/sci/ - Science & Math

>is Bioinformatics good?
No.
>Are the job prospects good?
No.
>Pay good?
Hell no!

Excuse me, but it's 2010. So no, the job prospects are bad, and the pay is bad. Come back some other generation.

>>1624062
What are you basing this on?

Why is Biomedical Engineering considered a waste of life tier?

>>1624072
OP here, idk I didn't make the image or anything.

Also, idfk what to major in! I just want something that I can find a good paying job in and not have an extremely hard time finding a job.

EE here. Starting internship salary = 30k and benefits. I'm just starting my fourth year of college.

>>1624072
Because it's useless, basically everything directly tied into biology short of actual medicinal practice is useless since virtually anyone can get into it.

is it a universal fact that environmental engineering is a waste of time? trying to help a bro decide.

>>1624082
Coal miner here, making $80,000 annually and debt free, oh and I have one of the best benefit packages around. Oh, and I didn't have to go to college either.

>>1624086
Yes, it's a complete waste of life and time.

>>1624091
gb2 /prole/

>>1624091
Enjoy your black lung.

>>1624083
AFAIK, biomedical engineering has more stringent requirements to get into than other engineering programs.

Why would you think it's useless though?

>Biomedical Engineering in waste of life tier
>hahahahafaggot.jpg

>>1624091
>I have one of the best benefit packages around
>implying getting killed in a mine explosion is a benefit

Tell us what science interest you, OP.

>>1624096
I provide roughly half the power for the US, I am also one of the highest paid miners in my mine because I'm one of the most efficient workers in my mine. I'm 1/6,827 people in my state which produces the most coal in the whole of the US. Enjoy being in debt and trying to act like an elitist with shit credentials in a job that effects no-one and being a person who doesn't ever effect anything.

>>1624113
>implying mines explode anymore
>implying I'm not a shovel operator

Oh and did I mention my schedule is fucking awesome?

>>1624119
I like mathematics, astronomy, chemistry (some parts of it) and population biology. Physics is sometimes interesting, but I haven't had much experience with it. I like most sciences, iow.

>Genectic

lol, education is "shit-teir"
life is "god-teir"

fucckin nerds

>>1624120
Well I alone don't, but I'm 1/86,000 people that provide 50% of the power of the US.

>>1624135
so you only provide .0001% of the countries electricity

Aerospace engineering.
Biomed engineering.
Environmental engineering/science.
Astronomers.

Ehh, all I can think of. Don't know if they pay good though.

>>1624124

Replying to this.

I'm going to go to school to become an electrical engineer (Not OP). I love electricity, I want to work on high voltage stuff mostly, vacuum tubes are what I really love.

Can anyone give me the pro's and con's of electrical engineering?

>>1624111
All of its courses are watered versions of other engineering courses. As a result, employer just hirer other engineers than biomed since they are all better established and know what to do and then some.

>>1624112
You fell for their false adverting hook, line, and center didn't you? Enjoy wasting your life. (and before you say it: No, med schools don't give a shit about you major. They WILL take a woman studies major with a 4.0 over your lower 3.5~ GPA)

Seeing as how bioinformatics is comparatively a narrow field and you seem to have a broad range of interests, I wouldn't recommend it for you.

Bioinformatics is usually an option for people with experience in computer science and statistics. If you are interested in it for the biology aspect of it, you are better off being a biochemistry/molecular biology major.

Why is genetic so low?
I'm just curious.

>>1624215
Pros:
Many job prospects
Very good pay
Important in today's society
Any cock you want (6" starting)

Cons:
You'll be "a dime a dozen"
You need to be homosexual*

*This may be a pro or a con, depending on your point of view

>>1624215
Pros: Great pay
Cons: fucking "Oh god why" hard courses
Pros: Involved with everything made today. Jobs aren't that hard to come by
Cons: Electricity replace by Quantum mechanic in the future
Pros: That's probably far off and near you're retirement anyway

ITT: Herp Derp

job prospects of bioinformatics are pretty good actually

>>1624229
How many genetically engineered super soldiers do you see on a daily bases? Or people with blue hair that isn't died? Or super intelligent students in grad courses at 12 years old?

