've tried to have a firm opinion they really have n't , what they 've said is that as the salaries in science and engineering fall behind the likes of banking and other world destruction careers the top people are n't going into science and engineering as much.The phrase " Well Duh !
" comes to mind .
I 'm mean seriously is this research or just some people sitting around a table in a bar after 10 pints drunkly going " you know what , I think that if there is less money in an area that less top people will want to work in it " .
Now what they spectacularly fail to note of course is that some of the very , very brightest have become the very , very richest people on the planet as a result of science and engineering ( and maths ) .Good god its hard to believe that people not only get degrees in subjects so vague and obvious but also get to do " research " that would leave Homer Simposon feeling that it was n't stretching him .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But a new paper by sociologistsErnest Rutherford once said  The only possible conclusion the social sciences can draw is: some do, some don't So while its nice that they've tried to have a firm opinion they really haven't, what they've said is that as the salaries in science and engineering fall behind the likes of banking and other world destruction careers the top people aren't going into science and engineering as much.The phrase "Well Duh!
" comes to mind.
I'm mean seriously is this research or just some people sitting around a table in a bar after 10 pints drunkly going "you know what, I think that if there is less money in an area that less top people will want to work in it".
Now what they spectacularly fail to note of course is that some of the very, very brightest have become the very, very richest people on the planet as a result of science and engineering (and maths).Good god its hard to believe that people not only get degrees in subjects so vague and obvious but also get to do "research" that would leave Homer Simposon feeling that it wasn't stretching him.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29907295</id>
	<title>Simplistic</title>
	<author>bussdriver</author>
	<datestamp>1256758980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Plenty of academics do not produce anything useful in their lifetime according to the popular myopic perspective. The Production / consumption religion is not the world and some people manage to grow up surrounded in it and grow out of it.</p><p>Just like the "soft sciences" the results are fuzzy, indirect and often not provable but statistical or inductive at best. Something a few steps removed that is worthless may contribute to something bigger; but all too often people limit themselves on some topics to only directly connected proven tangible products (which are marketable and ranked by profitability.)</p><p>The general idea many I've expressed to me:  there are a few smart or lucky (inclusive or) ones who do something new or big. The rest do slow plodding grunt work trying to understand the results, describe, test, and nit-pick everything they can because they didn't do something of that caliber.  Since many things start out without knowing the results that may come from it-- a lot of people try things hoping to stumble onto something; in which case, a great scientist may not ever find something "useful" other than to show what does not work (which could be useful to others in ways beyond their imagination but not a "valuable product.")<br>This short termed simple thinking led to culture that caused many problems over the last generation (from bridges to banks falling.)</p><p>I have talked with plenty who think there is a degradation in education at all levels in different ways. From lack of spacial skills, mechanics, science to the "core" subjects and creativity-- especially a HUGE drop in creativity... to laziness, or the even lack of eugenics.   I could easily fill up pages worth on these. I would like to say there is an element of bias to much of it-- old people who've lost realistic memories of their time. That said, I think there is some truth to most of it but to what degree? Personally, I've come to the conclusion it is largely cultural and we contribute to it as we move towards "A Brave New World."</p><p>Bean counters are the high priests of corporate run society.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Plenty of academics do not produce anything useful in their lifetime according to the popular myopic perspective .
The Production / consumption religion is not the world and some people manage to grow up surrounded in it and grow out of it.Just like the " soft sciences " the results are fuzzy , indirect and often not provable but statistical or inductive at best .
Something a few steps removed that is worthless may contribute to something bigger ; but all too often people limit themselves on some topics to only directly connected proven tangible products ( which are marketable and ranked by profitability .
) The general idea many I 've expressed to me : there are a few smart or lucky ( inclusive or ) ones who do something new or big .
The rest do slow plodding grunt work trying to understand the results , describe , test , and nit-pick everything they can because they did n't do something of that caliber .
Since many things start out without knowing the results that may come from it-- a lot of people try things hoping to stumble onto something ; in which case , a great scientist may not ever find something " useful " other than to show what does not work ( which could be useful to others in ways beyond their imagination but not a " valuable product .
" ) This short termed simple thinking led to culture that caused many problems over the last generation ( from bridges to banks falling .
) I have talked with plenty who think there is a degradation in education at all levels in different ways .
From lack of spacial skills , mechanics , science to the " core " subjects and creativity-- especially a HUGE drop in creativity... to laziness , or the even lack of eugenics .
I could easily fill up pages worth on these .
I would like to say there is an element of bias to much of it-- old people who 've lost realistic memories of their time .
That said , I think there is some truth to most of it but to what degree ?
Personally , I 've come to the conclusion it is largely cultural and we contribute to it as we move towards " A Brave New World .
" Bean counters are the high priests of corporate run society .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Plenty of academics do not produce anything useful in their lifetime according to the popular myopic perspective.
The Production / consumption religion is not the world and some people manage to grow up surrounded in it and grow out of it.Just like the "soft sciences" the results are fuzzy, indirect and often not provable but statistical or inductive at best.
Something a few steps removed that is worthless may contribute to something bigger; but all too often people limit themselves on some topics to only directly connected proven tangible products (which are marketable and ranked by profitability.
)The general idea many I've expressed to me:  there are a few smart or lucky (inclusive or) ones who do something new or big.
The rest do slow plodding grunt work trying to understand the results, describe, test, and nit-pick everything they can because they didn't do something of that caliber.
Since many things start out without knowing the results that may come from it-- a lot of people try things hoping to stumble onto something; in which case, a great scientist may not ever find something "useful" other than to show what does not work (which could be useful to others in ways beyond their imagination but not a "valuable product.
")This short termed simple thinking led to culture that caused many problems over the last generation (from bridges to banks falling.
)I have talked with plenty who think there is a degradation in education at all levels in different ways.
From lack of spacial skills, mechanics, science to the "core" subjects and creativity-- especially a HUGE drop in creativity... to laziness, or the even lack of eugenics.
I could easily fill up pages worth on these.
I would like to say there is an element of bias to much of it-- old people who've lost realistic memories of their time.
That said, I think there is some truth to most of it but to what degree?
Personally, I've come to the conclusion it is largely cultural and we contribute to it as we move towards "A Brave New World.
"Bean counters are the high priests of corporate run society.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904821</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29907281</id>
	<title>Motivation</title>
	<author>tlambert</author>
	<datestamp>1256758860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I had hoped that the best scientist and engineers would be motivated by something more than just money.</p></div><p>I bet a lot of management types are hoping the same thing.</p><p>-- Terry</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I had hoped that the best scientist and engineers would be motivated by something more than just money.I bet a lot of management types are hoping the same thing.-- Terry</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had hoped that the best scientist and engineers would be motivated by something more than just money.I bet a lot of management types are hoping the same thing.-- Terry
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904617</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29910821</id>
	<title>Re:how many scientists are enough?</title>
	<author>rainmaestro</author>
	<datestamp>1256833020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who cares about entrance requirements? I care about what they can do *after* graduating. And for that we have PE and FE exams. You can't call yourself an engineer until after passing the PE, involving a country-wide standardized exam plus X years of work experience. It doesn't matter which accredited school you went to, or what their entrance reqs were. If you can pass the PE, you have been trained to the minimum acceptable level in the US.</p><p>I remember a second-year course that involved a few small design projects. Yeah, we had a few teams designing pasta bridges that couldn't even support their own weight, or mousetrap race cars that needed a nudge to get going off the starting line. Guess what? None of those people were still in the program when graduation time rolled around.</p><p>Make the entrance reqs as low as possible. The difficulty of the material will weed out those who can't perform.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who cares about entrance requirements ?
I care about what they can do * after * graduating .
And for that we have PE and FE exams .
You ca n't call yourself an engineer until after passing the PE , involving a country-wide standardized exam plus X years of work experience .
It does n't matter which accredited school you went to , or what their entrance reqs were .
If you can pass the PE , you have been trained to the minimum acceptable level in the US.I remember a second-year course that involved a few small design projects .
Yeah , we had a few teams designing pasta bridges that could n't even support their own weight , or mousetrap race cars that needed a nudge to get going off the starting line .
Guess what ?
None of those people were still in the program when graduation time rolled around.Make the entrance reqs as low as possible .
The difficulty of the material will weed out those who ca n't perform .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who cares about entrance requirements?
I care about what they can do *after* graduating.
And for that we have PE and FE exams.
You can't call yourself an engineer until after passing the PE, involving a country-wide standardized exam plus X years of work experience.
It doesn't matter which accredited school you went to, or what their entrance reqs were.
If you can pass the PE, you have been trained to the minimum acceptable level in the US.I remember a second-year course that involved a few small design projects.
Yeah, we had a few teams designing pasta bridges that couldn't even support their own weight, or mousetrap race cars that needed a nudge to get going off the starting line.
Guess what?
None of those people were still in the program when graduation time rolled around.Make the entrance reqs as low as possible.
The difficulty of the material will weed out those who can't perform.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29906251</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29913405</id>
	<title>Re:What about just doing what you love?</title>
	<author>Hythlodaeus</author>
	<datestamp>1256842560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The next step, as far as policy recommendations go, is for more government initiatives and funding of big science through NASA, NSF, NIH, and DOE.  Even setting funding/salaries at a level making them employers of last resort for scientists, it would halt the negative feedback loop that's depressing desirability of scientific careers and degrees.  The return on investment for the taxpayers is through the technologies that result and indirect expansion of GDP many times in excess of the direct investment in salaries.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The next step , as far as policy recommendations go , is for more government initiatives and funding of big science through NASA , NSF , NIH , and DOE .
Even setting funding/salaries at a level making them employers of last resort for scientists , it would halt the negative feedback loop that 's depressing desirability of scientific careers and degrees .
The return on investment for the taxpayers is through the technologies that result and indirect expansion of GDP many times in excess of the direct investment in salaries .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The next step, as far as policy recommendations go, is for more government initiatives and funding of big science through NASA, NSF, NIH, and DOE.
Even setting funding/salaries at a level making them employers of last resort for scientists, it would halt the negative feedback loop that's depressing desirability of scientific careers and degrees.
The return on investment for the taxpayers is through the technologies that result and indirect expansion of GDP many times in excess of the direct investment in salaries.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904851</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29906197</id>
	<title>Re:What about just doing what you love?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256747220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In my experience, it does. It might not be where you want to live, or exactly what science you want, but there is plenty of science out there which will pay you to do it. It might not be a fortune, but you can get paid to do science. <br>
&nbsp; <br>Suck up a $18k a year graduate student job for 5 years, get a PhD, and then get paid $50k a year to do science in a university. It's a recession-proof, guaranteed job. Advancement is minimal, but the benefits are great, and the freedom is even better. From what I've experienced, it sure beats a corporate slave-job.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In my experience , it does .
It might not be where you want to live , or exactly what science you want , but there is plenty of science out there which will pay you to do it .
It might not be a fortune , but you can get paid to do science .
  Suck up a $ 18k a year graduate student job for 5 years , get a PhD , and then get paid $ 50k a year to do science in a university .
It 's a recession-proof , guaranteed job .
Advancement is minimal , but the benefits are great , and the freedom is even better .
From what I 've experienced , it sure beats a corporate slave-job .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In my experience, it does.
It might not be where you want to live, or exactly what science you want, but there is plenty of science out there which will pay you to do it.
It might not be a fortune, but you can get paid to do science.
  Suck up a $18k a year graduate student job for 5 years, get a PhD, and then get paid $50k a year to do science in a university.
It's a recession-proof, guaranteed job.
Advancement is minimal, but the benefits are great, and the freedom is even better.
From what I've experienced, it sure beats a corporate slave-job.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904839</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904491</id>
	<title>Really</title>
	<author>Brian Gordon</author>
	<datestamp>1256735040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>but from a lack of incentives that would make science and technology careers attractive</p></div></blockquote><p>Incentives? You mean like paying graduates <i>more</i> when you're saying that the market is saturated with them already? How does that make sense?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>but from a lack of incentives that would make science and technology careers attractiveIncentives ?
You mean like paying graduates more when you 're saying that the market is saturated with them already ?
How does that make sense ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but from a lack of incentives that would make science and technology careers attractiveIncentives?
You mean like paying graduates more when you're saying that the market is saturated with them already?
How does that make sense?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29912859</id>
	<title>Re:Money on both sides of the equation</title>
	<author>Libertarian001</author>
	<datestamp>1256840280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So you want something other grants and scholarships?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So you want something other grants and scholarships ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you want something other grants and scholarships?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904619</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29908693</id>
	<title>Re:What about just doing what you love?</title>
	<author>iris-n</author>
	<datestamp>1256822700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Whether or not you can make enough money to buy food and pay rent is going to be a much more important part of the decision.</p></div><p>You seem to have a very distorted view of reality. It's very hard to find a job in which you can't buy food or pay rent. Even if you are a janitor you don't starve.</p><p>Of course, people do have some minimum level of comfort that they aspire to. The pay science career offers is more than enough to satisfy mine.</p><p>I've seem some people leave science because the pay was too low. Know what, they were crappy scientists to begin with.</p><p>Do you think lord Kelvin did it for the money? Or Hawking? It was for the chicks.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The free market has spoken</p></div><p>There is no free market. Science always offered low wages. Just about every great scientist struggled for money at some point in life. This has more to do with the scientists' personalities than with the "market value" science has.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Whether or not you can make enough money to buy food and pay rent is going to be a much more important part of the decision.You seem to have a very distorted view of reality .
It 's very hard to find a job in which you ca n't buy food or pay rent .
Even if you are a janitor you do n't starve.Of course , people do have some minimum level of comfort that they aspire to .
The pay science career offers is more than enough to satisfy mine.I 've seem some people leave science because the pay was too low .
Know what , they were crappy scientists to begin with.Do you think lord Kelvin did it for the money ?
Or Hawking ?
It was for the chicks.The free market has spokenThere is no free market .
Science always offered low wages .
Just about every great scientist struggled for money at some point in life .
This has more to do with the scientists ' personalities than with the " market value " science has .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whether or not you can make enough money to buy food and pay rent is going to be a much more important part of the decision.You seem to have a very distorted view of reality.
