Plumbing vs. Forestry

[DeuceWallaces]

errr... of course i'm generalising: how could any comparison between what it's like to work in a huge field between two different countries be anything other than a generalisation?

But that generalisation is a fairly accurate one, supported by the facts. And, when trying to measure these generalities, the data supports my assertions, which I really don't give a shit about, as I was only repeating what i've been told be prominent scientists, only to meet with a standard disparagement from King Deuces, PhD.

And if I was generalising, how can you not be generalising by saying "that's wrong"?

Your logic is really bad.

It's not accurate and it's not supported by facts or experience. You are a keyboard warrior wannabe scientist. You can read Wikipedia all you want but it's obvious you don't understand the scientific process, you are an ignoramus when it comes to inference and analytical techniques, and you have no experience in any professional scientific field.

[9erempiree]

errr... of course i'm generalising: how could any comparison between what it's like to work in a huge field between two different countries be anything other than a generalisation?

But that generalisation is a fairly accurate one, supported by the facts. And, when trying to measure these generalities, the data supports my assertions, which I really don't give a shit about, as I was only repeating what i've been told be prominent scientists, only to meet with a standard disparagement from King Deuces, PhD.

And if I was generalising, how can you not be generalising by saying "that's wrong"?


Your logic is really bad.

You have embarrassed him enough.

[Akrazotile]

It's not accurate and it's not supported by facts or experience. You are a keyboard warrior wannabe scientist. You can read Wikipedia all you want but it's obvious you don't understand the scientific process, you are an ignoramus when it comes to inference and analytical techniques, and you have no experience in any professional scientific field.

Can you share with us a piece of research you have done?

Afterall, what is the point of research if not to disseminate it, right?

Can we see something you've worked on scientifically? Can you tell us about something?

[DeuceWallaces]

Can you share with us a piece of research you have done?

Afterall, what is the point of research if not to disseminate it, right?

Can we see something you've worked on scientifically? Can you tell us about something?

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/1...92.2014.943392

http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/38067

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...745.12132/full

https://energy.ky.gov/biofuels/Docum...nal%20KOEP.pdf

http://link.springer.com/article/10....056-011-9278-4

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...78112710006882

[Akrazotile]

http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/38067

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...745.12132/full

https://energy.ky.gov/biofuels/Docum...nal%20KOEP.pdf

http://link.springer.com/article/10....056-011-9278-4

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...78112710006882

Excellent treesearch, brother.

Now let me ask you, in this one for instance:

http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/38067


Reading through the synopsis, it looks like your aim was to test whether or not fertilizer was effective in plant growth.

You did the study, and concluded that it was.

In summation you concluded: Our findings indicate that fertilizer applications to 1-year-old seedlings on reclaimed mines in Appalachia increase height, diameter, and biomass accumulation.


Is this groundbreaking? That fertilizer works?

Fertilizer has been around for a long time. Is this what government pays you to reaffirm? That fertilizer works?


In all seriousness, I respect that you posted up your stuff. But... what am I missing about this study here? Is there a lot of skepticism I'm not aware of in the fertilizer industry about whether it works compared to non-fertilized plants in a control group?

What exactly did this provide that was new or useful to your field of study?

[oarabbus]

Look at deucewallaces. The guy can't read, NOR do math, nor does he have knowledge of ANYTHING outside the subject he's been in school for his whole adult life.

He's not innately intelligent. And so even though he went to college and got degrees, he's nothing but a specialist. He could have probably efficiently condensed everything he learned in 6-8 years of bachelors and masters work into a couple years if he hadn't been in a for-profit school environment where they stretch things out, break things up, throw in electives, etc. etc.

He could have learned the basics of forestry in 2 years then got an entry level job and started working. But the dope spent 8 years on this shit and still doesn't have all the degrees he needs apparently, how much more is there to learn about forestry?

