HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: revpk@cellar.org (Brian 'Rev P-K' Siano)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Testing for "Auras"
Keywords: test, laboratory, auras
Date: 25 Jul 92 06:15:10 GMT
Organization: The Cellar BBS and public access system

rutkows@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Chris Rutkowski) writes:

> A person who claims to have been abducted also claims to be able to see
> auras.  The person is willing to be tested under stringent conditions.
> We are considering devising trials to test this claim.  We have a
> number of ideas already, but we'd be interested in hearing about any
> methodology readers of this newsgroup can recommend.  Thx.
> 
> -- 
> Chris Rutkowski - rutkows@ccu.umanitoba.ca
> Royal Astronomical Society of Canada
> University of Manitoba - Winnipeg, Canada

        Well, you'd better get the person to provide a very precise 
explanation of these 'auras.' Once this is done, it should be easy to devise 
an experiment.

        For example, Randi once had a woman who claimed to see auras. She 
claimed that the aura extended at least a foot above the person's head. So 
Randi had a wall set up, divided into twelve sections, and had a random 
number of people stand behind random sections. The woman's job was to see the 
auras extending above the wall's height, and thereby say which partitions had 
peopple behind them.

        I also recall that, just before the experiment, the stage had to be 
'washed' with orange lights. The woman claimed that this would clear away 
residual auras from previous people, so Randi accommodated her. Can't have 
her claim after the fact that her reading was off because of residual auras.

        It's very important to make the experiment as clear-cut and 
unambiguous as possible, and for the person being tested to agree that the 
test is an adequate test of their abilities. (This doesn't mean to force the 
person to agree with you; it means that you'll have to be clever enough to 
keep up with any rationalizations they might create.)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian "Rev. P-K" Siano                                  revpk@cellar.org
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: PSI - summary of book review
Date: 30 Jul 92 19:33:25 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Followup-To: sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <24304@castle.ed.ac.uk> egnr76@castle.ed.ac.uk (A Kashko) writes:
|In article <1992Jul29.204138.3043@blaze.cs.jhu.edu > arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
| >No, the point is that it can be verified by outsiders.  If I say that (say)
| >disease is caused by bacteria, you too can look for the bacteria under a micro-
| >scope.Saying that disease is caused by invisible spirits that all the people
| >with microscopes happen to be unable to perceive is another story.
|
|	Of course if bacteria and disease are always found together
|it seems logically possible that the disease causes the bacteria to
|appear. Killing the bacteria by antibiotics may just be aside effect
|of killing the disease. You need more investigation to show what role
|the bacteria play. Perhaps someone has done this, I don't know.

Yep, 'someone' has.  And not just one someone.  The final standard step
in determining if a particular bacterium causes a particular disease is
to culture it in the lab and insert it into a certified healthy experimental
animal and see if it gets the disease.

So we have: the bacteria is consistantly seen with the disease; a toxin
that kills the bacteria eliminates the disease; adding the bacteria to
a healthy individual initialtes the disease.

This seems rather conclusive to me.
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
From: kumard@sybil.cs.Buffalo.EDU (Deepak Kumar)
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
Subject: CS: Post-doc or Visiting Faculty?
Date: 29 Jul 92 16:23:11 GMT
Organization: State University of New York at Buffalo/Comp Sci
Originator: kumard@sybil.cs.Buffalo.EDU

OK, here is something very relevant (at least to CS). Something I
have been debating lately...

Traditionally, unlike other fields, CS has not had a strong
tradition of the so called "post-doctoral" career positions...there
are comparitively VERY few post-docs in CS. When I started looking
for jobs earlier this year (and am STILL looking!)...I realized that
in the absence of tenure-track/faculty positions it is imperative
that sooner or later funding agencies in CS will also start
granting higher percentage of funds for post-doctoral positions
so as to kick start what happend in other disciplines (esp. natural
sciences). However, this will take a few more years if followed through.
Meanwhile, lots of departments have started hiring fresh PhDs on a
temporary basis. From their point of view I guess there are several
advantages---get around budgetary doldrums, temp. positions usually
go for less salary, gives them a chance to "really evaluate" the
person, etc to mention a few. In most of these situations the
temporary candidate is viewed as a "filler" who can (and gets to)
cover the "low-level" teaching loads.