It's very hard to find a job in which you can't buy food or pay rent.
Even if you are a janitor you don't starve.Of course, people do have some minimum level of comfort that they aspire to.
The pay science career offers is more than enough to satisfy mine.I've seem some people leave science because the pay was too low.
Know what, they were crappy scientists to begin with.Do you think lord Kelvin did it for the money?
Or Hawking?
It was for the chicks.The free market has spokenThere is no free market.
Science always offered low wages.
Just about every great scientist struggled for money at some point in life.
This has more to do with the scientists' personalities than with the "market value" science has.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904851</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904957</id>
	<title>Incentives!?!?!?</title>
	<author>raymansean</author>
	<datestamp>1256737680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am a scientist, because it is what I am. The pay or the lack thereof  provides me a means of being who I am instead of having to force myself to be something else. Really, as long as I have a roof over my head and food on my table then the rest is just gravy as long as I can do science. The assumption/ theory that money equals happiness has already been disproved. Now if you want me to be something that I am not, then you will have to pull out your checkbook so that I can compensate my lack of happiness with something that will bring momentary gratification.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am a scientist , because it is what I am .
The pay or the lack thereof provides me a means of being who I am instead of having to force myself to be something else .
Really , as long as I have a roof over my head and food on my table then the rest is just gravy as long as I can do science .
The assumption/ theory that money equals happiness has already been disproved .
Now if you want me to be something that I am not , then you will have to pull out your checkbook so that I can compensate my lack of happiness with something that will bring momentary gratification .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am a scientist, because it is what I am.
The pay or the lack thereof  provides me a means of being who I am instead of having to force myself to be something else.
Really, as long as I have a roof over my head and food on my table then the rest is just gravy as long as I can do science.
The assumption/ theory that money equals happiness has already been disproved.
Now if you want me to be something that I am not, then you will have to pull out your checkbook so that I can compensate my lack of happiness with something that will bring momentary gratification.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29915741</id>
	<title>Re:More articles like this please</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256808480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>wrong answer.</p><p>You're supposed to be a cheerleader for the meme that "We need more science grads" so that you can, say, get grants to increase the number of science students, who are, in fact, your customers.</p><p>When it comes to the career opportunities, just lie.</p><p>who cares what happens to them afterwards.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>wrong answer.You 're supposed to be a cheerleader for the meme that " We need more science grads " so that you can , say , get grants to increase the number of science students , who are , in fact , your customers.When it comes to the career opportunities , just lie.who cares what happens to them afterwards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>wrong answer.You're supposed to be a cheerleader for the meme that "We need more science grads" so that you can, say, get grants to increase the number of science students, who are, in fact, your customers.When it comes to the career opportunities, just lie.who cares what happens to them afterwards.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904731</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29923823</id>
	<title>Re:What's science done for us lately?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256917860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because if we don't keep researching we'll never know what else might be out there in physics.  Further, if there isn't anything else left in physics, sooner or later we will probably be able to prove it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because if we do n't keep researching we 'll never know what else might be out there in physics .
Further , if there is n't anything else left in physics , sooner or later we will probably be able to prove it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because if we don't keep researching we'll never know what else might be out there in physics.
Further, if there isn't anything else left in physics, sooner or later we will probably be able to prove it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905399</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29912109</id>
	<title>The point of the study...</title>
	<author>sean.peters</author>
	<datestamp>1256837700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... was not to provide advice to individual people about what career field they should go into. It was to provide advice to policymakers about how much they should encourage people to select a certain field. The conventional wisdom has been that there's a shortage of scientists and engineers in this country, and accordingly, career counselors, etc, have been motivated to try to get people to enter this field. Now it turns out that the conventional wisdom might be wrong. That's something career counselors would need to know. But that doesn't necessarily mean anything to YOU - obviously, the need for scientists and engineers &gt; 0, so if that's what you need to do with your life, then knock yourself out. But you would probably also be interested in finding out if the field is less lucrative than what you thought.</htmltext>
<tokenext>... was not to provide advice to individual people about what career field they should go into .
It was to provide advice to policymakers about how much they should encourage people to select a certain field .
The conventional wisdom has been that there 's a shortage of scientists and engineers in this country , and accordingly , career counselors , etc , have been motivated to try to get people to enter this field .
Now it turns out that the conventional wisdom might be wrong .
That 's something career counselors would need to know .
But that does n't necessarily mean anything to YOU - obviously , the need for scientists and engineers &gt; 0 , so if that 's what you need to do with your life , then knock yourself out .
But you would probably also be interested in finding out if the field is less lucrative than what you thought .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... was not to provide advice to individual people about what career field they should go into.
It was to provide advice to policymakers about how much they should encourage people to select a certain field.
The conventional wisdom has been that there's a shortage of scientists and engineers in this country, and accordingly, career counselors, etc, have been motivated to try to get people to enter this field.
Now it turns out that the conventional wisdom might be wrong.
That's something career counselors would need to know.
But that doesn't necessarily mean anything to YOU - obviously, the need for scientists and engineers &gt; 0, so if that's what you need to do with your life, then knock yourself out.
But you would probably also be interested in finding out if the field is less lucrative than what you thought.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904517</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905407</id>
	<title>It's not really about quantity</title>
	<author>rdean400</author>
	<datestamp>1256741400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The U.S. probably doesn't need more science and engineering graduates.  It does, however, need a higher percentage of the brightest minds to be those graduates.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The U.S. probably does n't need more science and engineering graduates .
It does , however , need a higher percentage of the brightest minds to be those graduates .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The U.S. probably doesn't need more science and engineering graduates.
It does, however, need a higher percentage of the brightest minds to be those graduates.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905487</id>
	<title>Re:Economics</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256741880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe we should bailout the scientists and technologists.  Bailing out the companies won't get the cash to the people doing the work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe we should bailout the scientists and technologists .
Bailing out the companies wo n't get the cash to the people doing the work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe we should bailout the scientists and technologists.
Bailing out the companies won't get the cash to the people doing the work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904765</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904779</id>
	<title>Includes Sociology</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256736720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The kicker is in the last paragraph:</p><p>"Susan Traiman of the Business Roundtable criticizes the new study, saying that it gives an illusion of a robust supply because it bundles all STEM fields together. There may be an oversupply in the life sciences and social sciences, she argues, but there is no question that there are shortages in engineering and the physical science."</p><p>Of course there are too many social "sciences" students.  Is that really a STEM field?  There still aren't enough engineers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The kicker is in the last paragraph : " Susan Traiman of the Business Roundtable criticizes the new study , saying that it gives an illusion of a robust supply because it bundles all STEM fields together .
There may be an oversupply in the life sciences and social sciences , she argues , but there is no question that there are shortages in engineering and the physical science .
" Of course there are too many social " sciences " students .
Is that really a STEM field ?
There still are n't enough engineers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The kicker is in the last paragraph:"Susan Traiman of the Business Roundtable criticizes the new study, saying that it gives an illusion of a robust supply because it bundles all STEM fields together.
There may be an oversupply in the life sciences and social sciences, she argues, but there is no question that there are shortages in engineering and the physical science.
"Of course there are too many social "sciences" students.
Is that really a STEM field?
There still aren't enough engineers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904765</id>
	<title>Economics</title>
	<author>WarJolt</author>
	<datestamp>1256736660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe we should bailout the science and technology companies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe we should bailout the science and technology companies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe we should bailout the science and technology companies.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29907717</id>
	<title>Re:Very soon, most people not needed.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256808600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You should read <a href="http://www.marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm" title="marshallbrain.com" rel="nofollow">Manna</a> [marshallbrain.com]; it's precisely about this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You should read Manna [ marshallbrain.com ] ; it 's precisely about this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You should read Manna [marshallbrain.com]; it's precisely about this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905863</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905607</id>
	<title>Exactly</title>
	<author>IdahoEv</author>
	<datestamp>1256742720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly.</p><p>I was always considered one of those "promising" science students.  I have undergraduate degrees in both biology and engineering, and a Ph.D. in "Computation and Neural Systems".   My best stay-in-science career path was a low-paying postdoctoral fellowship that would have required me to move to a very flat and uninteresting city in the Midwest.</p><p>As much as I loved science, I stayed in Los Angeles, became a freelance software developer, and am making more than twice a postdoc's salary working roughly half a week's hours freelance.  I even do a little science in my spare time.   I could have made a similar amount working in engineering or science for a company, but then I'd be working 50-60 hour weeks on someone else's projects.</p><p>
&nbsp; TFA's conclusion - at least the part about science jobs being overpaid and underworked - is certainly no surprise to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly.I was always considered one of those " promising " science students .
I have undergraduate degrees in both biology and engineering , and a Ph.D. in " Computation and Neural Systems " .
My best stay-in-science career path was a low-paying postdoctoral fellowship that would have required me to move to a very flat and uninteresting city in the Midwest.As much as I loved science , I stayed in Los Angeles , became a freelance software developer , and am making more than twice a postdoc 's salary working roughly half a week 's hours freelance .
I even do a little science in my spare time .
I could have made a similar amount working in engineering or science for a company , but then I 'd be working 50-60 hour weeks on someone else 's projects .
  TFA 's conclusion - at least the part about science jobs being overpaid and underworked - is certainly no surprise to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.I was always considered one of those "promising" science students.
I have undergraduate degrees in both biology and engineering, and a Ph.D. in "Computation and Neural Systems".
My best stay-in-science career path was a low-paying postdoctoral fellowship that would have required me to move to a very flat and uninteresting city in the Midwest.As much as I loved science, I stayed in Los Angeles, became a freelance software developer, and am making more than twice a postdoc's salary working roughly half a week's hours freelance.
I even do a little science in my spare time.
I could have made a similar amount working in engineering or science for a company, but then I'd be working 50-60 hour weeks on someone else's projects.
  TFA's conclusion - at least the part about science jobs being overpaid and underworked - is certainly no surprise to me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904839</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904697</id>
	<title>It's a horrendous problem</title>
	<author>thefear</author>
	<datestamp>1256736360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The ponderous population of smart people in the US is an untold bane on our society.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The ponderous population of smart people in the US is an untold bane on our society .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The ponderous population of smart people in the US is an untold bane on our society.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904475</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29920127</id>
	<title>Re:Over-simplify much?</title>
	<author>mollusc</author>
	<datestamp>1256831940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's all true. Along with the lack of money, a serious problem for young people in research is the lack of realistic career progression. I'm about to finish my PhD in the biological sciences in Australia. I am surrounded by brilliant, extremely hard-working, accomplished researchers who are in their 30s and 40s who do not have a secure job. They live grant-to-grant, and have no realistic hope of getting a permanent faculty position until their 50s at least. There just aren't enough academic research jobs for the number of new students graduating. Having had a good hard look at this for the last few years, I have made the decision to get the fuck out.
</p><p>While I realise that many people make a decent living like this, I have to admit that the idea of working 80 hour weeks for $60K with no job security when I didn't get a paid job until the age of 25 doesn't really appeal that much. It's got nothing to do with wanting a mansion and a Lambourgini, it's about wanting to not live in a constant panic about having enough money to get by.
</p><p>Let's face it: scientists are exploited. We want to do research more than society wants us to do it, and we're prepared to accept the absolute bare minimum of pay and conditions just so we can survive while we do our experiments. We're expected to do things like work for free for six months to finish off papers after our salary grants have run out. We're expected to never take leave, or go home at night, or have weekends off, but not have the kind of money that allows you to make that kind of lifestyle acceptable by living close to work, eating out, hiring nannies and cleaners and so forth.
</p><p>More worryingly, we're expected to put up with the fact that after ten years of this, with no savings, we can suddenly run out of salary because we had a bad run of luck with experiments last year and couldn't get a grant renewed. One guy from our lab has spent the last twelve months answering phones at a TV station. Having seen this happen to people who I fully recognise are smarter than me and have fifteen years more experience, I have been filled with an overpowering urge to run to somewhere, anywhere, where I can have enough money for a modicum of security.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's all true .
Along with the lack of money , a serious problem for young people in research is the lack of realistic career progression .
I 'm about to finish my PhD in the biological sciences in Australia .
I am surrounded by brilliant , extremely hard-working , accomplished researchers who are in their 30s and 40s who do not have a secure job .
They live grant-to-grant , and have no realistic hope of getting a permanent faculty position until their 50s at least .
There just are n't enough academic research jobs for the number of new students graduating .
Having had a good hard look at this for the last few years , I have made the decision to get the fuck out .
While I realise that many people make a decent living like this , I have to admit that the idea of working 80 hour weeks for $ 60K with no job security when I did n't get a paid job until the age of 25 does n't really appeal that much .
It 's got nothing to do with wanting a mansion and a Lambourgini , it 's about wanting to not live in a constant panic about having enough money to get by .
Let 's face it : scientists are exploited .
We want to do research more than society wants us to do it , and we 're prepared to accept the absolute bare minimum of pay and conditions just so we can survive while we do our experiments .
We 're expected to do things like work for free for six months to finish off papers after our salary grants have run out .
We 're expected to never take leave , or go home at night , or have weekends off , but not have the kind of money that allows you to make that kind of lifestyle acceptable by living close to work , eating out , hiring nannies and cleaners and so forth .
More worryingly , we 're expected to put up with the fact that after ten years of this , with no savings , we can suddenly run out of salary because we had a bad run of luck with experiments last year and could n't get a grant renewed .
One guy from our lab has spent the last twelve months answering phones at a TV station .
Having seen this happen to people who I fully recognise are smarter than me and have fifteen years more experience , I have been filled with an overpowering urge to run to somewhere , anywhere , where I can have enough money for a modicum of security .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's all true.
Along with the lack of money, a serious problem for young people in research is the lack of realistic career progression.
I'm about to finish my PhD in the biological sciences in Australia.
I am surrounded by brilliant, extremely hard-working, accomplished researchers who are in their 30s and 40s who do not have a secure job.
They live grant-to-grant, and have no realistic hope of getting a permanent faculty position until their 50s at least.
There just aren't enough academic research jobs for the number of new students graduating.
