| Archive for justcycling.myfastforum.org Just Cycling |
| Spoo |
Have they really nothing better to do...http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8206280.stmSeriously is this the best thing they can find to do with their time! I assume they'll use their next assignment to work out whose harder Jack Bauer or Chuck Norris............and of course find out that the correct answer is Jens Voigt 
This also caught the eye 'Professor Robert Smith? (the question mark is part of his surname and not a typographical mistake)' 'On his university web page, the mathematics professor at Ottawa University says the question mark distinguishes him from Robert Smith, lead singer of rock band The Cure.' Is this bloke for real? |
||||||
| Mrs John Murphy |
What is more annoying is the basic misrepresentation of a no doubt serious bit of academic work by the media. However, I am sure that a discussion of the mathematical modeling wouldn't make for a very good silly season story. The other point is that if he had been talking about swine flu then no one would have paid any attention to his work.
All they have done is some run some mathematical modeling. You would do the same if you were to argue for example what would happen if there were a pandemic disease ie swine flu. Yes he is real. Here is his webpage http://www.mathstat.uottawa.ca/~rsmith/ I am sorry that you don't think analyzing the spread of infectious diseases isn't a serious task or trying to publicize the research should only be done in a traditional dour way. |
||||||
| grrr |
There is a risk in playing these tricks to get your research into the public imagination, which is that you get the reaction at the top of this thread.
It's a dangerous route to take. In the short term you get your work brought to a bigger audience but possibly you play you part in chipping away at the credibility of academia as a whole. (the question mark thing is inexcusable) |
||||||
| Mrs John Murphy |
The flip-side is that academics are under-pressure from government, funders and university administrators to 'increase public awareness'.
Not helped by the way things are spun as this cartoon shows: 
The problem is that there are people who are 'media academics' who within their field are generally viewed to have 'sold out' and to lack any real credibility. (So more than a little bit like music - if you go mainstream then you've sold out). As for the question mark - the guy is a scientist... nuff said. |
||||||
| Bartali |
So you're saying there are no zombies??? | ||||||
| kathy |
Well, in answer to the question posed in the original article, the zombies would win against the living, of course! You can't kill the undead. | ||||||
| cardinal guzman |
You can Kathy, you just shoot them in the head or set them on fire. |
||||||
| Slapshot 3 |
OI !!! .......  ?
|
||||||
| kathy |
You have experience of this then?
|
||||||
| cardinal guzman |
Oh you wouldn't believe it. A shotgun's your work-a-day zombie slayer, though obviously any weapon that you can use with more distance between you and your not-so-breathing cousins (like a rifle) is better. Of course, you don't always need a weapon at all, you can simply stand behind some fire pulling faces and the zombies will walk right into the flames. Zombies are a bit thick. |
||||||
| Spoo |
I've no problem with mathematical modelling but its probably best employed on actual diseases (i.e. Swine Flu) than hollywood ones. That was my point no need to get all arsey about it. God you can draw a lot of miserable conclusions from what was intended to be a light hearted post! Anyway onto the real issue, while I would agree that a rifle gives you more distance you always risk a surprise from an abnormally stealthy zombie while aiming. Surely you'd need something that can cut down a few em at once like that big gun from Predator
Saying all of this if ever faced with this scenario we'd likely just end up resorting to the Shaun of the Dead Pool Cue or vinyl approach! |
||||||
| Mrs John Murphy |
Look at the title of your thread and read your first post. You feel quite happy to slag off this guy for 'wasting time' and being a bit pretentious and yet you get all upset when has a go back about you not reading or thinking things through properly. | ||||||
| Spoo |
I see nothing wrong with the title of my thread as an introduction to a light hearted post. If you weren't so uptight you wouldn't either (notice nobody else kicked off about it)
And to be honest if a bloke feels the need to change his name to add a question mark to distinguish himself from Robert Smith of the Cure (specifically him not the other thousands of Robert Smiths in the English Speaking Western world) then he deserves to be mocked for it. |
||||||
| Mrs John Murphy |
You're the one who chose to kick off about a piece of research that you in your infinite wisdom as an expert on mathematical modeling and epidemics, decided to criticise it.
You've moved on from that to criticising the research by criticising the author because he's put a question mark after his name. If you weren't so anti-intellectual then there wouldn't be a problem. |
||||||
| Spoo |
You know what think what you want, I really don't care, it was light hearted and if you can't see that then fair enough continue to believe whatever it is you want about me.
I would say one thing though I've heard you say more than a few times on here if you don't like something ignore it, it might not be a bad idea to take your own advice for once.... |
||||||
| Mrs John Murphy |
If you don't care then why are you making such a fuss about explaining yourself.
There is a difference between 'not liking something' and correcting something which is obviously wrong. It's not my fault if you can't clearly express what you mean. |