There are also departments that have had a tradition of "visiting
faculty", i.e. one-two year positions for fresh PhDs (not tenure-track).
The postions are viewed as an opportunity for the hiree to work
closely with on-going research projects. The teaching load is a mix
of grad courses (research seminars) as well as some low-level
teaching mixed in, IOW what a "regular" TT position entails.

Compared to a post-doc (and we have already had a long discussion on
pros and cons of that!) the visiting-faculty idea seems more
appealing to me. What do other people think?

I seem to think that for the future, rather than emphasizing the
development of a post-doctoral program in CS a visiting-faculty
program seems more ideal. Thoughts? If it is worth discussion....

Deepak.


-- 
I'm not a teacher but I play one at school.
kumard@cs.buffalo.EDU                    Deepak Kumar, Department of Comp. Sc.
kumard%cs.buffalo.edu@ubvm.bitnet        226 Bell Hall, SUNY@Buffalo, NY 14260.
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
From: solman@athena.mit.edu (Jason W Solinsky)
Subject: MISQUOTE
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 23:03:24 GMT

In article <92202.231325U53644@uicvm.uic.edu>, U53644@uicvm.uic.edu writes:
|> One thing that I don't consider relevant - Mr. Solinsky tells me that he "only
|> wants to hear stories about winners"

This is not even remotely close to what I said. I said that it was nice to
hear about the winners and that he shouldn't call people liars because they
have experiences different than his. I also said that he should stop wasting
bandwidth, but that didn't work. I don't need any babying as there are no job
problems in my area. I question whether or not this is also true of somebody
who is unable to tolerate any mention of other people's sucesses.

I think that it is a breach of netiquette to A) waste bandwidth, B) quote from
somebody's e-mail and C) Lie about the content of somebody's e-mail and I would
ask that the posting on this subject be discontinued.

Jason W. Solinsky
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
From: smtuttle@cs.uh.edu ( )
Subject: Re: Academic Positions:  Nonresearch Universities
Keywords: Tenure track, Teaching
Organization: University of Houston
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 21:41:38 GMT

In article <1992Jul19.224348.3366@mailhost.ocs.mq.edu.au> wskelly@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au (William Skelly) writes:
>>>William S. writes
>>Chris G. writes
>>>research) I don't think anyone goes through 6-10 years of
>>>University to teach! If teaching was your primary interest,
>>>you'd get a 2-4 year teaching degree and go and teach. You
>>>get a PhD to do research.  Your question, from my perspective,
>>>might better have been: Is it worth getting a Phd to only teach
>>>and not do research?
>>>
>>My mentor from my undergrad days (ie. 3 months ago :-) ) went through
>>6 years of grad school as a TA and never wanted to be a RA.  He loves
>>to teach and was in demand to teach upper level labs.  The number
(stuff cut)
>>You cannot get a "2-4 year teaching degree" and teach at a University.
(stuff cut)
>
>Yes, well I too, love to teach. And I have no shortage of TAing here
>at Macquarie only they call it tutoring (same thing).  I too am in
(stuff cut)
>
>My comment, that if your _primary_ interest is in teaching you'd go
>and get a 2-4 year teaching degree still stands.  Omitting those
>of us don't discover that teaching is our primary interest until
>grad school (and one can teach outside the university envrionment),
>I still think that nobody _does_ 7+ years in university to teach,
>although that maybe how it turns out.

Well --- that's exactly what I'm doing. I decided to go to graduate
school specifically because I want to teach at the college level ---
and I'm getting a Ph.D. only because many --- although not all ---
such jobs that I see advertised in places like the back of the CACM
prefer people with Ph.D's for such jobs.

