Crucial BBQ

....a friend turned me on to the Black Angels a few years and I was just like Who are these guys? The Black Wizards?

Holy everything, yes!!! The last two concerts I been to were the Black Angels (with Pleaseasuar!) and then, the Black Angles again. Love the Swans but some of their stuff is a little...out there like Bad Moon Rising era Sonic Youth but heavier.

This goes along with kip's post above: Brady's defense is that he did not direct anyone to deflate the balls, so therefore he is innocent. He still went ahead and used them, though, knowing that they were somehow magically inflated to the pressure that best suits his own grip. Coming from someone who will be in the Hall of Fame, and who is the QB for one of the best NFL teams of the last decade+, this is unacceptable and unnecessary. As for the punishment; a four-game suspension is not that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things and the $1M fine against the team is just pocket change to the overall franchise. As for the losing of two draft picks and suspending two ball handlers without pay (with the caveat they never go near another football again without the approval of the NFL first), well, someone had to pay. I mean, if Brady truly does not know who deflated the balls or for what motivation surely there is at least one person associated with the team who does. No one wants to speak up so what are they going to do? With that, I don't see what the big deal is. It's not like he is throwing spitters or using steroids. If letting a little bit of air out of a ball allows him to get a better grip what is the difference between that and a QB with a bigger hand? I'd be more concerned with the effects on aerodynamics. When a pitcher spits on a ball, or scuffs it up, it affects rotation allowing the ball to drop in or out of the strike zone at the last second, which is something that an MLB pitcher should know how to do anyways without resorting to cheating. Does a deflated ball travel farther? Faster? Will it spin differently affecting it to drop down into the sweet spot effortlessly?

Post-docs are popular for biology and in many ways they make sense. Of the post docs I have seen come into which-ever bio lab I was employed at during the time they all had one thing in common: an absolute expertise of a specific technique, equipment, organism, and so on with complete incompetence of nearly everything else. Post docs are the way for them to learn the skills non-academic employers want. They also sound a lot like VAP in that they are typically 1 - 2 year assignments (sometimes as short as 6 months), low pay (~$50K, depending), and many go from post doc to post doc before landing a permanent position. The article mentioned that in 2008, when the economy tanked, many tenured profs decided not to retire. Something similar happened to nearly every industry at that time; which is still being seen to this day. I didn't see it in the article but this was also around the time that applications to grad school began to rise. For those all-ready working adults a Masters or Ph.D. were seen as being "recession proof" and generally of more financial worth to an employer. Many recent and soon-to-be graduates decided to stay in school hoping to ride out the recession, postpone repayment of student loans, and perhaps to come out ahead of the pack with an MS or Ph.D. on top of it. I believe it was at this time that many realized that a tenure track position must be recession proof, too. In thinking back on the biology professors that I have had I would estimate that close to 75% of them were part-timers. One of them worked a full time job as researcher and then taught two courses at this university. I took both of his courses and I am fairly confident in saying that he was only teaching part-time to earn some extra money on the side. In my junior year the Biology Department hired two new profs, incidentally a husband and wife combo. The wife worked in the field for one year and post-doc'd for two months according to her online profile before being hired full-time. She was hired two years before I came to this school and became the Dept. Chair the year after I left. The Dept. Chair when I was in attendance is now simply listed as "professor" . The husband is no longer listed. All part-time profs hold the title "lecturer". In my senior year two more biology profs where hired full-time. One was my PI and LOR writer, and who I am pretty sure was hired straight from Ph.D., too. The other became the director of something or another one year after being hired. This one did do a post doc. I am not sure how these profs got hired full time, and at such young ages, when there are other biology professors at this same school who have been teaching part time for a long time at this same school. I do know that the "wife", my PI, and the one who became a director where all heavily involved with the internal politics of the Bio Dept., though, and all three were single-handedly responsible for my aversion of becoming a TT let alone having anything to do with academia. I also know that with biology one of the reasons why they want to see "future goals" in the SOP is so they could best set up your training to help you obtain that goal. Meaning that if you know you want to go into industry than they will have you work as an RA on a variety of tasks instead of TAing. Or that they will know to not accept you if you don't want a job in academia depending on the program and the Dept. politics.

