Are you a QOTWer? Do you want to start a thread that isn't a direct answer to the current QOTW? Then this place, gentle poster, is your friend.
(, Sun 1 Apr 2001, 1:00)
« Go Back | See The Full Thread
I'm trying to read a journal and failing.
(, Mon 6 Dec 2010, 22:26, 2 replies, latest was 15 years ago)
was one of the bits about research I really hated. Once I'd finally understood the point the authors were trying to make I wanted to hurt them for their poor communication skills. That's computer science for you. Too busy watching Star Trek: The Next Generation and not enough talking to girls.
(, Mon 6 Dec 2010, 22:36, Reply)
genomebiology.com/2010/11/11/R110/abstract
It's the latest paper from our lab - I'm acknowledged in it but I'm not one of the authors.
(, Mon 6 Dec 2010, 22:36, Reply)
And props to berk, she's well fit."
(, Mon 6 Dec 2010, 22:40, Reply)
I read it as, 'And once the hard work was concluded, the bird with the storage heaters gave us some cake'
(, Mon 6 Dec 2010, 22:44, Reply)
You're doing a lot of misreading tonight Jeff. I think you should go for a lie down with Shep.
(, Mon 6 Dec 2010, 22:49, Reply)
Until you mentioned that it would be full of damn acronyms.
(, Mon 6 Dec 2010, 22:48, Reply)
isn't too bad, I think. Have a quick scan anyway - or scroll down to the bottom for pretty pictures (some of which I made!)
(, Mon 6 Dec 2010, 22:55, Reply)
You'll be ace I'm sure. They'll let anyone do a PhD. And if they don't think you're posh enough to join Oxford, threaten to cut them. They'll totally buy it.
(, Mon 6 Dec 2010, 22:34, Reply)
We'll see about the PhD - I don't expect to get it in all honesty but at least I'll have given it a shot. And bioscience PhD's are actually quite difficult to get on to, particularly at Russell Group universities! (my 2:2 may be a contributing factor to this)
EDIT - and don't talk to me about bloody journals. I'd forgotten how much I hate reading the fucking things, especially since they use so many damn acronyms it's incredibly frigging hard to follow.
(, Mon 6 Dec 2010, 22:38, Reply)
According to him, every new setup/system or whatever, I'm not a physicist used to have the most convoluted acronyms just to spell out some stupid word e.g. one paper had something that spelled out TOAD so later research from another group shoe-horned in the definition FROG.
Some scientists should be smacked round the head until, well, just for their own good for a bit.
(, Mon 6 Dec 2010, 22:45, Reply)
'I know, I'll call it something well snazzy but which has almost no relation or resemblance to what I'm trying to describe'
(, Mon 6 Dec 2010, 22:53, Reply)
I've just remembered how lame I was. One of the first workshop papers I had published featured an implementation of my supervisor's already popular system with several usability improvements. I prefixed the name of his system with Nu (I was listening to lots of Korn, Staind and Deftones at the time - very little has changed).
I was 21! I didn't know any better!
(, Mon 6 Dec 2010, 22:59, Reply)
that that really is a little lame. But it doesn't really surprise me - I have read far worse!
(, Mon 6 Dec 2010, 23:02, Reply)
Didn't I say up there ^ somewhere? I was going to do knob shaped biscuits but it's really hard to find a CDC shaped cookie cutter...
(, Mon 6 Dec 2010, 23:06, Reply)
Just let me tell everyone how they were made after they've eaten one.
(, Mon 6 Dec 2010, 23:13, Reply)
« Go Back | See The Full Thread