I'm not saying that I'm typical, I'm just saying that it *does*
happen. And it never even occurred to me to get a 2-4 year teaching
degree, even though I've known from the outset that teaching appeals
to me far more than research. (I am working on becoming better at
research, though. But it is a necessary evil, for my goals --- I know
I'll be a better teacher for the effort ... I hope! 8-) )

But then, I think my attitudes are about 180 degrees different from
the "Universities should ideally be Research Labs without Teaching"
anyway... 8-)

--Sharon M. Tuttle
  Department of Computer Science
  University of Houston
  smtuttle@cs.uh.edu

Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
From: oldenbur@mdd.comm.mot.com (Steven Oldenbur)
Subject: Computation Physics Grad Opportunities
Organization: Motorola - Mobile Data Division; Richmond, BC
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 17:34:41 GMT

I am about to start my final year of a combined honors in 
Physics and Computer Science and am considering continuing
my education past the bachelors level.  This combination is 
an ususual one in that it is pretty well split right down 
the middle rather than being set up as a major/minor program. 

What I am wondering is if there would be a way to keep 
"toe'ing the line" between these two subject areas in grad
school.  I enjoy facets of both and would hate to have to give
up one for the other.  Some of the specific questions I have are :

1) Do any schools offer "Computational Physics" graduate degrees?
   What sort of research would be conducted in such a program?
   
2) I know that there is a strong computing component associated 
   with most of the research that goes on in physics but I am 
   unsure about the amount of physics that gets incorporated into
   computer science grad programs.  If I couldn't find/get into a 
   program such as (1) would I have more luck in finding a project
   that encorporated both elements in a graduate degree in physics 
   or computer science?

3) I would also be interested in hearing from people in CS or physics
   who have come up against barriers (either computer related or 
   on the physics side) in their research.  Could you describe the
   specific problem you were working on, the barrier you ran into, 
   and if you think that someone who was doing graduate work in a
   CS/Phys split would have been any use?  

Any input on any of the above would be appreciated.  I'm hoping 
that my niche is out there somewhere!  

I will post a summary.  

Thanks,

Steve Oldenburg 
oldenbur@mdd.comm.mot.com
From: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
Subject: Re: Getting Faculty Position. What is the secret ?
Date: 26 Jul 92 23:56:50 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD
NNTP-Posting-Host: lyapunov.ucsd.edu
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

maniattb@cs.rpi.edu (Bill Maniatty) writes:
: In article <1992Jul25.115035.4033@athena.mit.edu>, solman@athena.mit.edu (Jason W Solinsky) writes:
: |> In article <14qb43INN4m7@network.ucsd.edu>, mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) writes:
: |> There are atleast 20 people in the nation my age (18) who already have 6
: |> publications and at least one who has 18 publications. Typically, these
: |> papers (even ones which were published solo) are not of the highest quality.
: 	[more stuff deleted]
: |> until recently). The moral of the story is that COUNTING PAPERS SUCKS AS A
: |> CRITERION.
: |> 
: |> Jason W. Solinsky
: 	Just a few questions:
: 		1).  Where do these people publish?   These are impressive
: numbers, and I'm just curious.  How did you acquire the statistics?

presumably normal physics journals for condensed matter scientists, in this
case, things like Physical Review, Journal of Applied physics, and their
letters journals like Phys Rev Lett and Applied physics letters.  Those
are the American ones, and there are some good european published ones as
well.

I heard this from a friend in the magnetism lab, who's up on the gossip
in the other labs on campus.  (He went to a dissertation defense where
the {10th year} student had a longer CV than some professors on the
committee).  

Others I've just looked up in UC journal article data base.  (Which of course
is about a year or 2 behind they've done now)

: 		(Not doubtful, just amazed, congratulations to them!)
: 		2).  I was under the impression that quality is as important
: as quantity when it comes to publications.  Is that true, and if so, what sorts
: of metrics are used to determine quality?

Big shot professor reads them and sees if he's referenced.  

Seriously, I can't tell.  Of course there are more and less important
publications and they know that.  It's just that the way things are going in
jobs, you and your colleagues can't afford to not publish *anything*, lest
you not happen to do the exact thing that gets you the grant, or exactly
just what some lab in upper podunk wants---and these might not be what you
and your peers consider 'your best work'.  If you just get behind and not
bother grinding out something because it's not "what you want to do", you're
toast.