It's very cool stuff when you're a CS major with an interest in biology, and has the convenient property as a career choice that it will pretty much never go out of style since there will always be new computational challenges in biology.

>>1624252
>near you're retirement
You don't belong here.

Bioinformatics really only happened en masse after the human genome was fully sequenced, in 2000, with the first multicellular genome (C. elegans) happening in 1998. In general, this field requires huge amounts of computing power and centralized databases, which more smeck of government and academia than corporations, which does not generally apply to medical informatics or physical chemical simulations. As a result, the tools are more academic in terms of the culture of their creators, and that indeed means OSS.

geomatics?

Pro's and con's of mechanical engineering?

>>1624277
???

>>1624233
I lol'd, i'm not a homosex, unfortunately. Are they a dime a dozen? I mean I really want to get a job working on high voltage electronics, how hard would that be?

>>1624252
>Cons: fucking "Oh god why" hard courses
>Cons: Electricity replace by Quantum mechanic in the future

Are the classes really that hard? I mean i'm fairly intelligent.. not to gloat or anything, but I really enjoy science. I like physics and love building electronics, I make amps and effect pedals mostly.

The quantum engineering thing won't really wipe us out, right? Hmm... better start a retirement fund anyway, haha. I'm just doing my basics right now.

>>1624303
Cons:
Doing same damn thing over and over and over and over
Classes full of retards
Sausage-fest
Over crowed
Quickly outdated

Pros:
Creative murder suicide rampage!

>>1624226
>All of its courses are watered versions of other engineering courses. As a result, employer just hirer other engineers than biomed since they are all better established and know what to do and then some.

I don't know if I'd agree with you that the courses are watered down. I suppose I'll see soon enough as I just transferred into a BME program.

I kind of agree with you on the job prospects, but I think part of the problem is that there are so few BME's compared to our mechanical and electrical engineering brethren that are most often available to apply to the same jobs as BME's are.

>>1624305

>>1624272
That isn't to say that you can't help that happen... and get paid doing it. :S

"Oooh, how cute! The Middle-Schoolers are ranking engineering professions into 'tiers' again!"

Seriously OP, your picture shows nothing save ignorance as there is neither rhyme nor reason to the 'rankings' given.

If you're seriously looking for advice on what to major in and you're dedicated to engineering, I'll give you a watered down version of a response I gave to a similar topic yesterday. Remember that all engineering fields have been experiencing growth and the percentage of students graduating with liberal arts degrees is on a sharp rise, this means you won't have trouble finding a job in any engineering field, just pick the one that suits your interest the most. (I'm a Mech myself, so my opinions on each field are based on experiences with people in each major.)

Mechanical Eng: Broadest field, non-specialist. Hired for their versatility and stress analysis.
Civil Eng: Like Mech but with macroscopic material and design focus. Hired to work on buildings.
Electrical Eng: Like Control Systems Mech, but with focus on Electrical components. Usually responsible for bridging the gap between hardware and software. Think somewhere between a Mech and a CompSci.
CompSci: IMPORTANT: "CompSci" =! "Code Monkey". "CompSci" == "Applied Mathematician". Knowing programming languages does not make you a CompSci.
Chemical Eng: It can mean many things, examine your university's treatment of the subject.
Petroleum Eng: Boring Work, but makes bank.
Bio Eng: It can mean many things, examine your university's treatment of the subject. Expect to be swamped with irritating Pre-Meds.
Nuclear Eng: Boring Work unless you go to grad school. Makes bank.

>>1624364

>Petroleum Eng: Boring Work

My work is not boring D:

Also, what the hell is "applied science?" Is that really a major?

ITT:

People who learn to use the instruction booklets that scientists write for them

>>1624390

Isn't this the very basis of our beloved /sci/?

>>1624364
by chemical engineering, what do you mean by "can mean many things"? How do I know if a certain school has the "right" kind of chemical engineering?

