"Your academic papers don't have such a licensce. They are cited because it's considered unethical not to do so. The same would apply to using your source code."
You'd certainly think so, but it turns out that lots and lots of people either 1) don't mention the software at all or 2) mention the software by name, but don't include a citation.
People often think 2) is OK because it allows people to reproduce the results of the paper.
I happen to have a decent amount of experience with this, haven written some software that's used in at least 10x more papers than the number in which it's cited.
Crystalization is difficult and, frankly, rather unscientific You're not kidding. My favorite example is the fact that many crystallographers add diet coke to aid in crystallization.
it would also last about five hours before wearing and needing replacement. I'd wager a properly constructed duct tape wallet with the foil embedded would last an order of magnitude longer than a quick fix foil solution.
wow, an order of magnitude longer, eh? that's over two whole days! sign me up!:)
The linked page is NSFW
on
Defeating Captcha
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Editors -
Please don't link to the goatse man without at least some warning.
You seem to forget that most professors, even those in computer science, don't have an IT background and don't think of things like "web logs". Even those that do aren't generally going to have access to the logs on their departmental webservers.
I think you're pretty wrong here. Many resources are hosted in the lab, rather than by the department. Looking at the logs is easy. I am quite sure that people do it. We submitted a paper recently where it would have been very easy to determine the reviewers by looking at the logs. We didn't, but it would have been dead simple.
This can be particularly bad because, in academia, there are quite a few people who hold grudges for way too long.
there's a lot of opportunity in going straight to University, and exploring your options there.
I don't know for sure, but I would guess that it's easier to get into college and then take a year off than it is to take a year off first. I wasn't sure that I wanted to go to college straight out of highschool, but I did anyway. After my 2nd year, I was clearly unhappy, so I took a year off (I was a City Year corps member if you're interested).
Taking a year off was a great idea for me; it made things much more clear in my head, and I went back to college knowing exactly why I was there.
Do something interesting, though. Don't be one of those poor souls that go to high school, go to college, get a job, turn 30 and wonder why they're stuck with a job that makes you miserable.
XEmacs didn't want to be left out. If you copy and paste into XEmacs (SuSE 9.2.. dunno about Windows), it still says paypal. The "a" looks a little larger than normal, though.
I read the Nature summary, but no real articles.. anyone know how they do the "working backwards" thing? I would've guessed some sort of Bayesian analysis, just like most people use to come up with phylogenetic trees, but it sounds like there's something more interesting going on here.
Early timings showed that generators had a significant performance advantage over list comprehensions. However, the latter were highly optimized for Py2.4 and now the performance is roughly comparable for small to mid-sized data sets. As the data volumes grow larger, generator expressions tend to perform better because they do not exhaust cache memory and they allow Python to re-use objects between iterations.
I think I know where the OP got the idea that genexps would be slow.. function calls are slow in Python.. in things like for loops, but not in places like genexps and maps. It's a good idea to test something out before you make claims about its speed.
>>> a = set(('this','works','with','words','too','this','a lso','works','with','objects','like','numbers',1)) >>> 'this' in a True >>> 'that' in a False >>> 1 in a True >>> '_'.join(str(item) for item in a) '1_like_this_also_objects_too_words_works_with _numbers'
That's a good point. If I could mod it up, I would.. my reply should get rated higher than an AC reply, though, so if the OP is still looking at this thread, maybe this'll catch his eye.
Perl also has the right license (GPL). Is Python out of the question for such a project, since it's not GPL?
Did you just say "I can only use GPL'd things. Python isn't GPL'd. Can I use it?" I'll assume you meant something like "I want something with a nice license. Does Python have a nice license?" instead. If that's what you meant, you should check out the Python license for yourself. Summary: it's a nice license. It's a certified Open Source license, imposes fewer restrictions than the GPL and is compatible with the GPL.
Python definitely doesn't fit into 5000 lines of source, though, so Perl1 might be a better bet. PyPy is pretty cool, if you're looking for something smallish and Pythonish.
Sorry if you're looking for something else and these comments turn out to be totally useless.
Don't be silly. You make it sound like his view, and the view of the IE team, is that a large number of people don't want security patches for old systems. What he said is this:
Here's another eWeek article on the same subject. You'll note that some people interviewed want an update for Win2K while some people do not.
And the article he's talking about has one person saying
he would much rather see Microsoft spend resources supporting current and future product releases rather than older ones.