Having had a good hard look at this for the last few years, I have made the decision to get the fuck out.
While I realise that many people make a decent living like this, I have to admit that the idea of working 80 hour weeks for $60K with no job security when I didn't get a paid job until the age of 25 doesn't really appeal that much.
It's got nothing to do with wanting a mansion and a Lambourgini, it's about wanting to not live in a constant panic about having enough money to get by.
Let's face it: scientists are exploited.
We want to do research more than society wants us to do it, and we're prepared to accept the absolute bare minimum of pay and conditions just so we can survive while we do our experiments.
We're expected to do things like work for free for six months to finish off papers after our salary grants have run out.
We're expected to never take leave, or go home at night, or have weekends off, but not have the kind of money that allows you to make that kind of lifestyle acceptable by living close to work, eating out, hiring nannies and cleaners and so forth.
More worryingly, we're expected to put up with the fact that after ten years of this, with no savings, we can suddenly run out of salary because we had a bad run of luck with experiments last year and couldn't get a grant renewed.
One guy from our lab has spent the last twelve months answering phones at a TV station.
Having seen this happen to people who I fully recognise are smarter than me and have fifteen years more experience, I have been filled with an overpowering urge to run to somewhere, anywhere, where I can have enough money for a modicum of security.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904767</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29908565</id>
	<title>Re:More articles like this please</title>
	<author>Aceticon</author>
	<datestamp>1256821140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The Federal Reserve does not print money. Maybe you were speaking metaphorically, but you're still wrong. The Federal Reserve can influence interest rates, and it can change the size of the the money supply by issuing and recalling treasury bills and by adjusting the reserve requirement.. Those functions allow the Fed to alter the price of money, but that's not equivalent to printing more money.</p></div></blockquote><p>Two words:<br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantitative\_easing" title="wikipedia.org">Quantitative Easing</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>This is actually the modern version of printing money (notice the part about creating money from nothing in the Wikipedia article). Central banks have started doing it once they couldn't bring interest rates any lower (no way for them to get lower than zero).</p><p>So money is being created out of nothing which reduces the value of any money in circulation which in turn devaluates the currency. This is good for exporters since their goods look cheaper in other currencies and is good for banks because they can take cheap loans and invest that money (more on that below) and bad for consumers since any goods or which are imported and/or contain inputs which are imported (pretty much anything nowadays) will be more expensive.</p><p>The US Dollar has not devaluated any further because:<br>- It's still the reserve currency for many countries in the world. For example China still holds most of it's foreign currency reserves in USD and most Chinese exporters price their goods in US Dollars instead of Renminbi.<br>- Most major US trading partners have either had their own currencies devaluate (such as the UK and the Euro-zone members) or keep their currencies pegged to the dollar (such as China).</p><p>A point that the GP didn't clearly made was that at the moment the US Government provides an implicit guarantee to all major US banks that they will not be allowed to go bankrupt. The way things are at the moment any bank whose failure could cause structural problems to the financial system (read: big and with many out of market long and short positions) will be saved by the US government if it ever comes close to bankruptcy.</p><p>This means that banks have been able to get cheap loans from the money markets, leveraging themselves back to the levels of 2008 (when banks invested using ratios of loaned money versus own money of 20 to 1 or worse - i.e. for every 21 million dollars they invested, only 1 million was their own money). They have used that money to play in the stock market (and other markets) which have been going up, thus making profits for even the most inept of traders.</p><p>Let me explain how investment bank works with an example: a trader for a year invests $5000 of the bank's own money and $100000 of loaned money (at an interest rate of 1.0\% a year) into stocks. Said stocks went up 5\% (way much less than the market did this year): he would have made $4250 profit (after loan repayment) which doesn't look that much against the full $105000, but is a staggering 85\% profit margin on the $5000 of the bank's money invested.</p><p>This is how banks are announcing huge profits and giving out billions of dollars of bonuses: lots of cheap (thanks to low interest rates, quantitative easing and government guarantees on big banks) are used to amplify the results in such a way that even the most inept of traders can post huge profits.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Federal Reserve does not print money .
Maybe you were speaking metaphorically , but you 're still wrong .
The Federal Reserve can influence interest rates , and it can change the size of the the money supply by issuing and recalling treasury bills and by adjusting the reserve requirement.. Those functions allow the Fed to alter the price of money , but that 's not equivalent to printing more money.Two words : Quantitative Easing [ wikipedia.org ] This is actually the modern version of printing money ( notice the part about creating money from nothing in the Wikipedia article ) .
Central banks have started doing it once they could n't bring interest rates any lower ( no way for them to get lower than zero ) .So money is being created out of nothing which reduces the value of any money in circulation which in turn devaluates the currency .
This is good for exporters since their goods look cheaper in other currencies and is good for banks because they can take cheap loans and invest that money ( more on that below ) and bad for consumers since any goods or which are imported and/or contain inputs which are imported ( pretty much anything nowadays ) will be more expensive.The US Dollar has not devaluated any further because : - It 's still the reserve currency for many countries in the world .
For example China still holds most of it 's foreign currency reserves in USD and most Chinese exporters price their goods in US Dollars instead of Renminbi.- Most major US trading partners have either had their own currencies devaluate ( such as the UK and the Euro-zone members ) or keep their currencies pegged to the dollar ( such as China ) .A point that the GP did n't clearly made was that at the moment the US Government provides an implicit guarantee to all major US banks that they will not be allowed to go bankrupt .
The way things are at the moment any bank whose failure could cause structural problems to the financial system ( read : big and with many out of market long and short positions ) will be saved by the US government if it ever comes close to bankruptcy.This means that banks have been able to get cheap loans from the money markets , leveraging themselves back to the levels of 2008 ( when banks invested using ratios of loaned money versus own money of 20 to 1 or worse - i.e .
for every 21 million dollars they invested , only 1 million was their own money ) .
They have used that money to play in the stock market ( and other markets ) which have been going up , thus making profits for even the most inept of traders.Let me explain how investment bank works with an example : a trader for a year invests $ 5000 of the bank 's own money and $ 100000 of loaned money ( at an interest rate of 1.0 \ % a year ) into stocks .
Said stocks went up 5 \ % ( way much less than the market did this year ) : he would have made $ 4250 profit ( after loan repayment ) which does n't look that much against the full $ 105000 , but is a staggering 85 \ % profit margin on the $ 5000 of the bank 's money invested.This is how banks are announcing huge profits and giving out billions of dollars of bonuses : lots of cheap ( thanks to low interest rates , quantitative easing and government guarantees on big banks ) are used to amplify the results in such a way that even the most inept of traders can post huge profits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Federal Reserve does not print money.
Maybe you were speaking metaphorically, but you're still wrong.
The Federal Reserve can influence interest rates, and it can change the size of the the money supply by issuing and recalling treasury bills and by adjusting the reserve requirement.. Those functions allow the Fed to alter the price of money, but that's not equivalent to printing more money.Two words:Quantitative Easing [wikipedia.org]This is actually the modern version of printing money (notice the part about creating money from nothing in the Wikipedia article).
Central banks have started doing it once they couldn't bring interest rates any lower (no way for them to get lower than zero).So money is being created out of nothing which reduces the value of any money in circulation which in turn devaluates the currency.
This is good for exporters since their goods look cheaper in other currencies and is good for banks because they can take cheap loans and invest that money (more on that below) and bad for consumers since any goods or which are imported and/or contain inputs which are imported (pretty much anything nowadays) will be more expensive.The US Dollar has not devaluated any further because:- It's still the reserve currency for many countries in the world.
For example China still holds most of it's foreign currency reserves in USD and most Chinese exporters price their goods in US Dollars instead of Renminbi.- Most major US trading partners have either had their own currencies devaluate (such as the UK and the Euro-zone members) or keep their currencies pegged to the dollar (such as China).A point that the GP didn't clearly made was that at the moment the US Government provides an implicit guarantee to all major US banks that they will not be allowed to go bankrupt.
The way things are at the moment any bank whose failure could cause structural problems to the financial system (read: big and with many out of market long and short positions) will be saved by the US government if it ever comes close to bankruptcy.This means that banks have been able to get cheap loans from the money markets, leveraging themselves back to the levels of 2008 (when banks invested using ratios of loaned money versus own money of 20 to 1 or worse - i.e.
for every 21 million dollars they invested, only 1 million was their own money).
They have used that money to play in the stock market (and other markets) which have been going up, thus making profits for even the most inept of traders.Let me explain how investment bank works with an example: a trader for a year invests $5000 of the bank's own money and $100000 of loaned money (at an interest rate of 1.0\% a year) into stocks.
Said stocks went up 5\% (way much less than the market did this year): he would have made $4250 profit (after loan repayment) which doesn't look that much against the full $105000, but is a staggering 85\% profit margin on the $5000 of the bank's money invested.This is how banks are announcing huge profits and giving out billions of dollars of bonuses: lots of cheap (thanks to low interest rates, quantitative easing and government guarantees on big banks) are used to amplify the results in such a way that even the most inept of traders can post huge profits.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29906647</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905027</id>
	<title>Re:What about just doing what you love?</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1256738160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Rational people want to make money so they can lead a relaxing life? Why? What's so good about relaxation? What's the point in getting a big house or a big car? The answer is because you find it enjoyable. Just because you enjoy intellectual pursuits rather than hedonism does not make you a less rational person.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Rational people want to make money so they can lead a relaxing life ?
Why ? What 's so good about relaxation ?
What 's the point in getting a big house or a big car ?
The answer is because you find it enjoyable .
Just because you enjoy intellectual pursuits rather than hedonism does not make you a less rational person .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rational people want to make money so they can lead a relaxing life?
Why? What's so good about relaxation?
What's the point in getting a big house or a big car?
The answer is because you find it enjoyable.
Just because you enjoy intellectual pursuits rather than hedonism does not make you a less rational person.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904759</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29907897</id>
	<title>Re:Brain Drain</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256811780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't speak for other fields, but for radio astronomy in Australia, there's plenty of funding - something like A$100m going into building ASKAP, a new telescope.  At the low-frequency end, radio astronomy work actually overlaps a bit with the OTH radar you mentioned.</p><p>I'm just starting a PhD in the area at the moment.  I still plan to move overseas when I finish it, because it's practically compulsory - you need to learn the techniques and modes of thought that people use elsewhere if you want to develop your skills - but I wouldn't be surprised to find myself coming back to Australia again five years later.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't speak for other fields , but for radio astronomy in Australia , there 's plenty of funding - something like A $ 100m going into building ASKAP , a new telescope .
At the low-frequency end , radio astronomy work actually overlaps a bit with the OTH radar you mentioned.I 'm just starting a PhD in the area at the moment .
I still plan to move overseas when I finish it , because it 's practically compulsory - you need to learn the techniques and modes of thought that people use elsewhere if you want to develop your skills - but I would n't be surprised to find myself coming back to Australia again five years later .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't speak for other fields, but for radio astronomy in Australia, there's plenty of funding - something like A$100m going into building ASKAP, a new telescope.
At the low-frequency end, radio astronomy work actually overlaps a bit with the OTH radar you mentioned.I'm just starting a PhD in the area at the moment.
I still plan to move overseas when I finish it, because it's practically compulsory - you need to learn the techniques and modes of thought that people use elsewhere if you want to develop your skills - but I wouldn't be surprised to find myself coming back to Australia again five years later.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904691</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29906313</id>
	<title>From what I see on the news</title>
	<author>stabiesoft</author>
	<datestamp>1256748240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Scientists don't do much anyway. For example, I just saw how 2 or 3 guys riding their bicycle from atlanta to LA were going to help cure cancer. Shoot, I would have thought Lance A. had already cured cancer. That reminds me, I need to organize that marathon to find a way to make fusion work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Scientists do n't do much anyway .
For example , I just saw how 2 or 3 guys riding their bicycle from atlanta to LA were going to help cure cancer .
Shoot , I would have thought Lance A. had already cured cancer .
That reminds me , I need to organize that marathon to find a way to make fusion work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Scientists don't do much anyway.
For example, I just saw how 2 or 3 guys riding their bicycle from atlanta to LA were going to help cure cancer.
Shoot, I would have thought Lance A. had already cured cancer.
That reminds me, I need to organize that marathon to find a way to make fusion work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29911507</id>
	<title>Re:Over-simplify much?</title>
	<author>asd-Strom</author>
	<datestamp>1256835600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So, the way I see it, someone in his position potentially comes up about $300,000 ahead (on graduation day) of the guy who went to school for 6 years and took out those loans.</p></div><p>You should also consider the cost of working. A construction worker uses health as a resource for working, far more so than a scientist. So when a scientist can continue working and getting raises, at say 70, then the construction worker is most likely already retired with a worn out body.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , the way I see it , someone in his position potentially comes up about $ 300,000 ahead ( on graduation day ) of the guy who went to school for 6 years and took out those loans.You should also consider the cost of working .
A construction worker uses health as a resource for working , far more so than a scientist .
So when a scientist can continue working and getting raises , at say 70 , then the construction worker is most likely already retired with a worn out body .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, the way I see it, someone in his position potentially comes up about $300,000 ahead (on graduation day) of the guy who went to school for 6 years and took out those loans.You should also consider the cost of working.
A construction worker uses health as a resource for working, far more so than a scientist.
So when a scientist can continue working and getting raises, at say 70, then the construction worker is most likely already retired with a worn out body.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904767</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29913843</id>
	<title>Re:how many scientists are enough?</title>
	<author>Grishnakh</author>
	<datestamp>1256844180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My experience has been that engineering pays a pretty good starting wage, and then it goes up quite a lot over the next 5-10 years as you become "senior", but then it peaks out and you're done.  Even so, you're still making very good money compared to most of the population, though you can obviously do better in middle or upper (not lower) management, or in other fields like law or medicine, or even as a skilled tradesperson who owns his own business.</p><p>However, it does seem like salaries have been rising noticeably in the past decade, for certain niches where there's not enough skilled engineers available and companies have gotten desperate.  My recommendation is to find a niche that is lucrative and growing and there's not a lot of other engineers that have any expertise in it, and move yourself in that direction.</p><p>As for career paths, I really don't care.  I have no desire to be anything other than a senior engineer (until I start my own consulting business, that is).  I've met corporate executives before, and they're constantly working.  They can't even sit down for dinner with their family without their stupid Blackberry buzzing or their cellphone ringing, and they have to stop to talk to someone about something business-related.  I'll pass on that lifestyle, thanks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My experience has been that engineering pays a pretty good starting wage , and then it goes up quite a lot over the next 5-10 years as you become " senior " , but then it peaks out and you 're done .