>>1624385
I apologize, again my input is based on people I know, not with direct experience in the field. I was under the impression from my colleagues it was mostly procedural and safety related work. I would be very appreciative if you would like to clarify your work so I could revise my opinion. :)

Also I think you misread my image, I think you're referring to "Actuarial Science". That's a fancy way of saying "Statistics". Actuaries are hired as consultants to spot trends. Especially common are Actuaries who work for companies in advertising and investment.

>>1624072
>"CompSci" == "Applied Mathematician"

Will someone please start teaching these retards that their CS discrete math course is nothing like the level mathematics Mathematician know. Applied Mathematician are math major. Fuck, every physicist and most engineering disciplines know and use way more mathematics than a CS majors.

>>1624364
>"CompSci" == "Applied Mathematician"

Will someone please start teaching these retards that their CS discrete math course is nothing like the level mathematics Mathematician know. Applied Mathematician are math major. Fuck, every physicist and most engineering disciplines know and use way more mathematics than a CS majors.

>>1624364
>"CompSci" == "Applied Mathematician"

Will someone please start teaching these retards that their CS discrete math course is nothing like the level mathematics Mathematician know. Applied Mathematician are math major. Fuck, every physicist and most engineering disciplines know and use way more mathematics than a CS majors.

>>1624403
Chemical Engineering is a broad field, the general gist of it is 'applied chemistry'. Though many universities may focus more or less on the 'applied' part. I confess I only know one ChemEng personally (he was our usual DM before he graduated) and he's got a bit of a superiority complex so I don't know him all that well, so I'm not the best person to advise on this topic. I will say that he's always rambling on about his fluids simulations.

There really isn't a 'right' Chem Eng department, just one that suits you most. Examine your university's treatment of the subject and choose it if it meets your personal taste. That's true for all fields.

Biomedical engineering on waste of life tier?

Whoever made this tier list is a fucking retard.

>>1624445
Agreed, I know environmental engineering makes good money as well

>>1624422
No, engineers use calculus. Computer scientists do proofs. So, we kind of do use more math.

>>1624422
You are correct. I did oversimplify the major.

I did so because I was trying to sum it up on a sentence or two and that's what I came up with off the top of my head.

>Knowing programming languages does not make you a CompSci.

CS == Programing Language + data structures + Algorithms
Mathematics>=Physics.math>=Engineering.math>Statistics.math>=Chemistry.math>Economics
.math>Biology.math>CS.math>Social_Sciences.math>=Humanities.math; //know your place

>>1624463
>CS == Programing Language + data structures + Algorithms
Wow, I didn't know that you only need three classes for a CS degree! I wonder why no one on /sci/ can read Deolalikar's P!=NP proof, then?

>>1624463
Learning programming languages isn't required for Computer Science.

>>1624413

Always happy to help :)

Well, where I am (Houston), the field of petroleum engineering is quite large, with work in upstream oil (on site excavation / drilling) which is done in the gulf, as well as downstream production such as refining which is done on land. The work that you listed is really the "tip of the iceberg" so to speak of the petroleum engineering field. In some ways, the petroleum engineer is closely related to the chemical engineer (some classes are actually mixed with PetE and ChemE students). In fact, the University of Houston's petroleum engineering program has three different degree plans a student may specialize in including reservoir, production, and chemical engineering.

Here are some examples of courses included in the curriculum:

http://www.uh.edu/academics/catalog/colleges/egr/courses/petr/index.php#PETR5311

As for the "applied science" I was talking about, I was referring to OP's post :3

>>1624449
Hmmm... Calculus is a bit of a simplification of an engineer's methods. I'm a MechE myself and what I've seen used most often is Partial Differential Equations for modeling of dynamic systems, vector calculus and matrix analysis for fluid simulation, and Finite Element analysis for stress simulation. Of course we do little in the way of proofs because Engineering is almost entirely empirical. And I admit I don't have first hand experience with what kind of mathematics go into ComputerScience, so I suppose who 'uses more math' depends on what you define 'more math' as.

