[Don LaFontaine] Is this move too little, too late compared to Google's Android? Will Apple open up its iPhone platform, or will dreams of electric sheep be dreamed up by the majority of cell phone users?[/Don LaFontaine]
Apology very much accepted. This behaviour shows honesty and a lack of ego (both important in science... and life).
Now.. are you telling me your PHD work will only have 6 references? That's, again, almost incredible to me. A colleague of mine and I have come up with a rough number of references per PHD: it's about the number of pages, including appendices. In your field, it seems it's about the tenth or less than that. Which explains the one-paper-per-week or less. I love maths, but I am glad I'm where I am and let you be where you are:o)
First thing on Monday I'll try to get in touch with some math people I know and ask them about this whole issue. Seems like I would never be able to get through an average contemporary maths paper, which is quite disconcerting as I always thought I'm a polyvalent scientist and person.
I am calling bullshit on this. I am calling bullshit on this. I am currently in graduate school at a major university. There are several world famous professors here and one in particular is known for his ability to sift through papers extremely quickly. He doesn't read them, just skims to get the basic idea. He only gets through a paper a week maybe two. Assuming you are more consistent than him, and read two per week. And being more generous you blaze through 100 a year. You would be working at this pace for 20 years. While not impossible, highly unlikely. Especially since you mentioned that you "read" them not skim, and furthermore you are able to check them for trivialities, which takes considerable more time considering that you would have to evaluate the status of the paper.
And if I was thoughtless and narrow-minded like you, I'd call bullshit on what you just wrote there, because my experience is completely different. I read (not just skim through) one to two papers a day on a normal day, and more when I'm writing. I read more than a hundred papers when I wrote my review. I read (and work in) the field of nanotechnology, materials science, (integrated and semiconductor) chemical and other sensors, and chemistry in general is extremely important for my research. The reason I don't call bullshit on what you wrote, even though I did read thousands of papers (not just skimmed through) is because I can imagine that mathematics papers require more time to understand, than for example materials science.
I would suggest for your experience as a human person, to talk with colleagues in your graduate school's institution that are in other fields than your own, and see what their experience as well as paper-reading "performance" can be. If you do, I am guessing that you will be somewhat amazed. I am assuming that you did not, in fact, bullshit me about
There are several world famous professors here and one in particular is known for his ability to sift through papers extremely quickly. He doesn't read them, just skims to get the basic idea. He only gets through a paper a week maybe two.
which I find almost incredible, but being that you're in math, I will take your word for it.
For the record, my advisor (actually, I prefer to call him boss) is more focused and can read more papers than me, per unit time. I have a mild problem of ADD that hampers my efforts sometimes. It's related to my Aspergers syndrome.
I read about the WMSCI 2005 fiasco. That's not really a merit of the paper generated by SCIgen, I think, but the fact that WMSCI 2005 did not actually review the submitted papers. Correct me if I'm wrong. In any case, WMSCI 2005 comes out as total losertown.
I briefly read through the WMSCI 2009 call-for-papers, and they now seem to have a double-boind review, and something strange: "a non-blind, open reviewing by means of 1-3 reviewers suggested by the submitting authors." I can see potential for abuse in the latter.
Oh well. I wouldn't consider WMSCI an appropriate place at this point in my career anyway.
I have a friend and ex-colleague (I left the networking business about when IPv6 became crucial to our company) who has been involved with IPv6 more than the average CCIE for sure - because the applications we ran needed a shitload of IP addresses. Think several IP addresses per mobile phone. Think how many mobile phones there are in the world. Anyhow, he's been designing routes and networks with IPv6 since yr. 2000. He still hates passionately IPv6 addresses. In his opinion, and I agree, 2 to 4 more octets would have been more than enough to address the current problems and make IP addresses suitable for a very long time, and it would have speeded up adoption considerably.
If not (as I suspect), that puts a serious question mark on them. On the other hadn, there are excellent non-peer reviewed scientific articles - and almost all the scientific articles produced in Europe before the 2nd WW were not peer-reviewed (back then that was an american practice, and a very good one I would add). However, nowadays peer review is a valuable and available resource that should be utilized.