Even so , you 're still making very good money compared to most of the population , though you can obviously do better in middle or upper ( not lower ) management , or in other fields like law or medicine , or even as a skilled tradesperson who owns his own business.However , it does seem like salaries have been rising noticeably in the past decade , for certain niches where there 's not enough skilled engineers available and companies have gotten desperate .
My recommendation is to find a niche that is lucrative and growing and there 's not a lot of other engineers that have any expertise in it , and move yourself in that direction.As for career paths , I really do n't care .
I have no desire to be anything other than a senior engineer ( until I start my own consulting business , that is ) .
I 've met corporate executives before , and they 're constantly working .
They ca n't even sit down for dinner with their family without their stupid Blackberry buzzing or their cellphone ringing , and they have to stop to talk to someone about something business-related .
I 'll pass on that lifestyle , thanks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My experience has been that engineering pays a pretty good starting wage, and then it goes up quite a lot over the next 5-10 years as you become "senior", but then it peaks out and you're done.
Even so, you're still making very good money compared to most of the population, though you can obviously do better in middle or upper (not lower) management, or in other fields like law or medicine, or even as a skilled tradesperson who owns his own business.However, it does seem like salaries have been rising noticeably in the past decade, for certain niches where there's not enough skilled engineers available and companies have gotten desperate.
My recommendation is to find a niche that is lucrative and growing and there's not a lot of other engineers that have any expertise in it, and move yourself in that direction.As for career paths, I really don't care.
I have no desire to be anything other than a senior engineer (until I start my own consulting business, that is).
I've met corporate executives before, and they're constantly working.
They can't even sit down for dinner with their family without their stupid Blackberry buzzing or their cellphone ringing, and they have to stop to talk to someone about something business-related.
I'll pass on that lifestyle, thanks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29906035</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29907579</id>
	<title>Re:Money on both sides of the equation</title>
	<author>Trutane</author>
	<datestamp>1256849460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, we need to do a better job at not letting our scientific braniacs slip through the cracks. But we'd be doing a disservice to society by focusing on them to the exclusion of the masses who go on to pursue other careers. Great ideas and technological innovations could fail if people don't understand them, can't intelligently discuss them, or can be easily swayed into fearing them.
</p><p>
We need everyone to be more scientifically literate, regardless of what career path they choose: turn them <b>on to</b> science without necessarily turning them <b>into</b> scientists (or into the same type of scientists). I brought this up <a href="http://trutane.blogspot.com/2007/11/more-scientists.html" title="blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">a couple of years ago</a> [blogspot.com].
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , we need to do a better job at not letting our scientific braniacs slip through the cracks .
But we 'd be doing a disservice to society by focusing on them to the exclusion of the masses who go on to pursue other careers .
Great ideas and technological innovations could fail if people do n't understand them , ca n't intelligently discuss them , or can be easily swayed into fearing them .
We need everyone to be more scientifically literate , regardless of what career path they choose : turn them on to science without necessarily turning them into scientists ( or into the same type of scientists ) .
I brought this up a couple of years ago [ blogspot.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, we need to do a better job at not letting our scientific braniacs slip through the cracks.
But we'd be doing a disservice to society by focusing on them to the exclusion of the masses who go on to pursue other careers.
Great ideas and technological innovations could fail if people don't understand them, can't intelligently discuss them, or can be easily swayed into fearing them.
We need everyone to be more scientifically literate, regardless of what career path they choose: turn them on to science without necessarily turning them into scientists (or into the same type of scientists).
I brought this up a couple of years ago [blogspot.com].
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904619</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29908151</id>
	<title>Re:So money is still the sole motivator?</title>
	<author>couchslug</author>
	<datestamp>1256815560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"I had hoped that the best scientist and engineers would be motivated by something more than just money."</p><p>Idealism is an adorable quality in other people, but many of those will eschew martyrdom for food clothing, and shelter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I had hoped that the best scientist and engineers would be motivated by something more than just money .
" Idealism is an adorable quality in other people , but many of those will eschew martyrdom for food clothing , and shelter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I had hoped that the best scientist and engineers would be motivated by something more than just money.
"Idealism is an adorable quality in other people, but many of those will eschew martyrdom for food clothing, and shelter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904617</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904861</id>
	<title>they're clearly not economists</title>
	<author>klochner</author>
	<datestamp>1256737260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"This happens, they say,  by depressing wages in S&amp;T fields and turning potential science and technology innovators into management professionals and hedge fund managers."

The number of science graduates has very little to do with the salary differential between "technology innovators" and hedge fund managers.  Reducing the number of science graduates will most likely just reduce the number of people who remain in the field, since it would effectively boost the pay of hedge fund managers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" This happens , they say , by depressing wages in S&amp;T fields and turning potential science and technology innovators into management professionals and hedge fund managers .
" The number of science graduates has very little to do with the salary differential between " technology innovators " and hedge fund managers .
Reducing the number of science graduates will most likely just reduce the number of people who remain in the field , since it would effectively boost the pay of hedge fund managers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"This happens, they say,  by depressing wages in S&amp;T fields and turning potential science and technology innovators into management professionals and hedge fund managers.
"

The number of science graduates has very little to do with the salary differential between "technology innovators" and hedge fund managers.
Reducing the number of science graduates will most likely just reduce the number of people who remain in the field, since it would effectively boost the pay of hedge fund managers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904559</id>
	<title>So says the sociologists...</title>
	<author>Kell Bengal</author>
	<datestamp>1256735460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>So... the sociologists say there's too many technical scientists?  That's just what I'd expect from those namby-pamby girly-haired soft-science types! I'll bet they've got a correlation study and everything.  Well, maybe the technical scientists say there are too many sociologists?  And we've got freaky equations and stuff.

<br> <br>
Yeah!<br> <br>  Who you going to believe, pretty demographics charts or complicated equations?  Eh?  EH?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So... the sociologists say there 's too many technical scientists ?
That 's just what I 'd expect from those namby-pamby girly-haired soft-science types !
I 'll bet they 've got a correlation study and everything .
Well , maybe the technical scientists say there are too many sociologists ?
And we 've got freaky equations and stuff .
Yeah ! Who you going to believe , pretty demographics charts or complicated equations ?
Eh ? EH ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So... the sociologists say there's too many technical scientists?
That's just what I'd expect from those namby-pamby girly-haired soft-science types!
I'll bet they've got a correlation study and everything.
Well, maybe the technical scientists say there are too many sociologists?
And we've got freaky equations and stuff.
Yeah!   Who you going to believe, pretty demographics charts or complicated equations?
Eh?  EH?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29906087</id>
	<title>Re:What's science done for us lately?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256746200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Interesting that the industries you point out as growing the most are also the ones that are least regulated, especially semiconductors.  When lawyers have to be hired to interpret Government regulations, accountants hired to calculate the best way to structure the organization from a tax perspective, or lobbyists contracted to convince Government bureaucrats to change regulations and allow innovations, then the budget for engineers will be displaced by these and other similar activities.  Additionally, once the firm discovers that their strong ties with the Government can make it more profitable through non-market strategies, focus of the organization will shift almost completely away from engineering and innovation, converting the engineers to be more like production workers than innovators.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Interesting that the industries you point out as growing the most are also the ones that are least regulated , especially semiconductors .
When lawyers have to be hired to interpret Government regulations , accountants hired to calculate the best way to structure the organization from a tax perspective , or lobbyists contracted to convince Government bureaucrats to change regulations and allow innovations , then the budget for engineers will be displaced by these and other similar activities .
Additionally , once the firm discovers that their strong ties with the Government can make it more profitable through non-market strategies , focus of the organization will shift almost completely away from engineering and innovation , converting the engineers to be more like production workers than innovators .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interesting that the industries you point out as growing the most are also the ones that are least regulated, especially semiconductors.
When lawyers have to be hired to interpret Government regulations, accountants hired to calculate the best way to structure the organization from a tax perspective, or lobbyists contracted to convince Government bureaucrats to change regulations and allow innovations, then the budget for engineers will be displaced by these and other similar activities.
Additionally, once the firm discovers that their strong ties with the Government can make it more profitable through non-market strategies, focus of the organization will shift almost completely away from engineering and innovation, converting the engineers to be more like production workers than innovators.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905399</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29913455</id>
	<title>Why would you want to go into science?</title>
	<author>Atrox666</author>
	<datestamp>1256842800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why would you want to study and work your ass off when you'll just end up being the bitch of some retarded MBA douchebag  who spent his college days drinking and chasing skirts. Fuck that. I'd rather be the boss.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would you want to study and work your ass off when you 'll just end up being the bitch of some retarded MBA douchebag who spent his college days drinking and chasing skirts .
Fuck that .
I 'd rather be the boss .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would you want to study and work your ass off when you'll just end up being the bitch of some retarded MBA douchebag  who spent his college days drinking and chasing skirts.
Fuck that.
I'd rather be the boss.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29907749</id>
	<title>Re:Money on both sides of the equation</title>
	<author>CodeBuster</author>
	<datestamp>1256809260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We need to invest in our future by investing in our brightest minds and steering them towards occupations where they can make a lasting difference in the world.</p></div><p>They present US system of primary and secondary education basically ensures that this never happens. Here in the US we are so concerned about equality of outcome in education that we often fail to direct the needed resources towards advancing the most promising students to their full potential. Instead, smart kids who would pass on their own anyway are neglected while remedial students are brought up to minimum standard. In practice this means that by the time the dumbest students are barely caught up there is nothing left in the budget to advance the smart ones. Other countries identify promising students through various testing methods and then spend more on them and less on others. This may be more efficient, but it is politically quite impossible here in the United States.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We need to invest in our future by investing in our brightest minds and steering them towards occupations where they can make a lasting difference in the world.They present US system of primary and secondary education basically ensures that this never happens .
Here in the US we are so concerned about equality of outcome in education that we often fail to direct the needed resources towards advancing the most promising students to their full potential .
Instead , smart kids who would pass on their own anyway are neglected while remedial students are brought up to minimum standard .
In practice this means that by the time the dumbest students are barely caught up there is nothing left in the budget to advance the smart ones .
Other countries identify promising students through various testing methods and then spend more on them and less on others .
This may be more efficient , but it is politically quite impossible here in the United States .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We need to invest in our future by investing in our brightest minds and steering them towards occupations where they can make a lasting difference in the world.They present US system of primary and secondary education basically ensures that this never happens.
Here in the US we are so concerned about equality of outcome in education that we often fail to direct the needed resources towards advancing the most promising students to their full potential.
Instead, smart kids who would pass on their own anyway are neglected while remedial students are brought up to minimum standard.
In practice this means that by the time the dumbest students are barely caught up there is nothing left in the budget to advance the smart ones.
Other countries identify promising students through various testing methods and then spend more on them and less on others.
This may be more efficient, but it is politically quite impossible here in the United States.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904619</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905491</id>
	<title>The system only works to support it self.</title>
	<author>new2\_60605</author>
	<datestamp>1256741880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Academia is the problem starts. You have to compete with idiots for good grades in classes you dont need to get a certificate that doesn't matter for a job that you wont get.
In the IT field any jerk who can take a standardized test can get certified a Microsoft/Cisco expert so now that guy with an IT or Engineering Degree that he spent years studying for and around $100k has to compete for a job with the idiot that took weekend classes at a productivity point.

In the Medical field they spend years making you take classes that have nothing to do with medicine or general practice yet if you do not get through organic chemistry and calculus you cant be a doctor. My doctor is an idiot he couldnt solve a calculus problem if his life depended on it.

Corporations constantly want to drive the bottom line down so they create a competitive market place for jobs that is almost counter productive to corporate interests. CEO's that do nothing but manage stock price are given million dollar bonuses but engineers that create new technologies are given the axe as soon as they have a budget cut.

The bean counters get the bonuses but when things get screwed up they depend on the engineers and doctors to get them out of the jam poor bean counting got us in.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Academia is the problem starts .
You have to compete with idiots for good grades in classes you dont need to get a certificate that does n't matter for a job that you wont get .
In the IT field any jerk who can take a standardized test can get certified a Microsoft/Cisco expert so now that guy with an IT or Engineering Degree that he spent years studying for and around $ 100k has to compete for a job with the idiot that took weekend classes at a productivity point .
In the Medical field they spend years making you take classes that have nothing to do with medicine or general practice yet if you do not get through organic chemistry and calculus you cant be a doctor .
My doctor is an idiot he couldnt solve a calculus problem if his life depended on it .
Corporations constantly want to drive the bottom line down so they create a competitive market place for jobs that is almost counter productive to corporate interests .
CEO 's that do nothing but manage stock price are given million dollar bonuses but engineers that create new technologies are given the axe as soon as they have a budget cut .
The bean counters get the bonuses but when things get screwed up they depend on the engineers and doctors to get them out of the jam poor bean counting got us in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Academia is the problem starts.
You have to compete with idiots for good grades in classes you dont need to get a certificate that doesn't matter for a job that you wont get.
In the IT field any jerk who can take a standardized test can get certified a Microsoft/Cisco expert so now that guy with an IT or Engineering Degree that he spent years studying for and around $100k has to compete for a job with the idiot that took weekend classes at a productivity point.
In the Medical field they spend years making you take classes that have nothing to do with medicine or general practice yet if you do not get through organic chemistry and calculus you cant be a doctor.
My doctor is an idiot he couldnt solve a calculus problem if his life depended on it.
Corporations constantly want to drive the bottom line down so they create a competitive market place for jobs that is almost counter productive to corporate interests.
CEO's that do nothing but manage stock price are given million dollar bonuses but engineers that create new technologies are given the axe as soon as they have a budget cut.
