My question to everyone is: if Kathy Sierra were your daughter or wife, would you say she's over reacting?
Personally, I can't see how there can be any grey area in this matter. If you write something that can be interpreted as a threat by anyone, then anyone in a position of authority has to assume a worst-case scenario. Saying death threats and threats of sexual violence can be safely interpreted as jokes is purely asinine. Personally, I think if you are so stupid as to write a joke in the form of a death threat (especially to someone you don't even know), you deserve no mercy. In the workplace, I believe people like this need to be fired flat-out and flagged to would-be employer's as a potential threat in the workplace.
Any tolerance one gives to this behaviour allows further digressions in the name of mis-interpreted humour, and my second question is: where do you draw the line if not right at the start? I'm sorry but lack of tact, professionalism, common courtesy and stupidity aren't valid excuses for making comments that hurt or scare others.
In regards to the people who complain that such strict ideas make them afraid to say anything in the workplace: if you don't know how to act professionally in a professional environment you really shouldn't be there. If you ask a co-worker out, do it outside of your workplace, and if you really don't know how to tell whether or not a statement is offensive or inappropriate... best just to shut up all together then.
You can summerize all the posts on this topic by a few different mentalities
a.) Still playing an MMO, addicted, and in denile
b.) Playing an MMO, worried about becoming addicted, but is still playing
c.) Those who never played an MMO or played and got bored fast
d.) Those who played an MMO for an appreciable amount of time and got out.
I played online games for a few months awhile ago, and refuse to do so again. My reasoning is simple. When you first start out, it's easy to play a casual amount. As time goes on, you either a.) put more and more time in or b.) get bored and leave the game. I have NEVER met an exception to this. Let me reiterate that, I've NEVER met anyone who had been playing over six months who wasn't either coming on once every one to two weeks or was on almost constantly.
That being said, there are plenty of people who dilute themselves into saying they balance their play time and their real lives. Going to work, eating, sleeping, bathroom and gaming isn't what I consider to be a balanced lifestyle. I think it should be emphasized what people consider to be 'acceptable levels' of gameplay vary between people... A LOT. Many MMO gamers feel that if they can function in their job and manage to avoid being dumped by their S.O. (if they have one), any amount of gameplay is acceptable. That's all well and good, but these people have to realize that most of the world sees this as excessive gameplay. These are typically the people who also get defensive as all hell when the issue of game addiction is brought up.
Sorry, but from what I've seen the long-term casual MMO player is one of the most popular myths in cyberspace; but there is no shortage of people in denile playing mmos.
I'm a Ph.D. student in maths; and I usually get pegged as a happy person by my friends (most of whom are not in maths). Personally, I like to socialize and meet new people, get out, etc. etc.; but that aside, I wanted to point out something that I've seemed to notice in a very general sense that pertains to this article. It really does seem 'ignorance is bliss'; i.e., it seems people with more analytical tendencies have a harder time finding contentment in their everyday lives. In particular monotony seems to really weigh upon more cerebral types than others less mentally inclined. Personally, I find myself always questioning and fearing getting stuck in a life of complacency. I've always moved around and have had the opportunity to have many different experiences in life; I really do fear settling down into any type of job (academic or otherwise) after my Ph.D. Everything seems to get repetitive to me after awhile; and I then need to move onto something different.
So, I think that maths people might have a harder time finding lives in which they are content. I guess, if nothing else, there always sex; that never seems to get old;).
All right, so this kid got a contract for 250k; how long will he be able to get such contracts. Given the new nature of gaming, the amount of young competition, and the lack of training required, I would be surprised if he gets a follow up contract. Let's face it, to become an elite gamer requires good reflexes and an obsession with gaming; a lot more people fit this criteria as opposed to having the athletic prowess to be a professional soccer player. It also takes a lot less self-dicipline than getting into professional sports (where you also have to train outside of playing the actual game, watch your diet, etc.). In the end, professional gamers will always be more available than professional athletes; so they are going to have a very short money-generating life span.
