Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Bill Gates to Guest Star on 'the Big Bang Theory'

posted by Fnord666 on Thursday February 22 2018, @07:49AM   Printer-friendly
from the send-Sheldon-the-Bill dept.

An Anonymous Coward writes:

The tech-loving characters on "The Big Bang Theory" are about to find themselves severely star-struck. The comedy series has booked Microsoft founder Bill Gates to guest star as himself in an upcoming episode, CBS and Warner Bros. tell CNN.

In the episode, Penny (Kaley Cuoco) will find herself hosting Gates at work, and her friends go to great lengths in their effort to meet the billionaire innovator. The episode is set to air in late March.

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/02/20/entertainment/bill-gates-big-bang-theory/index.html

https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/21/17035236/bill-gates-the-big-bang-theory-appearance

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Bill Gates to Guest Star on 'the Big Bang Theory' | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 40 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Thursday February 22 2018, @03:40PM (3 children)

    by Grishnakh (2831) on Thursday February 22 2018, @03:40PM (#641839)

    As for the actors, they are mostly clueless about science and technology except for Mayim Bialik (Amy Farrah Fowler) who actually has her Ph.D. in neuroscience from UCLA.

    That's all well and good, but that's not really "tech". A neuroscientist doesn't know squat about computer software, Linux, FOSS, etc. unless it happens to be a hobby of hers, just like I as a software engineer don't know squat about the brain other than what I learned in high school or in layman-oriented articles online.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  
    Total Score:   3  

  • (Score: 2) by jimtheowl on Thursday February 22 2018, @05:35PM

    by jimtheowl (5929) on Thursday February 22 2018, @05:35PM (#641880)
    They are mostly clueless about either science or technology then.

    Apologies; my use the verbal 'and' is slanted by boolean algebra. That said, what you state is obvious.

  • (Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Friday February 23 2018, @02:07AM (1 child)

    by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Friday February 23 2018, @02:07AM (#642155) Homepage

    Aren't most neuroscientists basically glorified psychologists? Maybe some of them have a bit of superficial biochem training and experience conducting tedious experiments, but I think the population of M.D.s, especially neurologists, among neuroscientists is pretty damn small.

    • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday February 23 2018, @03:33AM

      by Grishnakh (2831) on Friday February 23 2018, @03:33AM (#642188)

      I have no idea really, I was just throwing that in there as an example. Neurologists would be a better comparison I think.

      According to Wikipedia [wikipedia.org], there's a whole raft of different branches within neuroscience, some looking like glorified psychology as you said, but others very hard-science and looking at the biological or molecular levels, and some doing computational modeling. None of these really need someone to be an M.D.; biological researchers for instance have no real reason to be an M.D. M.D.s are people who practice medicine on actual patients; researchers in labs aren't like this, though they probably work with M.D.s who work with patients with related problems. But surely a lot of research is on animals.