Davy Jones has a posse.
Here.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
The Pizza Delivery Experts
I've been working in my office all night. I don't know why I ordered a pizza from Domino's, but I did. It's of course complete crap. But I was amazed to find that the pizza box says under the Domino's logo, "The Pizza Delivery Experts."
That's right. They don't claim to be expert pizza makers. Their expertise lies in the moving the pizza from one place to another.
That's right. They don't claim to be expert pizza makers. Their expertise lies in the moving the pizza from one place to another.
Thursday, February 23, 2012
JFP for February
The February JFP is complete DOOM. 30 listings total (US & outside, any rank, including post-docs and not-strictly-academic stuff). Maybe 4 involve tenure or tenure-track.
Have we hit rock bottom yet?
Have we hit rock bottom yet?
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
APA Session Rule #6
After the comment has been given the speaker may respond for a few minutes (at most). But the speaker's response must actually respond to the comments. The response to the comments is not simply a second opportunity for the main speaker to talk.
Monday, February 20, 2012
APA Session Rule #7
After giving the commentary, the commentator should pretty much remain silent for the rest of the session, unless a question from the floor is explicitly directed toward him or her (in which case the response should be very brief), or the main speaker explicitly calls upon the commentator for elaboration.
Sunday, February 19, 2012
APA Session Rule #8
Even if the speaker is your student, colleague, or sweetheart, you are not permitted to provide from the floor your own answers to the questions he/she is asked.
Saturday, February 18, 2012
APA Session Rule #9
If you feel that you should preface your question with a statement to the effect that you don't know much about the issue addressed in the paper, or have not kept up on the literature that's central to the paper's argument, don't bother asking your question.
APA Session Rule #10
When you're the first to ask a question during the Q&A, and it's a long, barely coherent, and largely off target one, you don't get to leave the room until the session is over.
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Monday, February 13, 2012
Sunday, February 12, 2012
On-Campus Interview Don't #975
DO NOT neglect to thank the department's administrative assistant after she goes out of her way at the last minute to make photocopies of your job talk handout because you forgot to do so yourself.
Saturday, February 11, 2012
On-Campus Interview Don't , #2394
You're on your on-campus interview and you're out to a nice dinner with two senior members of the department. All of the most important matters have been covered in the conversation: what it was like working with your supervisor, how you deal with a certain kind of objection to your view, what your next research project will be, etc. All in all, things are going well.
DO NOT neglect to ask about what your dinner hosts are working on.
DO NOT neglect to ask about what your dinner hosts are working on.
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Worst Cover Ever
The discussion thread of Devo's "(I can't Get No) Satisfaction" under the previous post got me thinking about the worst cover. Here goes:
Hands down, the worst cover ever is Mission U.K.'s "Tomorrow Never Knows."
And then there's a close second in Motley Crue's "Anarchy in the U.K."
Both are fucking godawful. Just try to listen to them all the way through...
Hands down, the worst cover ever is Mission U.K.'s "Tomorrow Never Knows."
And then there's a close second in Motley Crue's "Anarchy in the U.K."
Both are fucking godawful. Just try to listen to them all the way through...
Sunday, February 5, 2012
Best Cover Ever?
I just heard Devo's "(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction" on the radio. It's easily the cover version which most surpasses its original. But might it also be the best cover ever?
Overheard
Waiting on line in a coffee shop:
Frat Guy #1 [explaining how great the prior evening's party was, until... ]: Then Eddie showed up with his girlfriend. Man, she's such a fucking bitch. Everything went downhill from there. I wish someone took that bitch outback and beat her with a stick... at least punch her in the face.
Frat Guy #2: Ummm.... dude....
#1: Shit, man... I'm sorry. Why can't I remember that she's... uh... your sister? I was just kidding anyway. It was totally cool....
#2: Let's just go.
Frat Guy #1 [explaining how great the prior evening's party was, until... ]: Then Eddie showed up with his girlfriend. Man, she's such a fucking bitch. Everything went downhill from there. I wish someone took that bitch outback and beat her with a stick... at least punch her in the face.
Frat Guy #2: Ummm.... dude....
#1: Shit, man... I'm sorry. Why can't I remember that she's... uh... your sister? I was just kidding anyway. It was totally cool....
#2: Let's just go.
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Crappy Book Review
Every once in a while, NDPR lets something truly crappy on to its pages. The latest, from a review of a book titled Aristotle and the Nature of Truth:
I also like how the review does us the courtesy of showing that he does not really know what an argument is. He says that the book does not engage in "argument" (understood as something strictly deductive and yet aimed at "scientific certainty"!), but rather aspires to "clarify." But apparently the envisoined clarification is possible without reasons or inference. Duh.
By noting this lack of argument, my intention is not to be critical. Indeed, this belongs necessarily to the phenomenological or "legomenological" mode of thinking to which this book's readers are being called and, indeed, which the book is finding already in Aristotle's texts. Long's philosophical task here is not, for instance, to identify an indubitable premise or premises on which to build an airtight deduction in order to arrive at scientific certainty. Rather, his task is the clarification of what is already appearing in these passages, an interpretation of what these passages are already saying to us.Of course, the reviewer doesn't want to be critical. That's apparently not what reviews are for. Rather, the point is to praise the book without specifying anything about its contents. Well done!
I also like how the review does us the courtesy of showing that he does not really know what an argument is. He says that the book does not engage in "argument" (understood as something strictly deductive and yet aimed at "scientific certainty"!), but rather aspires to "clarify." But apparently the envisoined clarification is possible without reasons or inference. Duh.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)