>>1624449
>No, engineers use calculus. Computer scientists do proofs

>Implying the more mathematical engineering disciplines don't use thorough proofs at the same or higher level

Please don't speak about which you don't have knowledge of.

>>1624482
CS is mostly proofs. Computer scientists and mathematicians both do proofs, but computer scientists prove things that are immediately useful. We're basically number engineers.

>>1624489
OK give me an example of an engineering proof, then.

>>1624489
But it is indeed true that computer scientists do proofs most of the time. They spend the least amount of time doing any actual programming. Engineers have to apply scientific knowledge directly but computer scientists don't.

>>1624472
>Wow, I didn't know that you only need three classes for a CS degree! I wonder why no one on /sci/ can read Deolalikar's P!=NP proof, then?

They're the main defining course, everything else is mostly electives or water down ECE/math courses. Also:
>implying 'proving' P!=NP is anything more than intellectual masturbation like turning a sphere inside out without creasing it.

>>1624515
You do realize that P=NP is the most important problem in computer science and now you sound like a total idiot?

Also, you didn't even mention Theory of Computation or any of the specialist fields like AI, informatics, or structure of computer programs.

Where is Engineering Physics?

>>1624535
>You do realize that P=NP is the most important problem in computer science and now you sound like a total idiot?
How is it an important problem? Even if solved, it has almost no useful applications.

>Also, you didn't even mention Theory of Computation or any of the specialist fields like AI, informatics, or structure of computer programs
Like, P=NP, those are intellectual masturbation.

>>1624556
wtf is "Engineering Physics"

if you want to know how to use physics in engineering, learn engineering

if you want to know the physics behind engineering, learn physics

if you want to engineer a brand new physical system, learn mathematics

>>1624570
>How is it an important problem?
The answer to P=NP determines what computers are capable of. There's a very large set of problems that fall into NP and if we discover that they have efficient solutions, a large amount of research will be diverted to those areas. If we discover that no efficient solution exists, that's just as good and we can divert research to developing methods of approximation.

>no useful applications
>intellectual masturbation
Whatever, dude.

>>1624573
EP is for those who have the knowledge of a physicist with the skills of an engineer

>>1624535
>You do realize that P=NP is the most important problem in computer science and now you sound like a total idiot?
Wake me up if someone proves P=NP (I have encrypted files to shred). Till then, assuming P!=NP changes nothing in computing.

>you didn't even mention Theory of Computation or any of the specialist fields like AI, informatics, or structure of computer programs.

That's usually grouped in with algorithms and specialist fields == non required for all majors == electives

>>1624594
so, it's a physicist?

Thought i would drop by and say something ironic. My friend's brother is going to Harvard. He was going to major in Chemical Engineering which is God Tier, but instead he is doing Biomedical Engineering which is Waste of Life Tier. We will have to see how this ends up.

>>1624591
>The answer to P=NP determines what computers are capable of. There's a very large set of problems that fall into NP and if we discover that they have efficient solutions, a large amount of research will be diverted to those areas. If we discover that no efficient solution exists, that's just as good and we can divert research to developing methods of approximation.
You still haven't mentioned an example of a useful application that uses P=NP.

>>1624623
There really isn't a whole lot of differences

>>1624607
No, Algorithms is a different course entirely. Algorithms teaches how to develop solutions to problems, Theory of Computation teaches which models of computation exist and which problems they can solve.

For reference, at my school, the following courses are required for all CS degrees, even business-oriented ones:

Computer Programming
Data Structures
Databases
Discrete Math
Statistics
Operating Systems
Algorithms
Software Engineering
Computer Networks
Programming Languages

There's a shitload more if you want to go into engineering or academics.

Doesn't Gödel's incompleteness theorems prove that P!=NP or heavily implies it? Even if it doesn't, a magical equation that can solve everything "quickly" is stupid beyond belief.

>>1624628
I shouldn't need to, but the Traveling Salesman is a NP-complete problem. Solving this would allow people to compute the most efficient travel route for shipping or what have you, given a set of destinations

>>1624658
We can already do that for all practical purposes.

>>1624658
But this is already possible. Sites like maps.yahoo.com provide optimal travel routes for driving.