This isn't mentioning the fact that to be a professional gamer will require you staring at a screen for something like 15 hours a day. It's true many spend that much time gaming a day without getting paid; but for a professional, that's 15 hours of work. I don't know, 15 hours a day everyday for 250k a year doesn't seem like such a great deal to me. I'll take a lower salary and less time working, thanks.
Maybe he will go back to school after his gaming career is over; frankly, he'll have few options if he doesn't. That being said, I have to wonder if he won't spend years gaming in futility trying to get another contract after his time has passed. Another point to consider is the affect media will have on such a profession. Let's say you've been gaming for years and have put on a few pounds or aren't the most attractive person to begin with, then someone comes along just as good as you but prettier, who's more likely to get the contract if a sponsor had to choose?
As a Ph.D. student in partial differential equations, I was very excited to hear about the possibility of NS being cracked finally. I was even more shocked to see that the techniques used in this paper to prove the existence were 'oldschool'. Quite literally, the core of the technique (perron's method) has been around since the early-mid 1900s. The regularity extension pulls on difference quotient methods, another classical technique from decades past. It is widely thought that to prove existence of NS with classical regularity, new techniques would need to be invented; if this proof is salvagable (could be a big IF), it would be a massive lesson in humility for the field... this proof should have been seen a long time ago, if it is true. I would be very interested to see how some of the mathematicians in the area would be reacting to this proof if it is salvaged.
I know the paper looks very rough with the lax grammer and punctuation; but from what I can see, this isn't a crack-pot claim. Really, the most surprising part of this proof is the comparison principle used that was supposedly published in 2002 by the same professor. The rest of the techniques have basis in classical PDE theory. I am not sure what exactly the error in the proof is (NS is not my area, and I haven't had time to look into it thoroughly); but it's indicated that the error is in a paper cited in this one. So, the proof may be salvageable, it may not be. If the problem is with the comparision principle... that might be the final nail in the coffin for this line of attack (which is a strong possibility).
I admit I feel for Dr. Smith, it looks like she is a reputable researcher; and I think making a NS proof claim might hurt that. Even eccentrics like Dr. Perelman (guy who did the final bit to prove Poincare) had the prudence to avoid claiming he had solved the Poincare conjecture explicitly with his work; on the contrary he presented his proof and idea in the most specific way possible. In short, he understood that if caught 'crying wolf' on a millennium problem is a serious blow to one's reputation in the maths community. Of course, it is hard to be subtle when claiming a classical solution to NS; Perelman's proof completed Hamilton's very long and technical program using Ricci flow... this proof stands on it's own. Even so, the paper was clearly rushed to arXiv with little or no editing; and this reflects poorly upon the researcher. I think rushing the preprint was just a mistake of a researcher who got too excited about a result; and I think this might cost her reputation quite a bit.
First, I was a double math/physics major in high school; and am currently in my final year of doing a Ph.D. in maths. For the sake of this post not getting that 'jealous' tone; I will say, my academic performance has been good enough where I am currently funded by an international research scholarship (international competition with only 50 or so granted a year). Specifics aren't important as I'm not about to get into an acadmic pissing contest with the person in the article. I will say, I went through the American university system a few years ago; and have been teaching math/physics discussions, reviews and full-blown lectures on and off for the past 7 years or so.
First, this guy (in all likelyhood) is not a genius, as many have said. I agree with those who say that he found a system and exploited the hell out of it. This isn't all bad I believe; I did similar things with AP credits and course overloading. Although, I didn't do it NEARLY to this extent because I wanted to get something out of my education. The only shocking thing here is the Univ. of Virg. actually let this happen; anyone looking at this with some idea of technical education/teaching will regard this as an indication of horrific educational standards at Univ. Virg.
