3 ms·
In his article, the OP mentions "$2.5 billion taxpayer dollars that made it possible". Sorry you don't get paid as much as you'd like -- that doesn't give you
by danesparza 13y ago
In his article, the OP mentions "$2.5 billion taxpayer dollars that made it possible". Sorry you don't get paid as much as you'd like -- that doesn't give you the moral high ground. Doing it for "prestige" still isn't a good reason.
At a cost of 2.5 billion, I don't think it's too harsh to expect a small budget for releasing the data publicly.
- barry-cotter 13y agoI sympathise with your goals but you're being a douche. Science is a crap career if you're chasing money. You're a smart college graduate with excellent grades who spends 4-7 years doing an apprenticeship for piss poor money, then a postdoc, for three years, maybe a second postdoc, and if you're lucky you then get a tenure track position. Now you have seven years of earning high school teacher money but working 60-80 hours a week and at the end of it there's an excellent chance you'll be fired. People do science for love or glory, not money. (Except people from 2nd or 3rd world countries studying or postdocing in industrial nations. For them it's a sweet deal.)
- pm90 13y ago(Except people from 2nd or 3rd world countries studying or postdocing in industrial nations. For them it's a sweet deal.) Reminded me of this article:http://wuphys.wustl.edu/~katz/scientist.html http://wuphys.wustl.edu/~katz/scientist.html