It's a crock, and it's backward, and it's designed to use taxpayer money to give losers like him some kind of career opportunity since he isn't resourceful enough to make things happen on his own. He needs his safe space and his well-lit path and his sense of belonging and nominal accomplishment. Taxpayers shouldn't have to buy that kinda shit for needy losers like him. If he wants it, let him take out a loan and go for it.

So then do you think people going into engineering and computer science should be discouraged?


Also what I get from this topic is that Dresta called out DeuceWallaces for not actually having any legitimate publications, and wallaces responded with links proving he is first author on at least one peer-reviewed paper released by a large scientific publisher. Kind of takes the wind out of the sails of his argument, unless his point is that anyone who isn't Einstein "isn't a true scientist"?

[Akrazotile]

So then do you think people going into engineering and computer science should be discouraged? Or that we are better off with less engineers?

Of course not. Those jobs have plenty of value. However I guarantee you the amount of time and money spent learning those skills in university environment is hyper inflated versus how long it takes to actually learn them when youre focused exclusively on them as career training and not required to take English, and history, and electives etc with expensive textbooks and lengthy assignments for four years in addition. Shit is such an inflated con job.

College used to be for the few kids from wealthy families who didnt need to work immediately out of high school. So you go learn some things. Greek, Latin, some science, some math. It was never vocationally oriented. These kids got better jobs, so as fewer people had to go be a butcher or lumberjack or whatever and support a lil house on the prairie right away like in the old days, more started going to college. But it's still not an efficient career training institution. It was never supposed to be. The problem is the average dolt doesnt realize that.

So we're wasting a ton of money acting like kids need a four year bachelors to do the vast manority of jobs in America. You dont. Its that simple. You can learn the basics of any career in a year and then just continue to grow through experience. 4 year bachelors in communications??? I mean... Its REMARKABLY absurd, and astonishing how unable to realize it most people are simply bc theyre so ingrained to believe "college = only way to succeed." It just meeps getting repeated over and over and people dont even look at it. They just repeat it too.

[oarabbus]

Of course not. Those jobs have plenty of value. However I guarantee you the amount of time and money spent learning those skills in university environment is hyper inflated versus how long it takes to actually learn them when youre focused exclusively on them as career training and not required to take English, and history, and electives etc with expensive textbooks and lengthy assignments for four years in addition. Shit is such an inflated con job.

College used to be for the few kids from wealthy families who didnt need to work immediately out of high school. So you go learn some things. Greek, Latin, some science, some math. It was never vocationally oriented. These kids got better jobs, so as fewer people had to go be a butcher or lumberjack or whatever and support a lil house on the prairie right away like in the old days, more started going to college. But it's still not an efficient career training institution. It was never supposed to be. The problem is the average dolt doesnt realize that.

So we're wasting a ton of money acting like kids need a four year bachelors to do the vast manority of jobs in America. You dont. Its that simple. You can learn the basics of any career in a year and then just continue to grow through experience. 4 year bachelors in communications??? I mean... Its REMARKABLY absurd, and astonishing how unable to realize it most people are simply bc theyre so ingrained to believe "college = only way to succeed." It just meeps getting repeated over and over and people dont even look at it. They just repeat it too.

Yeah, I agree with this and the inflated con job part. My 4-year engineering degree easily could have been 3 years of dedicated study, maybe even 2 - although two I think is pushing it. Engineering does require a lot of the math and physics background and the heavy unit requirements, even if they aren't t applied by the individual at the end of the day.

My parents helped me out with college, and basically laid an ultimatum that I go pre-med or engineering if I wanted their financial support (do note that I also have paid substantially out-of-pocket towards college), which I hated at the time but am glad as shit now that I have an engineering degree in this job market . People I know who studied political science, or psychology are struggling HEAVILY for the most part. To be totally honest it's hard for me to be overly sympathetic, because I could have chosen a "fun" major and not endured an overwhelming workload.