In many ways grad school to my life would be par for course; I have moved around the country and "started over" many times. Grad school is definitely a next step; however the more I think about it the more I believe that grad school would be the closing of a chapter and not the beginning of a new one. As for moving, yeah, it can be scary. The first time I did it I kept telling myself that I could always move back home if need be. I knew that I would not do that but knowing that I had a "backup plan" kept me going when things got hard. As corny as it sounds you just gotta take it one day at a time. All you have to do is get through today and if you still want to leave tomorrow then so be it. Next thing you know years will have past and you are still there.

As someone who has zig-zagged across the U.S., my advice would be to move as much as possible at once. Considering that it will only be for six weeks out of an entire lifetime, an air mattress and laundromat are not that big of a deal. Save the money for the second Uhaul to celebrate the minor inconveniences when you reconnect.

I always find these threads to be an exercise in obscurity. FLEETWOOD mofo MAC!!!!!! (and Run the Jewels 2 )

I always thought Veep was a little too adult contemporary when it first aired. I DVR GoT because I can't get around to watching it until 9:30 or so, then I finish watching what-ever is left of Silicon Valley after GoT. I just happened to catch an episode of Veep and found it to be funny as heck. Jericho didn't seem to be too popular (which perhaps is why it was canceled) but it had a very hardcore and dedicated following (which is why it came back for a few more episodes). I used to participate in their own official message board and let me tell you, people were seriously into it. With that, I will add: Arrested Development, Always Sunny..., The Killing (U.S.), Boardwalk Empire, Top of the Lake, Myth Busters (but have not watched it in over a year), and briefly Downton Abbey (stopped watching but was way into it at one point in time). Honorable mentions: Faulty Towers and Ab Fab. I tried getting into the original The Office (I dated a Brit for a while) but couldn't understand half of what they were saying. There used to be a show hosted by an MIT graduate that was similar to How it's Made expect this would go into a little back story/culture behind what-ever product it was. For the life of my I cannot remember its title.

After participating in graduate school applications two years in a row, here is what I found out by contacting every program I had even a remote interest in: 1. Some programs require every transcript from every college you have attended no matter what courses taken (underwater basketweaving) or for what reason (course was not related to or required by major/program/department/school/solar system), with no reason why they want those transcripts. 2. Some schools "require" every transcript but say without saying that if you don't submit them the sky will not fall. Their reason for wanting those transcripts was usually because the adcomms may see the course as relevant to the program; adcomms like to see students with a breadth of interests; or, the course may satisfy some unknown pre-rec to a future graduate level course. 3. If you did not indicate as having attended that school in your application the adcomms will not "know" to look for that transcript, and thus, it is not required. 4. They only want transcripts from the institutions that you actually earned the degree from. My point; talk to the program directors and see what they say.

Current faves: The Talking Dead. Veep (yup, I admit it). The Mind of a Chef. The Walking Dead (although I have read every book up to date). Jimmy Fallon. Also watch GoT, but not really a fan. HGTV or the Food Network is on quite often in my house, but I don't actually watch them. Used to be The Weather Channel before FIOS dropped them. In the past, got way into Jericho, LOST, and a few others. Maude, too. Oh, and televised hockey games are a mUst watch. *aslo: Man vs. Food.

What if you cannot answer this question without sounding like a nutcase? I have yet to find anyone in my situation to draw inspiration from as my path through undergrad was rather unique. So unique in fact that no sane person would have chosen the path that I made the deliberate decision to take.