Also, what it means is that grad students are being used as the core of the
serious research programs, for a long time. 

: 		3).  Please note that I am a C.S. grad student.  Does C.S.
: have any special publication criteria?

I have no idea.  But I'd think that CS theory is more like math, where
publications take alot longer, and are typically done solo rather than
in groups.

: |	maniattb@cs.rpi.edu - in real life Bill Maniatty

--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
From: primeaux@alphard.cs.utk.edu (David Primeaux)
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
Subject: Re: Getting Faculty Position. What is the secret ?
Date: 24 Jul 92 22:25:56 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept, University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: primeaux@alphard.cs.utk.edu (David Primeaux)
NNTP-Posting-Host: alphard.cs.utk.edu

In article <1992Jul24.215939.20329@wuecl.wustl.edu>, rr2@cec2.wustl.edu (Rajamiyer Ravichandran) writes:
|> 	I am currently in the second year of searching for a
|> faculty position in Structural Mechanics and Solid Mechanics
|> disciplines. I have a D.Sc with Six publications (Two of them
|> are refreed journal papers and two more are on the way).
|> I applied to 30 universities so far and in all of them I was
|> told that I come upto second or third short listing but not in the
|> final short list. I believe a little extra push may help to get
|> an interview. Is anybody out there with any suggestions ?
|> 
|> 	I generally submit a resume, copies of two recent publications,
|> a list of publications, names of three references and a brief statement
|> of teaching and research objectives. Is there anything else I can do
|> to make a better impression ? All the universities I have applied received
|> on an average 400 applications. It takes real effort and accomplishments
|> to stand alone in such a crowd. All suggestions are welcome.
|> 
|> R.V. Ravichandran
|> Dept. of Civil Engineering
|> Washington University
|> St. Louis, MO 63130                   email: rr2@wucec1.wustl.edu
|> 
|> 

Please post replies as well;  I am interested, and I believe others
might be as well.

Thanks
David
From: rhatcher@fnala.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
Subject: Re: Interview Experiences?
Date: 30 Jul 92 17:17:27 GMT
Distribution: world, local
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab

In article <1992Jul30.012259.19461@cco.caltech.edu>, peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
> crawford@church.mitre.org (Randy Crawford) writes:
> 
>>I suspect most people never really 'read' a resume.
> 
> Unfortunately, this seems to be true of most resume writers as well.
> Before you send out yours run it through the spell checker *twice*,
> have your mom (or someone else competent) read it for grammer errors,
                                                        ^^^^^^^ grammar
> put it down for 24 hours, and then check it *thoroughly* again!
> 
> 						--  Michal

Please, this is NOT a flame.  I just found it humorous.  As I (sort of)
did when I made the *exact* same mistake posting about my system manager's
spelling and grammer, er, grammar in alt.folklore.computers and had someone
point it out to me in the exact same way.  But the point is that it *is* 
quite __easy__ to overlook common mistakes and mispelling, er, misspellings.
When it doesn't matter most people will overlook it, but on a resume it
is considered "fatal" and implies you didn't care enough to be careful.
(Definitely the wrong impression to give the prospective employer).
Again, please don't flame me for this message, or any errors contained
within.  This meant in a friendly jocular way :-)

-robert hatcher     hatcher@msupa.pa.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
From: duggan@cc.gatech.edu (Rick Duggan)
Subject: Re: NO MORE %$#@* E-MAIL ABOUT THE JOB SITUATION
Organization: College of Computing
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 00:33:17 GMT

In article <92203.143751U53644@uicvm.uic.edu> U53644@uicvm.uic.edu writes:
>"I'd go up to Evanston to sic my neighbor's Rottweiler on Mr. Toreki, but I'm
> afraid that Rob would bite him back"
>
>Rick thinks that this is a threat. Rick is an idiot. That - was - a - joke,
>you imbecile, I was being sarcastic. How many people bite Rottweiler's back.

How many people bit Rottweilers back?  I don't know.  

>Even if you were stupid enough to take that sentence literally, there is no
>escaping the fact that it indicates that the contemplated act isn't going to
>occur.