Computer Programming-CS
Data Structures-CS
Databases-IT/elective
Discrete Math-extremely watered down intro to proofs math course
Statistics-lol a completely different department
Operating Systems-Watered down ECE course
Algorithms-CS
Software Engineering-Elective and watered down CompE course
Computer Networks-Elective and watered down ECE/IT
Programming Languages-CS
Computer architecture -watered down ECE course
Probability-water down Statistic/Math/ECE course
Numerical methods-watered down math course and possible elective depending on school

>>1624667
No, we can't. We can only find a decent approximation for sets of larger than 20 or so. If you don't realize it, finding the most efficient circuit can save millions of dollars a year over a best approximation.

>>1624671
Shortest path algorithms are easy (see: Djikstra's algorithm), the TSP looks for hamilton circuits.

>>1624684
OK, I see your logic. In that case you can't count any calculus courses in ECE degrees because those belong in Mathematics.

Oh wait no, you're retarded.

>>1624685
>We can only find a decent approximation for sets of larger than 20 or so.
Sets of what?
>save millions of dollars a year over a best approximation
millions of dollars a year in what?

OP's pic gives me a fucking hard on.

>>1624708
>sets of what
Destinations
>millions of dollars a year in what
Shipping

Please, if I knew you were going to nitpick, I wouldn't have even mentioned the TSP. Here's a list of other NP complete problems you can read about:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NP-complete_problems

the rest of the engineering fields are just mad because they know they couldn't accomplish anything without their precious computers these days.

if there were no computer scientists all you engineers would still be sitting around sucking each others dicks waiting for your simulations to finish

>OK, I see your logic. In that case you can't count any calculus courses in ECE degrees because those belong in Mathematics.

No, those are high school courses everyone takes

>>1624760
I think engineers were better in the days before computers. I live in Boston, we have a big tunnel here that carries 8 lanes of highway under the city. A few years ago one of the concrete ceiling panels in the tunnel fell down, hit a car and killed a woman. This tunnel was finished just a year before. There's another tunnel in Boston that was built in the 1930's by guys with slide rules and pencils. There's never been a fucking problem with that one. Engineers today couldn't hold a candle to the guys 100 or even 50 years ago.

>slide rules
why would a ruler need to slide?

>>1625004
That's because we don't care about 100% safety anymore. It's all a numbers game to cut costs.

Wrongful death lawsuit: $1M
Better tunnel: $100M

Who cares if a couple people die. If they wanted to live they should have got a private jet or lobbied to raise taxes on the poor.

>>1625028
Are you seriously this fucking stupid?

>>1625004
>Wrongful death lawsuit: $1M
>Better tunnel: $100M

Who cares if a couple people die. If they wanted to live they should have gotten in a private jet or lobbied to raise taxes on the poor.

>>1624721
Where's the source about millions of dollars being lost in shipping? I think it's just only the additional computational time used for finding the shortest route, but that's shouldn't add much to the expenses at all.

I've looked at some of the problems in your referenced source, and all of them already have algorithms for finding the correct answers. I don't see the point in whole P=NP thing other than improving problem-solving efficiency.

P!=NP, anyone who think that is a damned fool. Now stop wasting time and go back to coding for bananas!

>>1625056
You're overlooking the likely possibility of construction companies using poor quality materials or not using enough of the required materials.

>>1625093
Problems in P can be solved in polynomial time... that means they take roughly x^n number of steps, where x is the size of the problem

Problems in NP cannot be solved in polynomial time. This means that they cannot be represented by x^n. Instead, they may look more like n^x. As you can probably tell, the number of steps grows extremely quickly as the problem gets bigger. The required computation time is often longer than the predicted age of the universe. This is why it's important to solve P=NP. If they are in the same set, then that means there is an efficient solution and we should find it. If they aren't, we shouldn't waste our time.

>>1625349
But that still doesn't explain how it's applicable to real world problems. For example, shipping companies routinely use longer routes of travel because it's more cost effective. Many routes are predetermined. Even if P=NP is proven, shipping companies won't even bother with it.