However how are you going to restructure the entire school system? It isn't feasible. Plus there is basically an "Educational-Industrial Complex" which is quite established at this point. People go and spend up to $50,000 a year for four years a degree which is worth nothing near that value. The schools get this money immediately, paid for by a loan from the bank. Interest accumulates during this time and people spend decades trying to pay off their $150,000 debt which has accumulated significantly with their underwater basket weaving major. Or their communications major that lands them a secretarial job, like the girl you mentioned. All the while, the schools and banks stuff their pockets with more and more cash every year. You aren't going to stop this system any more than any other entrenched industry.

I don't think Sanders plan for forgiving all student debt and giving free college to everyone is feasible either, or even fair. So Jimmy Butthead who screwed around and is sitting on $200k debt gets it all magically relieved at taxpayers' expense while Johnny Responsible who put half his paycheck towards his debt since the day he graduated is now just shit out of luck for 200 grand? It makes no sense. And there probably should be more vocational training in this country, honestly kids as young as 11th grade should be able to specialize in a vocational sector if they so choose. If they want to go to a 4-year that should be an option as well, but we should definitely be encouraging more vocational 2 year type programs.

[Akrazotile]

Yeah, I agree with this and the inflated con job part. My 4-year engineering degree easily could have been 3 years of dedicated study, maybe even 2. While I hated it at the time (my parents helped me out with college, and basically laid an ultimatum that I go pre-med or engineering if I wanted their financial support), I'm glad as shit now that I have an engineering degree in this job market. People I know who studied political science, or psychology are struggling HEAVILY for the most part.

However how are you going to restructure the entire school system? It isn't feasible. Plus there is basically an "Educational-Industrial Complex" which is quite established at this point. People go and spend up to $50,000 a year for four years a degree which is worth nothing near that value. The schools get this money immediately, paid for by a loan from the bank. Interest accumulates during this time and people spend decades trying to pay off their $150,000 debt which has accumulated significantly with their underwater basket weaving major. Or their communications major that lands them a secretarial job, like the girl you mentioned. All the while, the schools and banks stuff their pockets with more and more cash every year. You aren't going to stop this system easily more than any other entrenched industry.

I mean, it's up to us as people to change things with our dollars. We can complain on the internet, and we do, but it doesnt do shit. We'd have to support businesses that dont encourage this sort of thing, but its hard because most do.

For instance I think political correctness is stupid, as do a lot of people. I think the education system is bogus, so do a lot of people. Im working right now to start my own business predicated on operating without employee restrictions on free speech, and hiring based on natural competence not time spent at university. My hope is enough consumers will help it to grow and eventually set a new standard for businesses to change their own models.

Nothing will change if we dont have alternatives. And we wont have alternatives if someone doesnt create them. So Im at least trying.

[Brunch@Five]

I took a multidisciplinary undergrad, but I had a choice of a fair few modules from political science, and yes, that subject is utter trash. It cannot only be learned on your own, it can be learned far, far better on your own. Their need to categorise, to simplify, and to break things down into easily digestible pieces, completely destroys any kind of intelligent analysis of political phenomenon. Not to mention that politics does not exist in a vacuum, and cannot be separately studied like it is and be at all relevant to understanding the real world.

when political science or sociology gets turned into a quantitative empirical research fetish, I don't like it either. But both disciplines are such vast fields of study that it's absolutely of great help to go to seminars and have good lecturers introduce you to their field of specialty. Without that you'd never know what of the thousands of publications, monographs you should occupy yourself with.
Obviously, taking political science 101 classes or whatever you did in your multidisciplinary undergrad will not get you deep knowledge of what political science is or can be. To extrapolate from this that the whole subject is "utter trash" is idiotic. Also to postulate that "politics is studied like it is in a vacuum" is simply untrue and shows that you have little experience in this field of study.

[LilKateMoss]

Dresta's journey from resident tobacco apologist to beloved idiot savant is truly fascinating.

[Im Still Ballin]

J$

[rufuspaul]

Wild guess here but I don't think people get into forestry for financial gain.

1. Go to college

2. Get masters in Forestry

3. ?

4. Profit

[Im Still Ballin]

Unban Akrazotile

[tomtucker]

deuce in action

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rL7RSA3olvA