I implore you to take my advice and obtain some information about
the net before posting again.  If that was a joke (and I'll accept
your word, since you wrote it) it is common net.courtesy
to include a smiley-face (e.g. :-)) after it to indicate that.  Humor
does not come across well in newsgroup postings.  This convention
has been adopted by 99% of posters in an attempt to prevent just
such a misunderstanding.  

>
>OK, folks, I've used the word "disingenuous" before, but apparently some of
>you were in class with Rick, and don't know what that great big word means.
>It means (in this context) the quality (of an statement) such that it is
>based on a deliberate error in fact or reasoning made with the intention of
>creating a misleading impression (i.e. non-innocently mistaken).
>
>I repeat, if I get my reader filled with the kind of foul mouthed garbage
>that has been so abundant of late, I'm not going to put up with it.
>Nor should I. Behave yourselves.

I apologize for any foul-mouthed mail you may have received.  I don't
think that is appropriate, and you'll notice that I haven't sent you
any.  On the other hand, merely disagreeing with you is not a crime.

-rick

"Random acts of violence just don't do it for me anymore.  It must be
 maturity." - Cactus Jack WCW Saturday Night 07/04/92
Rick Duggan | duggan@cc.gatech.edu | CS1410 TA - Section A
Office Hours (CC 103): Tue 1:30-3:00 Thu 1:30-2:30
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
From: annick@cortex.physiol.su.oz.au (Annick Ansselin)
Subject: Re: Academic Positions: Nonresearch Universities
Keywords: Tenure track, Teaching
Organization: Department of Physiology, University of Sydney, NSW, Australia
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 03:12:10 GMT

In <1992Jul26.214138.29417@menudo.uh.edu> smtuttle@cs.uh.edu ( ) writes:

>In article <1992Jul19.224348.3366@mailhost.ocs.mq.edu.au> wskelly@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au (William Skelly) writes:
>>>>If teaching was your primary interest,
>>>>you'd get a 2-4 year teaching degree and go and teach. You
>>>>get a PhD to do research.  Your question, from my perspective,
>>>>might better have been: Is it worth getting a Phd to only teach
>>>>and not do research?
>>>>

>Well --- that's exactly what I'm doing. I decided to go to graduate
>school specifically because I want to teach at the college level ---
>and I'm getting a Ph.D. only because many --- although not all ---
>such jobs that I see advertised in places like the back of the CACM
>prefer people with Ph.D's for such jobs.


Most (but not all) academic positions at a University here in Australia
require both teaching and research. It is very common to be apointed on
your research record, although you are expected to do a fair bit of
teaching.
However, there are exceptions, depending on the faculty involved e.g
nursing studies need registered nurses  - but the trend is that even these
types of positions will go to people with PhD's in that specialty.
At least at the university level (in a range of subjects), to be a really
effective teacher, it is best if you are up to date with your subject.
This can be achieved by reading the literature, but isn't it more
interesting, and probably a lot more meaningful to be involved in some form of
research?
The other aspect is that teaching university students is more than giving
information, you need to also teach analytical skills and basic research
skills. If the lecturer has not had the training, how can it be passed on
to the students?

I don't know if this is really applicable to all subjects however - is
there much research in fields like law?
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
From: s_johnson@csc32.enet.dec.com (Scott Johnson)
Subject: How feasible is pursuing a Phd Part-time?
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 19:45:29 GMT


Hi,

I am interested in getting a Phd in Computer Science.  I just finished a MSCS. 
To get the MSCS, I worked full time and studied part-time.  In regards to
getting a Phd, I have several questions:

1.  Is it that much more difficult than getting a MSCS?  To get my MSCS, I
chose the thesis track thinking this would give me a little preparation for a
dissertation.

2.  Is it possible to get a Phd part-time or does it require full-time school
enrollment?

3.  I have checked one school and they require 5 classes and a dissertation and
comprehensive exams.  Is this typical?

4.  What are the typical requirements to get into a Phd program?  I'm not
brilliant and I have to work hard to get the grades I earn.

Thanks for any and all replies.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

        Scott Johnson
        Digital Equipment Corporation
        Colorado Springs, Co