The bean counters get the bonuses but when things get screwed up they depend on the engineers and doctors to get them out of the jam poor bean counting got us in.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29906073</id>
	<title>Oh civ, how I love thee</title>
	<author>deek</author>
	<datestamp>1256746200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Obviously the US doesn't need as many scientists, and can increase the ratio of tax collectors and entertainers.  Hey guys, if you start a riot in your city, you'll probably get more entertainers than tax collectors.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obviously the US does n't need as many scientists , and can increase the ratio of tax collectors and entertainers .
Hey guys , if you start a riot in your city , you 'll probably get more entertainers than tax collectors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obviously the US doesn't need as many scientists, and can increase the ratio of tax collectors and entertainers.
Hey guys, if you start a riot in your city, you'll probably get more entertainers than tax collectors.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29916425</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256810760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a recipient of a PhD in computational physics, all I have to say is, "Thank heavens I learned something useful in all of those wasted years getting a physics degree - i.e. programming, and writing software."</p><p>I have told more than my share of students not to waste their time on science or even advanced degrees unless they are being paid to go to school and have a guarantee of a return on their investment. Today's America depends on a large number of highly skilled people who cannot get a job, to stoke research academia. That is the real shortage - slave labor for research. Whenever you hear about a "shortage" it's from those that make their living by exploiting those people who are working toward an advanced degree for some promise that it'll all be worthwhile at some point in the future - it won't be. It is wasted time and effort, and people are learning that. It really is that simple.</p><p>I make my living writing software, and managing people who write software - my PhD is essentially worthless. Until that changes there is no reason for anyone to waste their time, effort, and money getting a degree that is a waste of their time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a recipient of a PhD in computational physics , all I have to say is , " Thank heavens I learned something useful in all of those wasted years getting a physics degree - i.e .
programming , and writing software .
" I have told more than my share of students not to waste their time on science or even advanced degrees unless they are being paid to go to school and have a guarantee of a return on their investment .
Today 's America depends on a large number of highly skilled people who can not get a job , to stoke research academia .
That is the real shortage - slave labor for research .
Whenever you hear about a " shortage " it 's from those that make their living by exploiting those people who are working toward an advanced degree for some promise that it 'll all be worthwhile at some point in the future - it wo n't be .
It is wasted time and effort , and people are learning that .
It really is that simple.I make my living writing software , and managing people who write software - my PhD is essentially worthless .
Until that changes there is no reason for anyone to waste their time , effort , and money getting a degree that is a waste of their time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a recipient of a PhD in computational physics, all I have to say is, "Thank heavens I learned something useful in all of those wasted years getting a physics degree - i.e.
programming, and writing software.
"I have told more than my share of students not to waste their time on science or even advanced degrees unless they are being paid to go to school and have a guarantee of a return on their investment.
Today's America depends on a large number of highly skilled people who cannot get a job, to stoke research academia.
That is the real shortage - slave labor for research.
Whenever you hear about a "shortage" it's from those that make their living by exploiting those people who are working toward an advanced degree for some promise that it'll all be worthwhile at some point in the future - it won't be.
It is wasted time and effort, and people are learning that.
It really is that simple.I make my living writing software, and managing people who write software - my PhD is essentially worthless.
Until that changes there is no reason for anyone to waste their time, effort, and money getting a degree that is a waste of their time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29908597</id>
	<title>Re:Really</title>
	<author>iris-n</author>
	<datestamp>1256821560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the salary of foreigners were as high as americans', big tech would become very good at finding local talent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the salary of foreigners were as high as americans ' , big tech would become very good at finding local talent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the salary of foreigners were as high as americans', big tech would become very good at finding local talent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904677</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29907721</id>
	<title>Re:More articles like this please</title>
	<author>Thanshin</author>
	<datestamp>1256808600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>expectations of the promotion and tenure committee in terms of papers, research funding and teaching requires 50-60 hours a week of work minimum most week</p></div><p>If you mean "I have to work 50-60h/w if I expect to ever ascend", I don't think there are many corporations where it isn't exactly so. At least in my environment.</p><p>"Half for you, half for us" (as in "12h between entry and exit") is a quite common philosophy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>expectations of the promotion and tenure committee in terms of papers , research funding and teaching requires 50-60 hours a week of work minimum most weekIf you mean " I have to work 50-60h/w if I expect to ever ascend " , I do n't think there are many corporations where it is n't exactly so .
At least in my environment .
" Half for you , half for us " ( as in " 12h between entry and exit " ) is a quite common philosophy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>expectations of the promotion and tenure committee in terms of papers, research funding and teaching requires 50-60 hours a week of work minimum most weekIf you mean "I have to work 50-60h/w if I expect to ever ascend", I don't think there are many corporations where it isn't exactly so.
At least in my environment.
"Half for you, half for us" (as in "12h between entry and exit") is a quite common philosophy.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904731</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904839</id>
	<title>Re:What about just doing what you love?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256737080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you want to do science, do science.</p></div><p>But what if science doesn't pay the bills?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you want to do science , do science.But what if science does n't pay the bills ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you want to do science, do science.But what if science doesn't pay the bills?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904517</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904645</id>
	<title>Conflict of Interest</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256736000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Scientist were assigned a study to find out if additonal scientists are needed and they found that there were already plenty of them and they should have gotten huge raises instead.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Scientist were assigned a study to find out if additonal scientists are needed and they found that there were already plenty of them and they should have gotten huge raises instead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Scientist were assigned a study to find out if additonal scientists are needed and they found that there were already plenty of them and they should have gotten huge raises instead.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904919</id>
	<title>Re:So money is still the sole motivator?</title>
	<author>qbzzt</author>
	<datestamp>1256737440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I had hoped that the best scientist and engineers would be motivated by something more than just money.</i></p><p>They might not be motivated just by money, but money is a motivator in our society. Scientists and engineers are just like other people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I had hoped that the best scientist and engineers would be motivated by something more than just money.They might not be motivated just by money , but money is a motivator in our society .
Scientists and engineers are just like other people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had hoped that the best scientist and engineers would be motivated by something more than just money.They might not be motivated just by money, but money is a motivator in our society.
Scientists and engineers are just like other people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904617</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905805</id>
	<title>I just want a more rational population</title>
	<author>bledri</author>
	<datestamp>1256744100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think promoting the pursuit of scientific knowledge in the US will chip away at the ignorance quotient.  Screw the economy, I'm tired of dealing with the dumb.  And I don't care that some people get Phds and are still idiots.  Questioning attitude + scientific method is a good thing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think promoting the pursuit of scientific knowledge in the US will chip away at the ignorance quotient .
Screw the economy , I 'm tired of dealing with the dumb .
And I do n't care that some people get Phds and are still idiots .
Questioning attitude + scientific method is a good thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think promoting the pursuit of scientific knowledge in the US will chip away at the ignorance quotient.
Screw the economy, I'm tired of dealing with the dumb.
And I don't care that some people get Phds and are still idiots.
Questioning attitude + scientific method is a good thing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904793</id>
	<title>Re:What about just doing what you love?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256736720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't give a rusty fuck what some study says people should or should not go into. I work in the fields I love, and I'd recommend it to everyone else. If you want to do science, do science. If you don't then don't. Who really cares what some frigtarded academic thinks anyway? Final thought - how often is it that we look back on these studies five or ten years later to find out they were somewhere around, oh, dead wrong. if these guys are such friggin' geniuses at predicting the future they should go make $Billions in the stock market.</p><p>If all you care about is money than go into politics or join the mob (it's ethically about the same).</p></div><p>
Unlike some idiots (you), many people on the planet have a wide range of interests, and could have easily chosen from a dozen different careers and enjoyed all of them.<br>
<br>
Many doctors have a strong interest in technology and engineering.  They perhaps chose medicine because of the glamorized view of doctors that our current society portrays.  Doctors on TV get all the girls, dress the best, have the fancy cars, the biggest houses, get all the intelligent lines, have the most challenging jobs.  Is that the reality of life for most doctors?  No.<br>
<br>
Where does society portray Engineers and Scientists?  If they are in a TV show at all, they are stuck in a lab coat, ordered around by bossy managers, shown as spineless nerds with no life, unmarried or girlfriend-less, often speaking lines that are awkward, merely secondary characters.  Is that the reality of life as a Scientist?  No.<br>
<br>
Which do you think sways young minds more toward their career?<br>
<br>
The study mention incentives.  Money is just one incentive.  Respect, challenge, spousal options, making a difference... there are many ways to reward a person.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know about the rest of you , but I do n't give a rusty fuck what some study says people should or should not go into .
I work in the fields I love , and I 'd recommend it to everyone else .
If you want to do science , do science .
If you do n't then do n't .
Who really cares what some frigtarded academic thinks anyway ?
Final thought - how often is it that we look back on these studies five or ten years later to find out they were somewhere around , oh , dead wrong .
if these guys are such friggin ' geniuses at predicting the future they should go make $ Billions in the stock market.If all you care about is money than go into politics or join the mob ( it 's ethically about the same ) .
Unlike some idiots ( you ) , many people on the planet have a wide range of interests , and could have easily chosen from a dozen different careers and enjoyed all of them .
Many doctors have a strong interest in technology and engineering .
They perhaps chose medicine because of the glamorized view of doctors that our current society portrays .
Doctors on TV get all the girls , dress the best , have the fancy cars , the biggest houses , get all the intelligent lines , have the most challenging jobs .
Is that the reality of life for most doctors ?
No . Where does society portray Engineers and Scientists ?
If they are in a TV show at all , they are stuck in a lab coat , ordered around by bossy managers , shown as spineless nerds with no life , unmarried or girlfriend-less , often speaking lines that are awkward , merely secondary characters .
Is that the reality of life as a Scientist ?
No . Which do you think sways young minds more toward their career ?
The study mention incentives .
Money is just one incentive .
Respect , challenge , spousal options , making a difference... there are many ways to reward a person .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't give a rusty fuck what some study says people should or should not go into.
I work in the fields I love, and I'd recommend it to everyone else.
If you want to do science, do science.
If you don't then don't.
Who really cares what some frigtarded academic thinks anyway?
Final thought - how often is it that we look back on these studies five or ten years later to find out they were somewhere around, oh, dead wrong.
if these guys are such friggin' geniuses at predicting the future they should go make $Billions in the stock market.If all you care about is money than go into politics or join the mob (it's ethically about the same).
Unlike some idiots (you), many people on the planet have a wide range of interests, and could have easily chosen from a dozen different careers and enjoyed all of them.
Many doctors have a strong interest in technology and engineering.
They perhaps chose medicine because of the glamorized view of doctors that our current society portrays.
Doctors on TV get all the girls, dress the best, have the fancy cars, the biggest houses, get all the intelligent lines, have the most challenging jobs.
Is that the reality of life for most doctors?
No.

Where does society portray Engineers and Scientists?
If they are in a TV show at all, they are stuck in a lab coat, ordered around by bossy managers, shown as spineless nerds with no life, unmarried or girlfriend-less, often speaking lines that are awkward, merely secondary characters.
Is that the reality of life as a Scientist?
No.

Which do you think sways young minds more toward their career?
The study mention incentives.
Money is just one incentive.
Respect, challenge, spousal options, making a difference... there are many ways to reward a person.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904517</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905197</id>
	<title>Re:As someone in science...</title>
	<author>Dr. Spork</author>
	<datestamp>1256739720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Was it always like this in science? I'm honestly curious. Somehow I picture the earlier decades somewhat differently - where scientists were respected, and treated and paid respectfully. Being asked to toil for 80 hours a week is not what I consider respectful work conditions, and I'm very sorry to hear of it.</p><p>

The article stated explicitly that the problem isn't competition from overseas, but rather the decisions of US-born science students to not remain in science. But maybe the <i>reason why</i> US-born science students are making this choice is that the labor pool they face if they stay in science is seriously tilted by vigorous competition from foreign-born scientists. In other words, companies that hire scientists have learned that they can treat them like shit and still keep all the positions filled. Smart students see this and say "fuck that, I don't love science enough to put myself through that." In fact, this seems to be like the best explanation of the data. If we really do produce enough scientists domestically (contrary to the constant lamentations of US companies who are always angling to remove H1B caps), maybe we can after all afford to shrink our visa program.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Was it always like this in science ?
I 'm honestly curious .
Somehow I picture the earlier decades somewhat differently - where scientists were respected , and treated and paid respectfully .
Being asked to toil for 80 hours a week is not what I consider respectful work conditions , and I 'm very sorry to hear of it .
The article stated explicitly that the problem is n't competition from overseas , but rather the decisions of US-born science students to not remain in science .
But maybe the reason why US-born science students are making this choice is that the labor pool they face if they stay in science is seriously tilted by vigorous competition from foreign-born scientists .
In other words , companies that hire scientists have learned that they can treat them like shit and still keep all the positions filled .
Smart students see this and say " fuck that , I do n't love science enough to put myself through that .
" In fact , this seems to be like the best explanation of the data .
If we really do produce enough scientists domestically ( contrary to the constant lamentations of US companies who are always angling to remove H1B caps ) , maybe we can after all afford to shrink our visa program .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Was it always like this in science?
I'm honestly curious.
Somehow I picture the earlier decades somewhat differently - where scientists were respected, and treated and paid respectfully.
Being asked to toil for 80 hours a week is not what I consider respectful work conditions, and I'm very sorry to hear of it.
The article stated explicitly that the problem isn't competition from overseas, but rather the decisions of US-born science students to not remain in science.
But maybe the reason why US-born science students are making this choice is that the labor pool they face if they stay in science is seriously tilted by vigorous competition from foreign-born scientists.
In other words, companies that hire scientists have learned that they can treat them like shit and still keep all the positions filled.
Smart students see this and say "fuck that, I don't love science enough to put myself through that.
" In fact, this seems to be like the best explanation of the data.