THAT SAID again... some of the best, most innovative scientific articles are not being, nowadays, accepted for publication because the reviewers are one degree too dumb for the article. Eventually they do get published, but with an unnecessary 5-6 year delay.
Also, I have read in my life thousands of published peer-reviewed articles, and many of them contain incredible imbecillities where I have to question whether all the reviewers were high on hallucinogens. Very very high on hallucinogens.
It is? I have a boxed version of FRL 2.0, and sure as hell, it came with no sources and I don't know of any place to download sources for RFL in general. If you are so damn sure RFL 6.0 (the one we're talking about currently) is open source software, could you provide some proof - ANY proof?
As I was saying earlier, I have Red Flag Linux 2.0. This is an old version, so what I say about it, may not apply to the current version 6.0. It does not come with sources.
I see many people here presume that Red Flag Linux is open source software. I think that's a whole lot of assuming without knowing jack.
...for trying to wiggle out of their contractual agreement. Now, I'm not sure a click-through EULA is in fact a contract, but then that's DELLs to decide. Either it is or it isn't.
Nicely put. I'd love to rub this in to all those game software companies that use abusive and irritating DRM to keep me from using their products legally.
Which certainly doesn't make it worth even $20,000,000,000, especially if there is no indication that that profitably is increasing.
I agree. I hope you realize that in my post I did not imply that Yahoo was worth that kind of money. All I was saying is that Yahoo is a viable company. The fact that it's not appetizing to Microsoft is a good thing from my personal point of view, because I like Yahoo the way it is, and I think a Microsoft ownership would change their services to the worse.
I bet this is going to get modded down or thoroughly ignored by everyone in this thread, but I like to remind tha Yahoo is profitable to the tune of several hundreds of million USD per quarter. That's not money one would spit on, not in this climate or in any financial climate!
If that didn't quite sink in: Yahoo puts in the bank several $100.000.000/quarter.
As for no need to upgrade, XP is approaching the end of its lifespan, it's not designed for technologies such as SSD
Frankly, Vista is even less suitable for SSDs. I've heard it hammering away at the HD for no reason. For hours. That would have killed or severely wounded an SSD, especially MLC-based.
Your post is very interesting, and I like it and agree with almost all your points except
He or she will never be able to live a remotely normal or fulfilling life.
I am sure that this person, who is different physically in some ways from the average person, can have a fulfilling and happy life. Even now we have people that are much more disfigured than a neanderthal would be (and who says that with normal shaving and toilette he/she wouldn't in fact look attractive, what with being tall and extremely muscular), and they still have happy and fulfilling lives, for the most part.
OK, maybe I'm a strange kind of person (probably, since I'm an aspie), but I really like this feature. I DO repeat the same searches, occasionally. Actually, relatively often. I'm too lazy to bookmark all the stuff I find, and I have a hard time searching through my bookmark tree for a specific thing. You know that a lot of your links can be put under different categories - and by the way, wouldn't it be great if bookmarks were slightly smarter, so you can create a kind of mindmap of bookmarks? Though I would probably be too lazy to organize them into a mindmap.
So, this feature does a lot of good for my style of browsing. Find the most interesting search results, promote them, remove the obvious sh*t and spam, and off I go. Then, when I do the same search again, a month or a week later... bliss! I have the most relevant-to-me hits at the very top, and no crud.
Thank you, Google.
For you who don't like this feature; what's so hard about just ignoring it? You don't like it, then don't use it. Can't be simpler, really.
Slashdot Mirror
[Don LaFontaine] Is this move too little, too late compared to Google's Android? Will Apple open up its iPhone platform, or will dreams of electric sheep be dreamed up by the majority of cell phone users?[/Don LaFontaine]
R.I.P. Don LaFontaine - you were the best.
Apology very much accepted. This behaviour shows honesty and a lack of ego (both important in science... and life).
Now.. are you telling me your PHD work will only have 6 references? That's, again, almost incredible to me. A colleague of mine and I have come up with a rough number of references per PHD: it's about the number of pages, including appendices. In your field, it seems it's about the tenth or less than that. Which explains the one-paper-per-week or less. I love maths, but I am glad I'm where I am and let you be where you are :o)
First thing on Monday I'll try to get in touch with some math people I know and ask them about this whole issue. Seems like I would never be able to get through an average contemporary maths paper, which is quite disconcerting as I always thought I'm a polyvalent scientist and person.