I don't care how smart you are there is no way someone will effectively assimilate the level of maturity to be effective in the areas of maths/physics after one year of Uni. study. There is something in education that is really never mentioned, that I refer to as 'subject maturity'. One can still do text book problems and tests in a subject and still have no maturity in it. Maturity is a reflection of original intuition and effective assimilation to the knowledge base already present in a person. To make this more clear, I'll put out a few stages. Stage 1: you can regurgitate what was read and nothing more. Stage 2: you can work problems if they are identical to problems you've seen worked before. Stage 3: you can work new problems that are based off of combining techniques from solving problems you've seen before. Stage 4: you can work simplier problems in the subject which may be completely different than other problems you've seen. There are obviously higher stages; but a bachelors degree rarely gets someone beyond stage 4. This guy is at stage 2; I'd bet money on it. I've seen so many 'hot shot' students who are REALLY good at working the algorithmic process of solving problems they already know; but have no creative ability in the subject whatsoever... grade chasers.
Anyway, the article seems to reflect that this guy is simply chasing grades/recognition; I highly doubt he's in it for the deeper understanding. I bet within 6 months 80-90% of what he's learned will be gone. Also, to base so many credits in math/physics off of high school credit is laughable. There isn't even to mention the violation of logical progression in these subjects. You're telling me this kid was doing Quantum Field Theory as he was learning electromagnetism or general realativity before having any idea about pdes? This just doesn't make sense. Again, I am amazed Univ. of Virg. has such lax course requirements. Either that, or he simply was allowed to bypass many of the higher level courses all together. Either way, it doesn't bode well for the Uni. of Virg.'s educational standards.
That all being said, I believe he will have to spend at least another few years as a student. Any decent employers, graduate school is probably going to laugh at a CV outlining one year of study. I know he's been accepted by the Univ. of Virg. into a masters program; but I bet that's because no other decent Univ. would touch him with a 10 foot pole (it is usually discouraged to do a grad degree the same place you do undergrad).
I said 'not again' because I thought that decade or so when people were ooed and awed by the teenage college grads was over, when it was realized how poorly these graduates performed when put to further studies or into jobs. Oh well, I guess some people will always be impressed by the newest 'good will hunting'.
Slashdot Mirror
My question to everyone is: if Kathy Sierra were your daughter or wife, would you say she's over reacting? Personally, I can't see how there can be any grey area in this matter. If you write something that can be interpreted as a threat by anyone, then anyone in a position of authority has to assume a worst-case scenario. Saying death threats and threats of sexual violence can be safely interpreted as jokes is purely asinine. Personally, I think if you are so stupid as to write a joke in the form of a death threat (especially to someone you don't even know), you deserve no mercy. In the workplace, I believe people like this need to be fired flat-out and flagged to would-be employer's as a potential threat in the workplace.
Any tolerance one gives to this behaviour allows further digressions in the name of mis-interpreted humour, and my second question is: where do you draw the line if not right at the start? I'm sorry but lack of tact, professionalism, common courtesy and stupidity aren't valid excuses for making comments that hurt or scare others.
In regards to the people who complain that such strict ideas make them afraid to say anything in the workplace: if you don't know how to act professionally in a professional environment you really shouldn't be there. If you ask a co-worker out, do it outside of your workplace, and if you really don't know how to tell whether or not a statement is offensive or inappropriate... best just to shut up all together then.
You can summerize all the posts on this topic by a few different mentalities
a.) Still playing an MMO, addicted, and in denile
b.) Playing an MMO, worried about becoming addicted, but is still playing
c.) Those who never played an MMO or played and got bored fast
d.) Those who played an MMO for an appreciable amount of time and got out.
I played online games for a few months awhile ago, and refuse to do so again. My reasoning is simple. When you first start out, it's easy to play a casual amount. As time goes on, you either a.) put more and more time in or b.) get bored and leave the game. I have NEVER met an exception to this. Let me reiterate that, I've NEVER met anyone who had been playing over six months who wasn't either coming on once every one to two weeks or was on almost constantly.