If we really do produce enough scientists domestically (contrary to the constant lamentations of US companies who are always angling to remove H1B caps), maybe we can after all afford to shrink our visa program.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904763</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905445</id>
	<title>Re:As Rutherford said...</title>
	<author>interkin3tic</author>
	<datestamp>1256741580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Ernest Rutherford once said The only possible conclusion the social sciences can draw is: some do, some don't</p></div><p>Must be nice to get that level of certainty.  My thesis (cell biology) so far is at "Some do."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ernest Rutherford once said The only possible conclusion the social sciences can draw is : some do , some don'tMust be nice to get that level of certainty .
My thesis ( cell biology ) so far is at " Some do .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ernest Rutherford once said The only possible conclusion the social sciences can draw is: some do, some don'tMust be nice to get that level of certainty.
My thesis (cell biology) so far is at "Some do.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904553</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29907375</id>
	<title>Re:More articles like this please</title>
	<author>u38cg</author>
	<datestamp>1256759880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes.  Be extremely smart and know the financial services industry inside out.  Have strong technical/numerical skills, such as a statistical modelling degree or somethign like that.  Know your economics.  And be aware you are joining a company where the lowest performing 5\% of staff are let go annually.

<p>And to answer your question, it's not hard to become rich, it just involves more work than most people are willing to put up with.  Go and start a coffee shop, run it well, expand, and once you have a sizeable business sell it off for a few million dollars and live off the interest for the rest of your life.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes .
Be extremely smart and know the financial services industry inside out .
Have strong technical/numerical skills , such as a statistical modelling degree or somethign like that .
Know your economics .
And be aware you are joining a company where the lowest performing 5 \ % of staff are let go annually .
And to answer your question , it 's not hard to become rich , it just involves more work than most people are willing to put up with .
Go and start a coffee shop , run it well , expand , and once you have a sizeable business sell it off for a few million dollars and live off the interest for the rest of your life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes.
Be extremely smart and know the financial services industry inside out.
Have strong technical/numerical skills, such as a statistical modelling degree or somethign like that.
Know your economics.
And be aware you are joining a company where the lowest performing 5\% of staff are let go annually.
And to answer your question, it's not hard to become rich, it just involves more work than most people are willing to put up with.
Go and start a coffee shop, run it well, expand, and once you have a sizeable business sell it off for a few million dollars and live off the interest for the rest of your life.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29906159</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29909573</id>
	<title>Re:Over-simplify much?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256828160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Truth.  I personally ditched the idea of going into physics, even after being offered a scholarship at a great university, because I was worried about the job prospects and pay after graduation.</p><p>Since this was just at the start of the dotcom boom, I went into software instead!  Oh boy...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Truth .
I personally ditched the idea of going into physics , even after being offered a scholarship at a great university , because I was worried about the job prospects and pay after graduation.Since this was just at the start of the dotcom boom , I went into software instead !
Oh boy.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Truth.
I personally ditched the idea of going into physics, even after being offered a scholarship at a great university, because I was worried about the job prospects and pay after graduation.Since this was just at the start of the dotcom boom, I went into software instead!
Oh boy...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904767</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29906607</id>
	<title>Re:What about just doing what you love?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256750940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you're missing the point. The academics are saying that people SHOULD be able to do what they want and get paid adequately for it. And many of them have been leaving the pure sciences to chase after the money. Go read "My Life As A Quant" for one example.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you 're missing the point .
The academics are saying that people SHOULD be able to do what they want and get paid adequately for it .
And many of them have been leaving the pure sciences to chase after the money .
Go read " My Life As A Quant " for one example .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you're missing the point.
The academics are saying that people SHOULD be able to do what they want and get paid adequately for it.
And many of them have been leaving the pure sciences to chase after the money.
Go read "My Life As A Quant" for one example.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904517</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29908537</id>
	<title>Cut out the cheap tech labor</title>
	<author>dacullen</author>
	<datestamp>1256820840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Or maybe we should make  H1B much more costly, thereby increasing the incentive to hire US labor.

(Yeah, I know then they just outsource the whole project to a foreign country)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or maybe we should make H1B much more costly , thereby increasing the incentive to hire US labor .
( Yeah , I know then they just outsource the whole project to a foreign country )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or maybe we should make  H1B much more costly, thereby increasing the incentive to hire US labor.
(Yeah, I know then they just outsource the whole project to a foreign country)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29908865</id>
	<title>Re:Over-simplify much?</title>
	<author>bmajik</author>
	<datestamp>1256824200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I went to a state university and don't think I ended up paying anything to go there.  My starting salary upon graduation was less than the range you figure a salary needs to be to be "worth it", although now it is more.</p><p>I think there is perhaps an unstated assumption here that simply going to an expensive enough university is going to turn a marginal or average person into someone that society values sufficiently to reward with a high salary.  I think this is not generally true, although it certainly seems to be the case with Ivy League schools and MBA programs across the country<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>But in general, I think people need to be more realistic in this country about who should be attending universities, for what purpose, and how much that ought to cost.  In every state in the US, there is a land grant university that you can \_probably\_ attend for less than $10k/year, assuming no academic scholarships.  I'd further contend that if you don't qualify for a bunch of those scholarships (although I haven't payed attention to the climate on this in over 10 years), you aren't the person "we" are looking for to employ in a technical discipline.</p><p>Some of you will say that without a certain institution name next to the degree, the degree is worthless.  I guess my response would be that if that is the case, is that really a field you want to work in?  Where names and politics count more than results?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I went to a state university and do n't think I ended up paying anything to go there .
My starting salary upon graduation was less than the range you figure a salary needs to be to be " worth it " , although now it is more.I think there is perhaps an unstated assumption here that simply going to an expensive enough university is going to turn a marginal or average person into someone that society values sufficiently to reward with a high salary .
I think this is not generally true , although it certainly seems to be the case with Ivy League schools and MBA programs across the country : ) But in general , I think people need to be more realistic in this country about who should be attending universities , for what purpose , and how much that ought to cost .
In every state in the US , there is a land grant university that you can \ _probably \ _ attend for less than $ 10k/year , assuming no academic scholarships .
I 'd further contend that if you do n't qualify for a bunch of those scholarships ( although I have n't payed attention to the climate on this in over 10 years ) , you are n't the person " we " are looking for to employ in a technical discipline.Some of you will say that without a certain institution name next to the degree , the degree is worthless .
I guess my response would be that if that is the case , is that really a field you want to work in ?
Where names and politics count more than results ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I went to a state university and don't think I ended up paying anything to go there.
My starting salary upon graduation was less than the range you figure a salary needs to be to be "worth it", although now it is more.I think there is perhaps an unstated assumption here that simply going to an expensive enough university is going to turn a marginal or average person into someone that society values sufficiently to reward with a high salary.
I think this is not generally true, although it certainly seems to be the case with Ivy League schools and MBA programs across the country :)But in general, I think people need to be more realistic in this country about who should be attending universities, for what purpose, and how much that ought to cost.
In every state in the US, there is a land grant university that you can \_probably\_ attend for less than $10k/year, assuming no academic scholarships.
I'd further contend that if you don't qualify for a bunch of those scholarships (although I haven't payed attention to the climate on this in over 10 years), you aren't the person "we" are looking for to employ in a technical discipline.Some of you will say that without a certain institution name next to the degree, the degree is worthless.
I guess my response would be that if that is the case, is that really a field you want to work in?
Where names and politics count more than results?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904767</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905031</id>
	<title>Re:Stupd rationale</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256738280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So you're saying that students that perform less that the top, should eat less? I mean I know what students get for wages, and eating is just about the whole paycheck<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So you 're saying that students that perform less that the top , should eat less ?
I mean I know what students get for wages , and eating is just about the whole paycheck .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you're saying that students that perform less that the top, should eat less?
I mean I know what students get for wages, and eating is just about the whole paycheck ...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904725</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905441</id>
	<title>When Wal-Mart is your largest employer . . .</title>
	<author>jhylkema</author>
	<datestamp>1256741520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What need do you have of smart, capable people?</p><p>Further proof of America's continuing decline towards Third World status.</p><p>Mod me to hell, I don't care.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What need do you have of smart , capable people ? Further proof of America 's continuing decline towards Third World status.Mod me to hell , I do n't care .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What need do you have of smart, capable people?Further proof of America's continuing decline towards Third World status.Mod me to hell, I don't care.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29906185</id>
	<title>Re:Stupd rationale</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256747100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You know, the way the market is supposed to work.</p></div><p>OK, so suppose some scientist discovers a cure for cancer and a thousand years from now some guy uses the cure. How does the guy a thousand years in the future compensate the scientist for his work? It's not like the guy in the future can load up a time machine with goods and services and send it back to the scientist.</p><p>Fundamentally, scientist salaries are not determined by any kind of meaningful free market.</p><p>That's not to say that we can't come up with an artificial system and go along pretending that it reflects the free market: "He's paid a low salary because he's 'less performing'" - but, fundamentally, it's all artificial.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , the way the market is supposed to work.OK , so suppose some scientist discovers a cure for cancer and a thousand years from now some guy uses the cure .
How does the guy a thousand years in the future compensate the scientist for his work ?
It 's not like the guy in the future can load up a time machine with goods and services and send it back to the scientist.Fundamentally , scientist salaries are not determined by any kind of meaningful free market.That 's not to say that we ca n't come up with an artificial system and go along pretending that it reflects the free market : " He 's paid a low salary because he 's 'less performing ' " - but , fundamentally , it 's all artificial .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, the way the market is supposed to work.OK, so suppose some scientist discovers a cure for cancer and a thousand years from now some guy uses the cure.
How does the guy a thousand years in the future compensate the scientist for his work?
It's not like the guy in the future can load up a time machine with goods and services and send it back to the scientist.Fundamentally, scientist salaries are not determined by any kind of meaningful free market.That's not to say that we can't come up with an artificial system and go along pretending that it reflects the free market: "He's paid a low salary because he's 'less performing'" - but, fundamentally, it's all artificial.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904725</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904679</id>
	<title>bye bye science money</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256736180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Study Says US Needs Fewer Science Students</p></div><p>
Because all the science money will be going to China and India from now on.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Study Says US Needs Fewer Science Students Because all the science money will be going to China and India from now on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Study Says US Needs Fewer Science Students
Because all the science money will be going to China and India from now on.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29907491</id>
	<title>Re:how many scientists are enough?</title>
	<author>Rand310</author>
	<datestamp>1256847660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The economic problem is that there is no good way to determine 'good' in any reasonably objective or timely manner.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The economic problem is that there is no good way to determine 'good ' in any reasonably objective or timely manner .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The economic problem is that there is no good way to determine 'good' in any reasonably objective or timely manner.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904821</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29908997</id>
	<title>Re:Economics</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256825220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe we should learn that "bailout" is a noun, not a verb.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe we should learn that " bailout " is a noun , not a verb .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe we should learn that "bailout" is a noun, not a verb.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904765</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905307</id>
	<title>Re:What about just doing what you love?</title>
	<author>JanneM</author>
	<datestamp>1256740560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"I work in the fields I love, and I'd recommend it to everyone else."</p></div></blockquote><p>But "Do what you love" is not the same thing as "Do what you love as your primary means of support". Making your passion into your career will frequently kill the passion, smothering it under layers of paperwork, meetings, customer contacts and any other not-fun but necessary aspects of work for money.</p><p>Decide beforehand if you're ready to lose your hobby or passion in the process of making money from it. Afterwards it's too late.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" I work in the fields I love , and I 'd recommend it to everyone else .
" But " Do what you love " is not the same thing as " Do what you love as your primary means of support " .
Making your passion into your career will frequently kill the passion , smothering it under layers of paperwork , meetings , customer contacts and any other not-fun but necessary aspects of work for money.Decide beforehand if you 're ready to lose your hobby or passion in the process of making money from it .
Afterwards it 's too late .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I work in the fields I love, and I'd recommend it to everyone else.
"But "Do what you love" is not the same thing as "Do what you love as your primary means of support".
Making your passion into your career will frequently kill the passion, smothering it under layers of paperwork, meetings, customer contacts and any other not-fun but necessary aspects of work for money.Decide beforehand if you're ready to lose your hobby or passion in the process of making money from it.
Afterwards it's too late.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904517</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905295</id>
	<title>Seriously! Pay really is the issue!!!</title>
	<author>Desmoden</author>
	<datestamp>1256740440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would LOVE to go back to school, get a doctorate in physics and work in the field doing ANYTHING related to physics.</p><p>Instead I'm a Engineer hiding in a marketing dept happily making between 150-200k/year and I spend my lunch and weekends madly reading about physics, politics, ancient history, all the things that I really love, and would love to get paid to do.</p><p>Instead I write white papers, talk at conferences, run tests on hardware that I love, and I do for the most part love my job. But I would SOOO much rather being working for the DOD, or a school, or anyone, doing research. But I can't live on what they make.</p><p>And so I remain an engineer hiding in marketing eagerly awaiting Brian Greene's next talk<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would LOVE to go back to school , get a doctorate in physics and work in the field doing ANYTHING related to physics.Instead I 'm a Engineer hiding in a marketing dept happily making between 150-200k/year and I spend my lunch and weekends madly reading about physics , politics , ancient history , all the things that I really love , and would love to get paid to do.Instead I write white papers , talk at conferences , run tests on hardware that I love , and I do for the most part love my job .
But I would SOOO much rather being working for the DOD , or a school , or anyone , doing research .
But I ca n't live on what they make.And so I remain an engineer hiding in marketing eagerly awaiting Brian Greene 's next talk : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would LOVE to go back to school, get a doctorate in physics and work in the field doing ANYTHING related to physics.Instead I'm a Engineer hiding in a marketing dept happily making between 150-200k/year and I spend my lunch and weekends madly reading about physics, politics, ancient history, all the things that I really love, and would love to get paid to do.Instead I write white papers, talk at conferences, run tests on hardware that I love, and I do for the most part love my job.
But I would SOOO much rather being working for the DOD, or a school, or anyone, doing research.