I am calling bullshit on this. I am calling bullshit on this. I am currently in graduate school at a major university. There are several world famous professors here and one in particular is known for his ability to sift through papers extremely quickly. He doesn't read them, just skims to get the basic idea. He only gets through a paper a week maybe two. Assuming you are more consistent than him, and read two per week. And being more generous you blaze through 100 a year. You would be working at this pace for 20 years. While not impossible, highly unlikely. Especially since you mentioned that you "read" them not skim, and furthermore you are able to check them for trivialities, which takes considerable more time considering that you would have to evaluate the status of the paper.
And if I was thoughtless and narrow-minded like you, I'd call bullshit on what you just wrote there, because my experience is completely different. I read (not just skim through) one to two papers a day on a normal day, and more when I'm writing. I read more than a hundred papers when I wrote my review. I read (and work in) the field of nanotechnology, materials science, (integrated and semiconductor) chemical and other sensors, and chemistry in general is extremely important for my research. The reason I don't call bullshit on what you wrote, even though I did read thousands of papers (not just skimmed through) is because I can imagine that mathematics papers require more time to understand, than for example materials science.
I would suggest for your experience as a human person, to talk with colleagues in your graduate school's institution that are in other fields than your own, and see what their experience as well as paper-reading "performance" can be. If you do, I am guessing that you will be somewhat amazed. I am assuming that you did not, in fact, bullshit me about
There are several world famous professors here and one in particular is known for his ability to sift through papers extremely quickly. He doesn't read them, just skims to get the basic idea. He only gets through a paper a week maybe two.
which I find almost incredible, but being that you're in math, I will take your word for it.
For the record, my advisor (actually, I prefer to call him boss) is more focused and can read more papers than me, per unit time. I have a mild problem of ADD that hampers my efforts sometimes. It's related to my Aspergers syndrome.
I read about the WMSCI 2005 fiasco. That's not really a merit of the paper generated by SCIgen, I think, but the fact that WMSCI 2005 did not actually review the submitted papers. Correct me if I'm wrong. In any case, WMSCI 2005 comes out as total losertown.
I briefly read through the WMSCI 2009 call-for-papers, and they now seem to have a double-boind review, and something strange: "a non-blind, open reviewing by means of 1-3 reviewers suggested by the submitting authors." I can see potential for abuse in the latter.
Oh well. I wouldn't consider WMSCI an appropriate place at this point in my career anyway.
Wow, you've read thousands of published peer-review articles, but you don't know whether or not arxiv articles are peer-reviewed?
Colour me skeptical.
I have never read a single arXiv article. I've seen a few titles and abstracts, though.
Didn't some students at MIT create a giberish generating program that was able to produce papers that pass peer review?
I don't know. But sure as heck would like to - any more info on this so I can look it up?
I have a friend and ex-colleague (I left the networking business about when IPv6 became crucial to our company) who has been involved with IPv6 more than the average CCIE for sure - because the applications we ran needed a shitload of IP addresses. Think several IP addresses per mobile phone. Think how many mobile phones there are in the world.
Anyhow, he's been designing routes and networks with IPv6 since yr. 2000. He still hates passionately IPv6 addresses. In his opinion, and I agree, 2 to 4 more octets would have been more than enough to address the current problems and make IP addresses suitable for a very long time, and it would have speeded up adoption considerably.
No. More like stay even more indifferent to Apple hardware.
Projecting on others your own vices says everything about you and nothing about them.
Are arXiv articles peer-reviewed?
If not (as I suspect), that puts a serious question mark on them. On the other hadn, there are excellent non-peer reviewed scientific articles - and almost all the scientific articles produced in Europe before the 2nd WW were not peer-reviewed (back then that was an american practice, and a very good one I would add). However, nowadays peer review is a valuable and available resource that should be utilized.
THAT SAID again... some of the best, most innovative scientific articles are not being, nowadays, accepted for publication because the reviewers are one degree too dumb for the article. Eventually they do get published, but with an unnecessary 5-6 year delay.