"What do you do?" is such an Americanism, and one that goes back decades. I get the feeling that Millennials have put their own spin on it to truly mean Hey, I'm just breaking the ice here! but for the older crowd it is a loaded question. That is to say for those who are older there is often an association that we are what we do. It is a way to see how you measure up against me, if we have something in common, if you are an interesting person. That sort of thing. Thankfully I have not been asked this question too many times and I generally avoid the type of people who would ask such a question but when I do receive it I usually give an answer such as What do I do? I live. I woke up this morning, which I consider further evidence of having had another highly successful day. For those who know me in real life know that is something that I would legitimately say and that I am not just being a smart alec. The real reason why I would say such a thing is because I totally suck with social conventions. I truly do not know how to answer that question. Is he just trying to make small talk? Does he even care to know? And what is it that I really do? I do a lot of stuff. Is he asking about my work? There are a million things there. Or what I do no the weekend? My work is rather boring I am afraid, but I do love to cook. Should I mention that? race through my head. Then before I know it the words who gives a shiz! Let's get a beer! come out. At least it gets most people to laugh and I have made many great friends this way. Apparently this makes me appear mysterious, when in reality I am just socially awkward. I have found that snide humor is a great cover-up and for those who do not "get it" probably would not like me anyways. I have been getting the question more frequently from my GFs family and some of her friends; it is a typical "DC" thing to ask. I just say that I am a student, which usually leads into "of what?" followed by "and where are you going to work?" I do not feel like I am bragging as those who are asking are generally accomplished themselves but I do understand the sentiment because what I want to do is so different than what they do (typically Fed. Gov. stuff or union blue collar).

The program I applied at University of Maryland does this. That is, they admit the student first then the student finds an advisor after having been accepted into the program. The kicker is that the student cannot matriculate until an advisor is found...so...you are an accepted student into the program but not a student at the school but are...but not...but... At Maryland it has nothing to do with [lack of] funding; it is just how the program does it. Yeah, stuck in limbo here, too. My POI in the program is actually a colleague of a friend of mine and still no word after three emails. So I dunno... *edit to remove name of program.

Well, with your 8 publications, 12 conferences, respectable QR score, good GPA, and being 10 pts shy of a perfect PGRE score... ...I had to ask You are in a very tough spot: your AW score is most likely good enough I would imagine, but that VR score is abysmally low for what is otherwise a great set of stats. You need to decide if it is worth it or not to spend another $190 on the chance to earn a higher VR score (or all three). Before you lay anything down into concrete I would strongly suggest running this by program coordinators, professors, and other POIs at the programs of intended application to see what they say.

Not to be rude, but is this a joke?

Personally, I do not see the value in doing a second MS in a related field as a pre-rec for a Ph.D. program. This is only my opinion but I think it would be better use of your time (and money) to simply retake the GRE (while continuing to work in the field, of course).

My rejection letters were all run-of-mill however in contacting adcomms, POIs, and program directors, I did get honest feedback on why I was not accepted.

Perhaps ambiguous (well, not in my mind since I know what I meant when I wrote it), reread my post; I never call the OP desperate. Instead, I said that those who are not desperate, who have enough dating experience, would make the connection between the timing of the special event and the words I love you to be of little coincidence. Perhaps it is just me and I am projecting? I dated a girl who I am positive had/has HPD (histrionic personality disorder), and boy was she a handful. I also dated a girl that had some serious dependency/codependency issues. Both were charming in the beginning, for your FYI, and blindsided me later on--after I was "hooked". What they both had in common was that they would both wait until certain situations before they pushed this or that by me almost guarantying an affirmative response. It was manipulation: if I agreed I was a sucker; if I disagreed I was a jerk. No fun. Then perhaps I am not projecting. I am probably a good deal older than you think. I have been around the block a number of times with long-term relationships being the norm (~2-3 years). I have read the OPs posts and advice regarding relationships are going to come with a fair amount of generalizations as we can only speak from our own experiences and it is our own experiences that shape our world-views, anyways. Yes, my post was specifically generalized in some areas, a sort of take-or-leave-it if you will, and the OP is going to do what she is going to do regardless. For those who are familiar with my postings, you may recall that I am from California and have lived in Kansas, Minnesota, Maine, Massachusetts, and Maryland (I suspect Montana or Missouri next). I have played the role of the OP and the role of BF, and believe me, I can sympathize. What prompted my response, and I'll rephrase my position here, is when I read that OP stated her BFs stance on LTR--that it is off the table-- I find to be a potential (as in, not absolute), red flag. Granted, I, nor anyone else but the OP, knows the BFs side. So it is all speculation as it is. With that, I wish the OP luck with the relationship and hope that it works out. @braindump There is no right or wrong "way" to do a relationship as long as those involved are in agreement. I do not think that the OPs love life should be anyway except for the way that the OP wants it to be.