That being said, there are plenty of people who dilute themselves into saying they balance their play time and their real lives. Going to work, eating, sleeping, bathroom and gaming isn't what I consider to be a balanced lifestyle. I think it should be emphasized what people consider to be 'acceptable levels' of gameplay vary between people... A LOT. Many MMO gamers feel that if they can function in their job and manage to avoid being dumped by their S.O. (if they have one), any amount of gameplay is acceptable. That's all well and good, but these people have to realize that most of the world sees this as excessive gameplay. These are typically the people who also get defensive as all hell when the issue of game addiction is brought up.
Sorry, but from what I've seen the long-term casual MMO player is one of the most popular myths in cyberspace; but there is no shortage of people in denile playing mmos.
I'm a Ph.D. student in maths; and I usually get pegged as a happy person by my friends (most of whom are not in maths). Personally, I like to socialize and meet new people, get out, etc. etc.; but that aside, I wanted to point out something that I've seemed to notice in a very general sense that pertains to this article. It really does seem 'ignorance is bliss'; i.e., it seems people with more analytical tendencies have a harder time finding contentment in their everyday lives. In particular monotony seems to really weigh upon more cerebral types than others less mentally inclined. Personally, I find myself always questioning and fearing getting stuck in a life of complacency. I've always moved around and have had the opportunity to have many different experiences in life; I really do fear settling down into any type of job (academic or otherwise) after my Ph.D. Everything seems to get repetitive to me after awhile; and I then need to move onto something different. So, I think that maths people might have a harder time finding lives in which they are content. I guess, if nothing else, there always sex; that never seems to get old ;).
All right, so this kid got a contract for 250k; how long will he be able to get such contracts. Given the new nature of gaming, the amount of young competition, and the lack of training required, I would be surprised if he gets a follow up contract. Let's face it, to become an elite gamer requires good reflexes and an obsession with gaming; a lot more people fit this criteria as opposed to having the athletic prowess to be a professional soccer player. It also takes a lot less self-dicipline than getting into professional sports (where you also have to train outside of playing the actual game, watch your diet, etc.). In the end, professional gamers will always be more available than professional athletes; so they are going to have a very short money-generating life span. This isn't mentioning the fact that to be a professional gamer will require you staring at a screen for something like 15 hours a day. It's true many spend that much time gaming a day without getting paid; but for a professional, that's 15 hours of work. I don't know, 15 hours a day everyday for 250k a year doesn't seem like such a great deal to me. I'll take a lower salary and less time working, thanks. Maybe he will go back to school after his gaming career is over; frankly, he'll have few options if he doesn't. That being said, I have to wonder if he won't spend years gaming in futility trying to get another contract after his time has passed. Another point to consider is the affect media will have on such a profession. Let's say you've been gaming for years and have put on a few pounds or aren't the most attractive person to begin with, then someone comes along just as good as you but prettier, who's more likely to get the contract if a sponsor had to choose?
As a Ph.D. student in partial differential equations, I was very excited to hear about the possibility of NS being cracked finally. I was even more shocked to see that the techniques used in this paper to prove the existence were 'oldschool'. Quite literally, the core of the technique (perron's method) has been around since the early-mid 1900s. The regularity extension pulls on difference quotient methods, another classical technique from decades past. It is widely thought that to prove existence of NS with classical regularity, new techniques would need to be invented; if this proof is salvagable (could be a big IF), it would be a massive lesson in humility for the field... this proof should have been seen a long time ago, if it is true. I would be very interested to see how some of the mathematicians in the area would be reacting to this proof if it is salvaged. I know the paper looks very rough with the lax grammer and punctuation; but from what I can see, this isn't a crack-pot claim. Really, the most surprising part of this proof is the comparison principle used that was supposedly published in 2002 by the same professor. The rest of the techniques have basis in classical PDE theory. I am not sure what exactly the error in the proof is (NS is not my area, and I haven't had time to look into it thoroughly); but it's indicated that the error is in a paper cited in this one. So, the proof may be salvageable, it may not be. If the problem is with the comparision principle... that might be the final nail in the coffin for this line of attack (which is a strong possibility). I admit I feel for Dr. Smith, it looks like she is a reputable researcher; and I think making a NS proof claim might hurt that. Even eccentrics like Dr. Perelman (guy who did the final bit to prove Poincare) had the prudence to avoid claiming he had solved the Poincare conjecture explicitly with his work; on the contrary he presented his proof and idea in the most specific way possible. In short, he understood that if caught 'crying wolf' on a millennium problem is a serious blow to one's reputation in the maths community. Of course, it is hard to be subtle when claiming a classical solution to NS; Perelman's proof completed Hamilton's very long and technical program using Ricci flow... this proof stands on it's own. Even so, the paper was clearly rushed to arXiv with little or no editing; and this reflects poorly upon the researcher. I think rushing the preprint was just a mistake of a researcher who got too excited about a result; and I think this might cost her reputation quite a bit.
