461 karma · joined January 20, 2008
As for the sending, we are investigating it right now. I think the recipient email address was malformed; just pushed out a fix, hopefully that'll do.
EDIT: Done!
I can only speak for myself, but developing for Android is a nightmare compared to developing software for iOS. Different behaviour amongst different Android devices makes it really hard to provide a consistent user experience.
However, the use case you describe has come up several times now, so it's something we are aware of.
(I originally thought Dawkins once said that; if he did, he seemed to have quoted Johann Hari [1])
It bothers me that Dawkins gets that accusation that often, when it's clearly false.
Google, for example, pays $8,000 a month - just for interns!
Let's face it, if you want to be successful - start-up or not - you'll have to work your butt off.
The single most important part of the Oxbridge application process is the interview. That's where you get to sit down with two professors that take you through challenging math problems (in case of Computer Science) and you are supposed to take them through your thinking process. Now, _that_ is where you can stand out. That's more like it.
I am all for running experiments and finding out new things, and if this really happens to be a ground-breaking new discovery, great! That being said, what's more likely? That someone just _revolutionized_ physics and completely changed our concept of time, OOOOOR that there is something wrong with the experimental methodology? I don't know about you, but my 23 years on Earth make me think that the latter is quite a bit more probable...
Both approaches have their advantages and disadvantages. Personally, I feel lucky to have the theoretical background as an undergrad and now be able to apply that knowledge as a grad at Stanford. I think there has to be something in between, and computer science as a major should not be on either ends of the extremes (theory/application).
I do not want to see a CS major who has no clue about programming any more than I want to see a CS guy who lacks the theoretical understanding of his subject.
Wrong.