Personally, I would take Delft over UCSD. Not only would the cost to attend UCSD be significant on its own, the cost of living in San Diego is also high, too. Then again, you'd have an endless supply of pescados, Sun, and learn an interesting mix of Mexican Spanish/American English/surfer lingo.

The native tribes of California never developed agriculture, irrigation, or domesticated animals other than dogs; but their neighbors in Arizona, New Mexico, to name a few, did. Early explorers to California thought this was a sign that California was a wasteland, and not worth the bother. Spain/Catholic Church did not do much with California, either, expect they did bring in livestock, set up irrigation, and farming along their missions, and later, ranches. Mexico didn't seem to care much for California, either, and were quick to offer it up (Texas and New Mexico, on the other hand, they really wanted). Ironically, it was farmers from the South, MidWest, and New England that really began to settle in California, initially. California has a Mediterranean climate with a wet winter and dry summer, to which California relies on 3-4 major weather events over a 3-4 month span of time (winter) to replenish its water supply. Even if weather patterns shift only slightly to the east, they can miss California entirely. These current conditions began in ~2000, and hitting official drought conditions in 2004/2005. That was around the time the county told my mom she could only water her lawn sparingly each week, or else face a stiff fine. Those who study this stuff seem to be in agreement that droughts and drought conditions are more typically normal for California in general. The wet 20th Century seems to be the anomaly here, not the current drought. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/02/140213-california-drought-record-agriculture-pdo-climate/ *to add: estimations for the indigenous populations of California date back ~15K years.

I think it is odd that at close to six months you still have no idea on the "status" of the relationship. I'm not talking about marriage or other big life changing events here; just that by six months you should know if this is something serious and long term, casual, or just a booty call. I mean, the relationship should have a clear definition by now even if it has not been spoken (and it should be talked about, very soon!). Something else of concern is this: this guy begun a relationship with you even though he knows he might be moving out of town; just like you, he has yet to those words, and just like you he has not established a clear definition of the relationship, but... The fact that he has yet to do these things to me, as an adult male with lots of experience here, is red flag --in particular because he stated that he is opposed to a long-distance relationship which in many ways is his way of defining a boundary, and as such, the relationship. Also, anyone with experience--who is not desperate-- will see the dropping of the L word on a day that carries significant meaning as a form of manipulation. I lost my grandmother on this day, she was the single most important person in my life. I am so sad right now. By the way, I love you! It's entrapment. I would suggest having a conversation about his potential move and what that would ultimately mean for the relationship. If the conversation is positive, then go ahead and say it right there. If not, ... By the way, when you love someone you love them in a such a way that you would not impede on their own future plans, desires, and so on. You want him to go because you love him, not because you "understand". You also want him to stay because of hormones, desires, and so on... not because of love. Love = letting go and trusting that the other is capable of making their own decisions, and even, making it on their own without you. Love does not equal need.

I don't think people who are not from California realize this. To the rest of the Country it is big news. To Californians, as with earthquakes and too much Sun, it is just a part of life. People who study this stuff suggest that California has had major droughts that have lasted 100+ years, and water has always been an issue since day one. Google "water wars" for more info on it.

iirc, the current plan is to still pump the water supply to agriculture with the cities buying water from elsewhere. Despite its economic woes (which the cheap price of UCs is certainly an impetus to), California cities will fair pretty well.

I am from California and have been on this planet for a good number of years. California has pretty much always been in a drought but not necessarily in drought conditions. What is going on now is not the worst that has happened in recent times. My mother has had to regulate her lawn to five minutes of watering per week for a few years now. But yes, it has affected my grad school applications. In particular, the hydrology graduate group at UC Davis has been absolutely swamped with applicants who all of a sudden give a hoot and want to "save California" [re: get a degree in something that will nearly assure employment forever]. I know for a fact that the number of applicants was twice less two years ago.

For me it was simple: my GPA and GRE scores effectively kept out of anything "top"; I am interested in coastal ecology, so that eliminated everything away from coastline (read: pretty much most of the Country); I cannot stand humidity, so then I was limited to the West Coat and New England. Well, if your application can be described as competitive in general, then yes, you are correct. If you have Fs, Ds, perhaps even Cs, mediocre GRE scores, no research experience, and so on, then there most certainly are reaches.