But I can't live on what they make.And so I remain an engineer hiding in marketing eagerly awaiting Brian Greene's next talk :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904475</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905977</id>
	<title>Re:Really</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1256745360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><b><i>but from a lack of incentives that would make science and technology careers attractive</i></b></p><p><i>Incentives? You mean like paying graduates more when you're saying that the market is saturated with them already? How does that make sense?</i></p><p>Yea, the market is so saturated <a href="http://www.financialexpress.com/news/we-need-h1b-professionals-says-us-govt/443566/" title="financialexpress.com">"We need H1-B professionals"</a> [financialexpress.com].  Microsoft and other large companies get to hire foreign workers and pay them half what US workers get paid.  Boo hoo, without cheap labor they can't rake in billions of dollars.</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>but from a lack of incentives that would make science and technology careers attractiveIncentives ?
You mean like paying graduates more when you 're saying that the market is saturated with them already ?
How does that make sense ? Yea , the market is so saturated " We need H1-B professionals " [ financialexpress.com ] .
Microsoft and other large companies get to hire foreign workers and pay them half what US workers get paid .
Boo hoo , without cheap labor they ca n't rake in billions of dollars .
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but from a lack of incentives that would make science and technology careers attractiveIncentives?
You mean like paying graduates more when you're saying that the market is saturated with them already?
How does that make sense?Yea, the market is so saturated "We need H1-B professionals" [financialexpress.com].
Microsoft and other large companies get to hire foreign workers and pay them half what US workers get paid.
Boo hoo, without cheap labor they can't rake in billions of dollars.
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904491</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905551</id>
	<title>Re:So money is still the sole motivator?</title>
	<author>the\_enigma\_1983</author>
	<datestamp>1256742360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm in science for the sake of doing science, not for the money.  However, there probably aren't too many like me.  Also, for what it's worth, the money a "business" offers me to work on things to benefit them, as opposed to university position+grants to work on things which interest me, makes it an easy choice.  There are plenty of smart scientists around, but they'd all rather be working on their own projects, than whatever the business wants.  If you want to entice them away, you have to offer them something.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm in science for the sake of doing science , not for the money .
However , there probably are n't too many like me .
Also , for what it 's worth , the money a " business " offers me to work on things to benefit them , as opposed to university position + grants to work on things which interest me , makes it an easy choice .
There are plenty of smart scientists around , but they 'd all rather be working on their own projects , than whatever the business wants .
If you want to entice them away , you have to offer them something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm in science for the sake of doing science, not for the money.
However, there probably aren't too many like me.
Also, for what it's worth, the money a "business" offers me to work on things to benefit them, as opposed to university position+grants to work on things which interest me, makes it an easy choice.
There are plenty of smart scientists around, but they'd all rather be working on their own projects, than whatever the business wants.
If you want to entice them away, you have to offer them something.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904617</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904517</id>
	<title>What about just doing what you love?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256735280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't give a rusty fuck what some study says people should or should not go into. I work in the fields I love, and I'd recommend it to everyone else. If you want to do science, do science. If you don't then don't. Who really cares what some frigtarded academic thinks anyway? Final thought - how often is it that we look back on these studies five or ten years later to find out they were somewhere around, oh, dead wrong. if these guys are such friggin' geniuses at predicting the future they should go make $Billions in the stock market.</p><p>If all you care about is money than go into politics or join the mob (it's ethically about the same).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know about the rest of you , but I do n't give a rusty fuck what some study says people should or should not go into .
I work in the fields I love , and I 'd recommend it to everyone else .
If you want to do science , do science .
If you do n't then do n't .
Who really cares what some frigtarded academic thinks anyway ?
Final thought - how often is it that we look back on these studies five or ten years later to find out they were somewhere around , oh , dead wrong .
if these guys are such friggin ' geniuses at predicting the future they should go make $ Billions in the stock market.If all you care about is money than go into politics or join the mob ( it 's ethically about the same ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't give a rusty fuck what some study says people should or should not go into.
I work in the fields I love, and I'd recommend it to everyone else.
If you want to do science, do science.
If you don't then don't.
Who really cares what some frigtarded academic thinks anyway?
Final thought - how often is it that we look back on these studies five or ten years later to find out they were somewhere around, oh, dead wrong.
if these guys are such friggin' geniuses at predicting the future they should go make $Billions in the stock market.If all you care about is money than go into politics or join the mob (it's ethically about the same).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904619</id>
	<title>Money on both sides of the equation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256735880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the article:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The supply [of science students] has actually remained steady over the past 30 years, the researchers conclude from an analysis of six longitudinal surveys conducted by the U.S. government from 1972 to 2005. However, the highest-performing students in the pipeline are opting out of science and engineering in greater numbers than in the past, suggesting that the threat to American economic competitiveness comes not from inadequate science training in school and college but from a <b>lack incentives that would make science and technology careers attractive.</b></p> </div><p>From the Associated Press:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Average tuition at four-year public colleges in the U.S. climbed 6.5 percent, or $429, to $7,020 this fall as schools apologetically passed on much of their own financial problems, according to an annual report from the College Board, released Tuesday. At private colleges, tuition rose 4.4 percent, or $1,096, to $26,273.</p></div><p>So we have the costs of already outstanding tuition fees rising in a faltering and near collapsed economy. Many top positions in fields of science require Masters or Doctoral level education. A Master or Doctoral level of education also demands a Master or Doctoral level of tuition. In an uncertain environment for employment, the risk of entering the field of science, can be high.</p><p>Instead of going into science or mathematics you see the smarted minds who are more money minded going into the financial fields. They are intelligent but because of the upbringing in a capitalist society desire money more than anything. So they become investors, stockbrokers, and deal with money all day and night.</p><p>What we need is to recruit the best of the best, have private industries, and government, pay for the tuition of these individuals or offer them guaranteed job positions.  Does a promising young high school student enter undergraduate school looking for a degree in bio-medicine? Have a major cancer research outfit pay for his tuition. Or have a medical technology firm cover his tuition. Or have him pay for his own tuition but make it known publicly that anyone with a degree in 'science' who applies to 'x job' will have his college tuition fees and loans paid for in full by the company if he works x number of years.</p><p>Maybe we need to lower the tuition for higher science. If you want a degree in particle physics, wave physics, astro-biology, or whatever, then you tuition is significantly lower than your peers. My graduate work was in television broadcasting, if my peers studying medicine and high level math had lower tuition fees than myself, I would not have batted an eyelash.</p><p>If you cover the tuition fees of our smartest students, and they go on to become the people who provide us with life changing nanotechnology, or cure HIV-AIDS, that money will pay off 100 if not 1,000,000,000 times more down the road.</p><p>We need to invest in our future by investing in our brightest minds and steering them towards occupations where they can make a lasting difference in the world.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the article : The supply [ of science students ] has actually remained steady over the past 30 years , the researchers conclude from an analysis of six longitudinal surveys conducted by the U.S. government from 1972 to 2005 .
However , the highest-performing students in the pipeline are opting out of science and engineering in greater numbers than in the past , suggesting that the threat to American economic competitiveness comes not from inadequate science training in school and college but from a lack incentives that would make science and technology careers attractive .
From the Associated Press : Average tuition at four-year public colleges in the U.S. climbed 6.5 percent , or $ 429 , to $ 7,020 this fall as schools apologetically passed on much of their own financial problems , according to an annual report from the College Board , released Tuesday .
At private colleges , tuition rose 4.4 percent , or $ 1,096 , to $ 26,273.So we have the costs of already outstanding tuition fees rising in a faltering and near collapsed economy .
Many top positions in fields of science require Masters or Doctoral level education .
A Master or Doctoral level of education also demands a Master or Doctoral level of tuition .
In an uncertain environment for employment , the risk of entering the field of science , can be high.Instead of going into science or mathematics you see the smarted minds who are more money minded going into the financial fields .
They are intelligent but because of the upbringing in a capitalist society desire money more than anything .
So they become investors , stockbrokers , and deal with money all day and night.What we need is to recruit the best of the best , have private industries , and government , pay for the tuition of these individuals or offer them guaranteed job positions .
Does a promising young high school student enter undergraduate school looking for a degree in bio-medicine ?
Have a major cancer research outfit pay for his tuition .
Or have a medical technology firm cover his tuition .
Or have him pay for his own tuition but make it known publicly that anyone with a degree in 'science ' who applies to 'x job ' will have his college tuition fees and loans paid for in full by the company if he works x number of years.Maybe we need to lower the tuition for higher science .
If you want a degree in particle physics , wave physics , astro-biology , or whatever , then you tuition is significantly lower than your peers .
My graduate work was in television broadcasting , if my peers studying medicine and high level math had lower tuition fees than myself , I would not have batted an eyelash.If you cover the tuition fees of our smartest students , and they go on to become the people who provide us with life changing nanotechnology , or cure HIV-AIDS , that money will pay off 100 if not 1,000,000,000 times more down the road.We need to invest in our future by investing in our brightest minds and steering them towards occupations where they can make a lasting difference in the world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the article:The supply [of science students] has actually remained steady over the past 30 years, the researchers conclude from an analysis of six longitudinal surveys conducted by the U.S. government from 1972 to 2005.
However, the highest-performing students in the pipeline are opting out of science and engineering in greater numbers than in the past, suggesting that the threat to American economic competitiveness comes not from inadequate science training in school and college but from a lack incentives that would make science and technology careers attractive.
From the Associated Press:Average tuition at four-year public colleges in the U.S. climbed 6.5 percent, or $429, to $7,020 this fall as schools apologetically passed on much of their own financial problems, according to an annual report from the College Board, released Tuesday.
At private colleges, tuition rose 4.4 percent, or $1,096, to $26,273.So we have the costs of already outstanding tuition fees rising in a faltering and near collapsed economy.
Many top positions in fields of science require Masters or Doctoral level education.
A Master or Doctoral level of education also demands a Master or Doctoral level of tuition.
In an uncertain environment for employment, the risk of entering the field of science, can be high.Instead of going into science or mathematics you see the smarted minds who are more money minded going into the financial fields.
They are intelligent but because of the upbringing in a capitalist society desire money more than anything.
So they become investors, stockbrokers, and deal with money all day and night.What we need is to recruit the best of the best, have private industries, and government, pay for the tuition of these individuals or offer them guaranteed job positions.
Does a promising young high school student enter undergraduate school looking for a degree in bio-medicine?
Have a major cancer research outfit pay for his tuition.
Or have a medical technology firm cover his tuition.
Or have him pay for his own tuition but make it known publicly that anyone with a degree in 'science' who applies to 'x job' will have his college tuition fees and loans paid for in full by the company if he works x number of years.Maybe we need to lower the tuition for higher science.
If you want a degree in particle physics, wave physics, astro-biology, or whatever, then you tuition is significantly lower than your peers.
My graduate work was in television broadcasting, if my peers studying medicine and high level math had lower tuition fees than myself, I would not have batted an eyelash.If you cover the tuition fees of our smartest students, and they go on to become the people who provide us with life changing nanotechnology, or cure HIV-AIDS, that money will pay off 100 if not 1,000,000,000 times more down the road.We need to invest in our future by investing in our brightest minds and steering them towards occupations where they can make a lasting difference in the world.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905211</id>
	<title>Re:What about just doing what you love?</title>
	<author>benjamindees</author>
	<datestamp>1256739840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But what if science doesn't pay the bills?</p></div><p>Beg for government bailout.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But what if science does n't pay the bills ? Beg for government bailout .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But what if science doesn't pay the bills?Beg for government bailout.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904839</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29931199</id>
	<title>Re:Stupd rationale</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256913120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your correct...people need to be paid for their skills not their position...you could have two people in the same job but if one does the bare minimum and the other goes all out, the later should be paid a higher base salary...i happen to be the one who busts his butt.</p><p>www.bulletproofjacket4u.com</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your correct...people need to be paid for their skills not their position...you could have two people in the same job but if one does the bare minimum and the other goes all out , the later should be paid a higher base salary...i happen to be the one who busts his butt.www.bulletproofjacket4u.com</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your correct...people need to be paid for their skills not their position...you could have two people in the same job but if one does the bare minimum and the other goes all out, the later should be paid a higher base salary...i happen to be the one who busts his butt.www.bulletproofjacket4u.com</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904961</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29909761</id>
	<title>Re:Over-simplify much?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256828940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agree with that, and then there's the recognition from society that you're doing something valuable as a scientist.  We live in a cult of capitalism, where it's better to be a businessman than just about anything else.  Intellectuals of all kinds are assumed to have social disorders that prevented them from going into business, medicine, or law.  The most respect goes to the hard-dealing businessman that pulled himself up by his bootstraps with no namby-pamby education.  (Not that that guy doesn't deserve respect, but we reap what we sow here, when we elevate that kind of skill over the search for truth.)</p><p>People aren't motivated primarily by compensation.  I think your point puts monetary compensation higher on the list than it would be otherwise.  It recognizes that, as a practical matter, even those who are fulfilled by science can't always afford to do it.  But this society tells us from a very young age that it's better to be just about anything else than a scientist.  That doesn't drive everyone away, but it does some.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agree with that , and then there 's the recognition from society that you 're doing something valuable as a scientist .
We live in a cult of capitalism , where it 's better to be a businessman than just about anything else .
Intellectuals of all kinds are assumed to have social disorders that prevented them from going into business , medicine , or law .
The most respect goes to the hard-dealing businessman that pulled himself up by his bootstraps with no namby-pamby education .
( Not that that guy does n't deserve respect , but we reap what we sow here , when we elevate that kind of skill over the search for truth .
) People are n't motivated primarily by compensation .
I think your point puts monetary compensation higher on the list than it would be otherwise .
It recognizes that , as a practical matter , even those who are fulfilled by science ca n't always afford to do it .
But this society tells us from a very young age that it 's better to be just about anything else than a scientist .
That does n't drive everyone away , but it does some .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agree with that, and then there's the recognition from society that you're doing something valuable as a scientist.
We live in a cult of capitalism, where it's better to be a businessman than just about anything else.
Intellectuals of all kinds are assumed to have social disorders that prevented them from going into business, medicine, or law.
The most respect goes to the hard-dealing businessman that pulled himself up by his bootstraps with no namby-pamby education.
(Not that that guy doesn't deserve respect, but we reap what we sow here, when we elevate that kind of skill over the search for truth.
)People aren't motivated primarily by compensation.