>>1625445
Keep an open mind. Instead of representing travel routes by distance, assign cost values to them.

And yes, shipping companies will find the best route if they can and it saves them money.

Can anyone give me pros and cons for Aerospace(especially astronautical) engineering?

Cause I'm interested in that field.

>genetic engineering
>low tier

OH SHIT I GUESS NO BIOLOGICAL IMMORTALITY FOR YOU THEN

>>genetic engineering
>Biological imortality

You're a bunch of programmers insisting that they can build more resistant storage devices.

>>1625528
imperfect analogy, programmers don't usually program machines to maintain themselves, and when they do, it usually works out for the better

>>1625528

ITT: People soon to be replaced by H1-B's

>>1625522
Why would anybody want immortality? It's clearly a bad thing.

>>1625558
You're kidding me, right?
Post-scarcity.
Space travel.
Meeting alien civilizations and worlds
Extreme superstructures
Amazing new technology you cannot even dream of
All humans united.

>>1625561
What's this? An optimist in my /sci/?!

>>1625561
It's a good thing History isn't circular!

>>1625567
All signs point up.

>>1625561
Enjoy not being able to do anything that carries the slightest amount of risk because you'd be too scared of not being able to enjoy tens of thousands more years of life.

>>1625574
Hahahahahaha, quite the fucking opposite.

I only want to live a few thousand years. Anything beyond that I don't really care. And trust me, I'm going to be doing a lot of risky things.

I'm not scared of death. I just want to see the future.

>>1625580
Hey, I've had an idea you might like.

Sagan didn't actually die. He was rescued by time travelers at his deathbed and replaced by a clone. This clone died, Sagan was healed and regenerated, and you'll meet him once we've developed the technologies necessary to get him, due to us not wanting to violate causality.

>>1625561
>All humans united.
How the fuck would that be a good thing? Fucking americans blow it all up, stay where you are.

>>1625580
So you'll live the first thousand years without taking a single risk because you want to live to see the future thinking you'll take risks later because you wouldn't care about living longer than that.

The first thousand years rolls around and then what do you do? Thanks to immortality you are still the same person. So why would you chance your preferences? You still want to live a thousand years more to see the more distant future. So you do the same for another thousand years. And so on.

This is called time inconsistency in preferences.

>>1625590
I made that up yesterday, saying that I live for a reaaaaaaally long time and then time travel back, replace with fake-Sagan and then heal Sagan and take him for a tour of the universe.
>>1625598
I don't think individual countries will even exist 300 years from now.

>>1625602
>So you'll live the first thousand years without taking a single risk because you want to live to see the future thinking you'll take risks later because you wouldn't care about living longer than that.

No, just for the first 50 or so. I need some upgrades before I'm willing to risk my body. And I technically take a risk every time I step into the shower. I slip on that soap, I am fucked.

>>1625607
as if no one wants to have something own?
What about wars? Will one country conquer whole earth or do they just "end up" together?
Competitions? One country wants to be better alone and doesn't even think about alliances (North Korea?)

>>1625611
Exactly the reason why immortality is bad.

The amount of risk people can tolerate is inversely proportional to the amount of time they estimate they have left. The great irony of immortality is that it may make life itself intolerable.

>>1625620
>as if no one wants to have something own?
Wut? If you mean no one will have something to own in collective ownership, then that is not what I'd like, Collective ownership of the RESOURCES of the universe is what I would like.
>What about wars? Will one country conquer whole earth or do they just "end up" together?
I believe they will merge together from the lack of needs of borders once post-scarcity comes in.
>Competitions? One country wants to be better alone and doesn't even think about alliances (North Korea?)

>North Korea
>300 years from now

>>1625622
>The amount of risk people can tolerate is inversely proportional to the amount of time they estimate they have left. The great irony of immortality is that it may make life itself intolerable.
I wouldn't say that's true for me. Even before I found out it could be possible to cure aging I did not want to go skydiving or explore Mt. Everest.

>>1625629
what movie is this from

>>1625632
I wish I knew. Half Life: The Movie?