First, I was a double math/physics major in high school; and am currently in my final year of doing a Ph.D. in maths. For the sake of this post not getting that 'jealous' tone; I will say, my academic performance has been good enough where I am currently funded by an international research scholarship (international competition with only 50 or so granted a year). Specifics aren't important as I'm not about to get into an acadmic pissing contest with the person in the article. I will say, I went through the American university system a few years ago; and have been teaching math/physics discussions, reviews and full-blown lectures on and off for the past 7 years or so.
First, this guy (in all likelyhood) is not a genius, as many have said. I agree with those who say that he found a system and exploited the hell out of it. This isn't all bad I believe; I did similar things with AP credits and course overloading. Although, I didn't do it NEARLY to this extent because I wanted to get something out of my education. The only shocking thing here is the Univ. of Virg. actually let this happen; anyone looking at this with some idea of technical education/teaching will regard this as an indication of horrific educational standards at Univ. Virg.
I don't care how smart you are there is no way someone will effectively assimilate the level of maturity to be effective in the areas of maths/physics after one year of Uni. study. There is something in education that is really never mentioned, that I refer to as 'subject maturity'. One can still do text book problems and tests in a subject and still have no maturity in it. Maturity is a reflection of original intuition and effective assimilation to the knowledge base already present in a person. To make this more clear, I'll put out a few stages. Stage 1: you can regurgitate what was read and nothing more. Stage 2: you can work problems if they are identical to problems you've seen worked before. Stage 3: you can work new problems that are based off of combining techniques from solving problems you've seen before. Stage 4: you can work simplier problems in the subject which may be completely different than other problems you've seen. There are obviously higher stages; but a bachelors degree rarely gets someone beyond stage 4. This guy is at stage 2; I'd bet money on it. I've seen so many 'hot shot' students who are REALLY good at working the algorithmic process of solving problems they already know; but have no creative ability in the subject whatsoever... grade chasers. Anyway, the article seems to reflect that this guy is simply chasing grades/recognition; I highly doubt he's in it for the deeper understanding. I bet within 6 months 80-90% of what he's learned will be gone. Also, to base so many credits in math/physics off of high school credit is laughable. There isn't even to mention the violation of logical progression in these subjects. You're telling me this kid was doing Quantum Field Theory as he was learning electromagnetism or general realativity before having any idea about pdes? This just doesn't make sense. Again, I am amazed Univ. of Virg. has such lax course requirements. Either that, or he simply was allowed to bypass many of the higher level courses all together. Either way, it doesn't bode well for the Uni. of Virg.'s educational standards.
That all being said, I believe he will have to spend at least another few years as a student. Any decent employers, graduate school is probably going to laugh at a CV outlining one year of study. I know he's been accepted by the Univ. of Virg. into a masters program; but I bet that's because no other decent Univ. would touch him with a 10 foot pole (it is usually discouraged to do a grad degree the same place you do undergrad).
I said 'not again' because I thought that decade or so when people were ooed and awed by the teenage college grads was over, when it was realized how poorly these graduates performed when put to further studies or into jobs. Oh well, I guess some people will always be impressed by the newest 'good will hunting'.