I think your point puts monetary compensation higher on the list than it would be otherwise.
It recognizes that, as a practical matter, even those who are fulfilled by science can't always afford to do it.
But this society tells us from a very young age that it's better to be just about anything else than a scientist.
That doesn't drive everyone away, but it does some.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904767</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29914883</id>
	<title>Re:So says the sociologists...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256848440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would be believe the fact I'm about to graduate with my PhD in organic synthesis from a high end group with several publications and total syntheses under my belt and I can't even get a plant trip.  So at the very least the market is supersaturated with synthesis people.  I can't imagine what someone from even a middle tier school has to do to get a job.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would be believe the fact I 'm about to graduate with my PhD in organic synthesis from a high end group with several publications and total syntheses under my belt and I ca n't even get a plant trip .
So at the very least the market is supersaturated with synthesis people .
I ca n't imagine what someone from even a middle tier school has to do to get a job .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would be believe the fact I'm about to graduate with my PhD in organic synthesis from a high end group with several publications and total syntheses under my belt and I can't even get a plant trip.
So at the very least the market is supersaturated with synthesis people.
I can't imagine what someone from even a middle tier school has to do to get a job.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904559</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29919803</id>
	<title>Do what you love</title>
	<author>seven of five</author>
	<datestamp>1256829300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But if it doesn't love you back, are you a sap?</htmltext>
<tokenext>But if it does n't love you back , are you a sap ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But if it doesn't love you back, are you a sap?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29906717</id>
	<title>Re:Money on both sides of the equation</title>
	<author>ChronoC</author>
	<datestamp>1256752020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There's already a Government program that pays for your tuition, health insurance, and gives you a stipend, all while guaranteeing you a job with a Research facility when you graduate. <a href="http://www.asee.org/fellowships/smart/" title="asee.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.asee.org/fellowships/smart/</a> [asee.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's already a Government program that pays for your tuition , health insurance , and gives you a stipend , all while guaranteeing you a job with a Research facility when you graduate .
http : //www.asee.org/fellowships/smart/ [ asee.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's already a Government program that pays for your tuition, health insurance, and gives you a stipend, all while guaranteeing you a job with a Research facility when you graduate.
http://www.asee.org/fellowships/smart/ [asee.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904619</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905847</id>
	<title>Re:As Rutherford said...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256744340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> (paraphrased) MosesJones: Nobody is as great as I am!  Everybody who isn't a programmer is stupid!  Look at these morons with their "PHDs" and their "fancy tenure positions," doing naught but stating the obvious.</p> </div><p>This conclusion can hardly be called obvious given the number of people who constantly tout the motto "we need more science graduates!" (just do a search on this very site, unless searching for information is below you.)  The article rebuts this position by pointing out that we need better incentives for science graduates so that we can increase QUALITY instead of QUANTITY.</p><p>No, this isn't exactly rocket science (although mind you: I consider it at least plausible that top science students would actually, you know, be interested in science, and would rather make less money doing something they love than become businessmen) but given that it rebuts a commonly held position, I don't think your claim that this research would leave "Homer Simpson feeling that it wasn't stretching him" is a fair statement.</p><p>Get over yourself.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( paraphrased ) MosesJones : Nobody is as great as I am !
Everybody who is n't a programmer is stupid !
Look at these morons with their " PHDs " and their " fancy tenure positions , " doing naught but stating the obvious .
This conclusion can hardly be called obvious given the number of people who constantly tout the motto " we need more science graduates !
" ( just do a search on this very site , unless searching for information is below you .
) The article rebuts this position by pointing out that we need better incentives for science graduates so that we can increase QUALITY instead of QUANTITY.No , this is n't exactly rocket science ( although mind you : I consider it at least plausible that top science students would actually , you know , be interested in science , and would rather make less money doing something they love than become businessmen ) but given that it rebuts a commonly held position , I do n't think your claim that this research would leave " Homer Simpson feeling that it was n't stretching him " is a fair statement.Get over yourself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> (paraphrased) MosesJones: Nobody is as great as I am!
Everybody who isn't a programmer is stupid!
Look at these morons with their "PHDs" and their "fancy tenure positions," doing naught but stating the obvious.
This conclusion can hardly be called obvious given the number of people who constantly tout the motto "we need more science graduates!
" (just do a search on this very site, unless searching for information is below you.
)  The article rebuts this position by pointing out that we need better incentives for science graduates so that we can increase QUALITY instead of QUANTITY.No, this isn't exactly rocket science (although mind you: I consider it at least plausible that top science students would actually, you know, be interested in science, and would rather make less money doing something they love than become businessmen) but given that it rebuts a commonly held position, I don't think your claim that this research would leave "Homer Simpson feeling that it wasn't stretching him" is a fair statement.Get over yourself.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904553</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29908157</id>
	<title>Re:More articles like this please</title>
	<author>Capt James McCarthy</author>
	<datestamp>1256815740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm an assistant professor and I can see this type of thing going on first hand.  I get paid okay but expectations of the promotion and tenure committee in terms of papers, research funding and teaching requires 50-60 hours a week of work minimum most week.  My record is 110 hours over 7 days, what a nightmare.  The reason for this situation is that science funding by the federal government has been more or less flat for about a decade but the number of professors has increased and the expectations of the universities from professors have gone up.</p><p>
&nbsp; My students take one look at me and immediately make a career decision in another job besides academics or even science in general.  I don't blame them either, even I hate my job sometimes and I couldn't ever imagine myself of being anything but a scientist -- but at this point, I have one more year to go for tenure but taking that dream position at the coffee shop in western Colorado and skiing all winter is starting to sound really good.</p></div><p>So you are saying that next winter, you will be researching the affects of friction on pack snow due to multiple passes of skis with your newly gained tenure? Good job!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm an assistant professor and I can see this type of thing going on first hand .
I get paid okay but expectations of the promotion and tenure committee in terms of papers , research funding and teaching requires 50-60 hours a week of work minimum most week .
My record is 110 hours over 7 days , what a nightmare .
The reason for this situation is that science funding by the federal government has been more or less flat for about a decade but the number of professors has increased and the expectations of the universities from professors have gone up .
  My students take one look at me and immediately make a career decision in another job besides academics or even science in general .
I do n't blame them either , even I hate my job sometimes and I could n't ever imagine myself of being anything but a scientist -- but at this point , I have one more year to go for tenure but taking that dream position at the coffee shop in western Colorado and skiing all winter is starting to sound really good.So you are saying that next winter , you will be researching the affects of friction on pack snow due to multiple passes of skis with your newly gained tenure ?
Good job !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm an assistant professor and I can see this type of thing going on first hand.
I get paid okay but expectations of the promotion and tenure committee in terms of papers, research funding and teaching requires 50-60 hours a week of work minimum most week.
My record is 110 hours over 7 days, what a nightmare.
The reason for this situation is that science funding by the federal government has been more or less flat for about a decade but the number of professors has increased and the expectations of the universities from professors have gone up.
  My students take one look at me and immediately make a career decision in another job besides academics or even science in general.
I don't blame them either, even I hate my job sometimes and I couldn't ever imagine myself of being anything but a scientist -- but at this point, I have one more year to go for tenure but taking that dream position at the coffee shop in western Colorado and skiing all winter is starting to sound really good.So you are saying that next winter, you will be researching the affects of friction on pack snow due to multiple passes of skis with your newly gained tenure?
Good job!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904731</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_133</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904849
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29908423
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904617
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904919
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904517
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905303
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904691
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29906093
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905295
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29910111
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904553
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905151
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29913433
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_146</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904517
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904791
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_104</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904763
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905197
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904517
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904839
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29906661
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904821
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905051
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_112</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904553
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905091
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904849
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29909107
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904517
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29912109
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_122</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904617
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905121
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904619
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29907579
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905295
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29910305
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904617
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904767
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29920127
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904725
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29910817
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_109</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29906087
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_130</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29908157
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_141</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904725
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29907457
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904517
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904839
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29917601
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904517
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904759
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905287
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904617
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904767
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29908865
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_119</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904517
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904759
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905027
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29908345
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_117</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904517
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904839
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905341
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29913081
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904617
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904767
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29915305
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904621
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905217
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29922785
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_125</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904617
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904767
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29911069
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29914819
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904691
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29909049
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_135</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29908291
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904725
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904961
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29931199
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904517
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904851
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29908693
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904517
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905581
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_108</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904619
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29912859
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29907089
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_106</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29923823
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_140</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904691
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29907997
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904897
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904619
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29918551
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_114</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904553
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905617
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904725
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29906185
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905863
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29913629
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_138</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905217
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29906159
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29907375
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_149</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904765
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29908997
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_124</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904617
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904767
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29915163
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904517
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904759
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29906725
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904957
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905395
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904725
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905937
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905217
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29906647
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29909977
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_132</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904821
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29907745
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_143</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904821
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29911899
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_101</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904617
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29907281
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29909361
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905863
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29915509
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904553
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905725
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904619
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905013
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29908963
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_111</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905217
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29906647
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29908565
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_99</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905863
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29912157
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904691
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29906023
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904821
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905087
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905369
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29906827
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904517
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29906607
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905217
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29907151
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904517
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904759
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904951
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905217
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29906159
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29911423
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904647
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29906435
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_148</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904821
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905451
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904517
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904851
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29912199
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904517
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904721
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905319
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904821
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905087
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905369
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29915049
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904517
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904869
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904821
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905087
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29910025
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_142</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904491
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904677
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29908597
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_100</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905863
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29907717
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904821
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29907491
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904553
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905847
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904691
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29907897
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904517
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904851
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29913405
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905295
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29908091
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905217
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29908067
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904517
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904759
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29906177
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_103</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904517
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904839
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29906197
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29911949
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904821
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905079
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29910465
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_127</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904619
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904735
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_113</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905305
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29911823
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904517
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904851
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29907191
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905295
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29908269
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904517
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905029
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905791
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_137</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904697
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_121</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904517
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905559
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904617
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904767
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29908511
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904821
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29906251
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29910821
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904517
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904839
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905385
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_131</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29912881
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904517
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29912545
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904619
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29907749
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904765
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905487
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905217
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29906647
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29908871
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_116</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904647
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905771
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904517
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904851
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29906971
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905863
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29906737
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_102</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905217
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29906647
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29909629
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_126</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904821
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29908125
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_110</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905217
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29906647
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29907697
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904517
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904839
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905607
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_134</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29907721
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_145</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904619
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29906717
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_120</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904725
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905101
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904517
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904759
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905027
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29910359
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904821
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905079
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29906035
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29913843
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905295
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29908763
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904517
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904839
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905211
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_107</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904559
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29914883
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904491
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905977
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904821
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29909011
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_129</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904617
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904767
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29908551
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904617
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905551
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904691
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29908519
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904821
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905163
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904617
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29908151
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_139</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904617
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904767
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29911507
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904517
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904793
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904517
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904759
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905207
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29928849
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904517
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904839
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905389
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29915741
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_144</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904517
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905025
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904647
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905289
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905217
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29906647
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29911165
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_118</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904517
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905307
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29907169
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904821
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905087
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29911257
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_128</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904517
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904721
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905195
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29919103
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905217
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29906159
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29908489
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_136</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905295
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29909515
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_147</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904911
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_105</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904821
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29907295
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904821
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29907969
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904517
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905099
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905217
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29906647
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29911905
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_115</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904553
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905445
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29906131
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904617
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904767
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29909573
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_123</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904849
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29908999
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905863
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29906753
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904617
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904767
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29909761
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904725
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905031
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_2227213_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904553
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905361
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2227213.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904741
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2227213.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905441
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2227213.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904691
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29907897
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29908519
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29909049
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29906023
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29907997
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29906093
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2227213.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905399
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29907089
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29906087
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29908291
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29923823
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2227213.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904849
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29908999
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29908423
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29909107
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2227213.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904763
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905197
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2227213.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904559
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29914883
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2227213.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904553
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905847
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905617
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905725
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905445
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905361
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905091
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905151
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29913433
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2227213.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904921
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2227213.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904725
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905101
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904961
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29931199
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29906185
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905031
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905937
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29910817
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29907457
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2227213.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904617
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905551
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905121
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904919
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29908151
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904767
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29911507
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29915163
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29909761
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29911069
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29909573
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29908511
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29920127
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29908865
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29908551
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29915305
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29907281
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2227213.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29906073
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2227213.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29910205
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2227213.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904509
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904821
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29911899
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29907491
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905051
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29906251
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29910821
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905163
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29907969
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29909011
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29908125
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905087
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29911257
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905369
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29906827
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29915049
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29910025
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905079
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29910465
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29906035
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29913843
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29907745
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905451
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29907295
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904911
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2227213.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904475
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904621
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904731
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29909361
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29906131
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29908157
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29912881
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29907721
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29907169
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905305
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29911823
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29913081
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29915741
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29914819
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905295
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29908269
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29910305
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29908763
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29908091
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29910111
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29909515
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904897
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904697
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905217
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29908067
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29906159
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29911423
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29908489
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29907375
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29906647
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29909977
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29907697
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29908565
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29908871
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29911165
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29911905
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29909629
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29907151
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29922785
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2227213.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904765
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905487
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29908997
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2227213.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904491
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905977
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904677
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29908597
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2227213.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904517
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904791
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905307
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29912545
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905099
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905025
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905581
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904869
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29912109
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904759
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905027
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29908345
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29910359
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905207
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29928849
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29906177
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29906725
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905287
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904951
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904793
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904721
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905195
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29919103
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905319
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905029
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905791
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905559
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905303
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904839
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29917601
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905385
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29906197
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29911949
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905341
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905607
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29906661
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905211
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905389
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904851
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29906971
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29908693
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29907191
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29912199
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29913405
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29906607
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2227213.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904957
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905395
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2227213.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904645
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2227213.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905863
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29906753
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29907717
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29915509
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29912157
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29906737
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29913629
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2227213.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904619
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904735
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29912859
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29906717
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29907749
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29907579
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29918551
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905013
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29908963
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_2227213.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29904647
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29906435
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905771
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_2227213.29905289
</commentlist>
</conversation>