>>1625634
Holy shit, Christopher Walken would make a great Gman.

>>1625635
Indeed.

>>1625626

By owning I ment leaders (kings,presidents w/e) want to keep their own land. I don't mind loaning my pen to someone but it's still mine. I won't go "Since we both use it, it may as well be our both's!"

Why the hell would they want to delete borders? Custom fee brings cash to bank and they can keep crime controlled, since for criminals it would be harder to escape from country.

It's like a row house without separation walls. Everyone sees what you are doing and you can't keep your own apartment secured.

>North Korea was just an example.

I myself have also entertained the notion to be able to increase my lifespan by about as much, and I concluded that it would be fucking awesome.

Unfortunately I think theres little chance of actually being able to do this in grand scale looking at the incoming energy crisis. We are going to need a fuckton more oil to sustain the growing economies of china and india, and we cant use renewable resources for that because the renewables sector isnt growing anywhere fast enough.

The oil isnt used up just yet, its the cheap oil that is almost exhausted. And so the global warming problem will just become worse.

>>1625641
>By owning I ment leaders (kings,presidents w/e) want to keep their own land. I don't mind loaning my pen to someone but it's still mine. I won't go "Since we both use it, it may as well be our both's!"
Somehow I doubt there will be leaders in the sense as you know it, what with the arrival of hyper-intelligent AI on a global scale.
>Why the hell would they want to delete borders? Custom fee brings cash to bank and they can keep crime controlled, since for criminals it would be harder to escape from country.
It's even harder to escape from the entire world when the entire world is a country.
>It's like a row house without separation walls. Everyone sees what you are doing and you can't keep your own apartment secured.
Not... really?

>>1625642
Here is an interesting little site that maps out where things look like they're heading.
http://www.futuretimeline.net/

>>1625653
Under AI & Robots they have Roomba and domestic robots? WTF?

If there's one thing we are sure about the future, it's the singularity. At the current speed of computer hardware capacity growth, we'll have enough hardware capacity to simulate a human brain in a few decades, after which point AI becomes smarter than humans.

>>1625666
Don't knock the Roomba, I have one. Shit's so procrastination.

Hey guys, this is a really informative thread.

I was wondering if someone could help a guy out. I'm currently at community college doing prereqs before going to university. I've heard some of my friends are going into engineering, and it sounds really interesting. The problem is, I haven't taken any advanced mathematics classes and don't know if I would be able to achieve the level I need to.

So my question is: Are there certain areas of engineering that are lighter on the advanced math side? I've also been looking at non engineering majors and still can't decide.

Any tips for another major?

Thanks.

>>1625737
Most science majors that aren't social/behavioral will be math heavy. Though, some of the superior behavioral sciences (economics, ecology) are heavier in math, though it's not seriously advanced and I think this is irrelevant to you anyway.

Depending on your area of study, you might not find much advanced math in a biological science.

Forensic Science here,

Is it good?
Well, depands on what you like doing. It's nothing like the TV shows however.
Prospects?
Rather limited.
Payment?
Get the fuck out of here. Starting salary is ~20k, top-tier salary is ~80k.

>>1625737

Civil/Structural engineering will be the easiest and use the least amount of math.

>>1624091
yeah, yeah
it shows

>>1624042
mfw Biomedical in waste of life

Doing research on neural prosthetics, in a few years, this shit will be cash.

Where would a degree in microbiology rank on there? Low tier?

>>1625642
>he doesn't know global warming was fake

People who say that immoratlity makes people scared of risking death are fucking stupid. How many times do you think about death in your everyday life right now? I'm in my 20's and I don't go around thinking "Oh shit, I better not to do, I still might have 60 years to go."

Once you die you won't know what you'll miss anyway. Also, biological immortality probably also provides a way to preserve brain/memories.

"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today."

>>1626338
why would so many people go through the trouble of faking global warming?

>>1626338
thinks one fake source makes global warming fake

>thinks one fake source makes global warming fake

Puhleeeze. If global warming was swiss cheese it would be all holes and no cheese.