Also, I have read in my life thousands of published peer-reviewed articles, and many of them contain incredible imbecillities where I have to question whether all the reviewers were high on hallucinogens. Very very high on hallucinogens.
Cool transparency effect, without any CPU cycles involved! I am not a Mac user, but this brilliant trick makes me want to... uh...
this is open source after all.
It is? I have a boxed version of FRL 2.0, and sure as hell, it came with no sources and I don't know of any place to download sources for RFL in general. If you are so damn sure RFL 6.0 (the one we're talking about currently) is open source software, could you provide some proof - ANY proof?
As I was saying earlier, I have Red Flag Linux 2.0. This is an old version, so what I say about it, may not apply to the current version 6.0. It does not come with sources.
I see many people here presume that Red Flag Linux is open source software. I think that's a whole lot of assuming without knowing jack.
...for trying to wiggle out of their contractual agreement. Now, I'm not sure a click-through EULA is in fact a contract, but then that's DELLs to decide. Either it is or it isn't.
You are absolutely right. However, may I note that Zvi is a very traditional Jewish male name. It means "deer".
Nicely put. I'd love to rub this in to all those game software companies that use abusive and irritating DRM to keep me from using their products legally.
I just got it for shits and giggles. This is a rather old version (from 2002 or so) and I see from a screenshot that it comes with KDE.
Strangely enough, it seems to come with a CD key, and a longish one, at that.
I approve of the general sentiment of your post :o)
I wish you good luck with your startup!!
Which certainly doesn't make it worth even $20,000,000,000, especially if there is no indication that that profitably is increasing.
I agree. I hope you realize that in my post I did not imply that Yahoo was worth that kind of money. All I was saying is that Yahoo is a viable company. The fact that it's not appetizing to Microsoft is a good thing from my personal point of view, because I like Yahoo the way it is, and I think a Microsoft ownership would change their services to the worse.
and a loss of revenue
I bet this is going to get modded down or thoroughly ignored by everyone in this thread, but I like to remind tha Yahoo is profitable to the tune of several hundreds of million USD per quarter. That's not money one would spit on, not in this climate or in any financial climate!
If that didn't quite sink in: Yahoo puts in the bank several $100.000.000/quarter.
As for no need to upgrade, XP is approaching the end of its lifespan, it's not designed for technologies such as SSD
Frankly, Vista is even less suitable for SSDs. I've heard it hammering away at the HD for no reason. For hours. That would have killed or severely wounded an SSD, especially MLC-based.
With audio, I definitely reach my "good enough" level with CD quality. That's actually above my top discernable quality.
Stuff like SACD or DVD-Audio is nothing but technological masturbation for me - and I bet for 99.999% of the people, if they are honest.
Your post is very interesting, and I like it and agree with almost all your points except
He or she will never be able to live a remotely normal or fulfilling life.
I am sure that this person, who is different physically in some ways from the average person, can have a fulfilling and happy life. Even now we have people that are much more disfigured than a neanderthal would be (and who says that with normal shaving and toilette he/she wouldn't in fact look attractive, what with being tall and extremely muscular), and they still have happy and fulfilling lives, for the most part.
OK, maybe I'm a strange kind of person (probably, since I'm an aspie), but I really like this feature. I DO repeat the same searches, occasionally. Actually, relatively often. I'm too lazy to bookmark all the stuff I find, and I have a hard time searching through my bookmark tree for a specific thing. You know that a lot of your links can be put under different categories - and by the way, wouldn't it be great if bookmarks were slightly smarter, so you can create a kind of mindmap of bookmarks? Though I would probably be too lazy to organize them into a mindmap.
So, this feature does a lot of good for my style of browsing. Find the most interesting search results, promote them, remove the obvious sh*t and spam, and off I go. Then, when I do the same search again, a month or a week later... bliss! I have the most relevant-to-me hits at the very top, and no crud.
Thank you, Google.
For you who don't like this feature; what's so hard about just ignoring it? You don't like it, then don't use it. Can't be simpler, really.
...to see a company established in a certain market, to branch out so aggressively and boldly into something... well, completely new, really.
Does anyone know if Comsol Multiphysics can be ported to CUDA?
I read your post and got brain-damaged. I would love if there was a +0, Rant-a-gogo. Seriously dude, WTF ;))))