So, fine, you may disagree with that, but it's not quite the fantastical position that you imply.
Right. I think it's clear from your post and zandermander's post that I'm definately underestimating how much competitive marathoners (and probably competitive runners, for that matter) run. Sorry about that.
I've been running for about 22 years now, ran competitively in HS and college and continue to race.
you've definately got me beat, then!
For "serious" marathoning, I'd say you need to do a minimum of 40-60 MPW. Elite athletes (read: Olympic studs) run around 100 as a minimum but some, such as the legendary Zapotek (spelling?) ran upwards of 180-200 MPW.
sounds about right. i also think there was a time when the standard german (might've been chinese) training program was to run really high distances like that. i think their standard runs were 40+ miles.
I and some friends find our limit when working full time is around 90-110 MPW but we do know people that do more. They are also probably certified OCD (Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder). I'm just a little bit OCD.;-)
i'm running a marathon in a few weeks, and i'm impressed that ya'll can fit 90-110 MPW in with full time jobs. i'm a grad student, so i work a little more than full time, but i have to work at it to fit 40-50 in. i'm not what you'd call a "serious" marathoner, though.. i'm not super fast, and i mostly run trails.
too much pavement kills my knees and shins. i didn't think i'd ever be able to run a marathon until my wife convinced me to train for a trail marathon. hills can be tough, but at least i can still walk the next day:).
One of my goals in the last year was to see what I could do and I was in a place, geographically, mentally, financially that allowed me to do nothing but run. That was when I reached 140 MPW; I also brought my marathon time down by a significant amount.
i definately believe it. i don't know if my body could take that, but i'd like to try sometime.
i think most folks who run their first marathon are definately in danger of overtraining.
also, now that i think about it some more, i'm definately underestimating the mileage my ultramarathon friends put in.
Are you serious about the 140 miles per week thing? That seems way high. I don't know any ultramarathoners, much less marathoners, who run that much consistently.
For instance, Hal Higdon'sadvanced training schedules peak around 50 miles per week. I'm sure you know what you're doing, but you should definately be careful.
A friend of mine can't run right now because he tried to combine speed and distance training by making his Saturday runs 20 6:30 miles.. inflamed bursa on his hip.. sucks. Be careful.
OK, I'm intrigued now. I've read quite a few intro Quantum books, but I haven't read Shankar. I'll check it out.
When I went back to Griffiths after some more advanced books (Cohen and Tannoudji, Sakurai, etc.), I was a little disappointed that he didn't use Dirac notation more, but I remember that a lot of my classmates were pretty happy with the balance he struck.
There is absolutely no question. David Griffith's Introduction to Quantum Mechanics is by far the best intro book out there. His prose is amazing, his explainations are always interesting and illuminating, and (pehaps best of all), he always gets the math right.
If you haven't poked around in a lot of intro (or "advanced"!) quantum books, you may not realize how important those things (especially the math bit) are. But it wouldn't matter if hadn't read any other books. If you gave them all a fair shot, you'd choose Griffiths because his explanations are just so much better than everyone else's.
Trust me. Griffiths.
Once you've read it, you may be ready for something more advanced (maybe Sakurai, or even the poorly written but still amazingly complete Cohen and Tannoudji, or even Feynman's QED), but nothing compares to Griffiths for a good introduction to Quantum.
Note that the only "special content" offered on a search for yankee scores is a solitary "sponsor link." Maybe the article should have used an example that actually works (like final four for instance).
Slashdot Mirror
"Your academic papers don't have such a licensce. They are cited because it's considered unethical not to do so. The same would apply to using your source code."
You'd certainly think so, but it turns out that lots and lots of people either 1) don't mention the software at all or 2) mention the software by name, but don't include a citation.
People often think 2) is OK because it allows people to reproduce the results of the paper.
I happen to have a decent amount of experience with this, haven written some software that's used in at least 10x more papers than the number in which it's cited.
Paging http://oneworldhealth.org/ ...
Having a reporter watching the whole thing probably didn't hurt.
Crystalization is difficult and, frankly, rather unscientific
You're not kidding. My favorite example is the fact that many crystallographers add diet coke to aid in crystallization.
it would also last about five hours before wearing and needing replacement. I'd wager a properly constructed duct tape wallet with the foil embedded would last an order of magnitude longer than a quick fix foil solution.
:)
wow, an order of magnitude longer, eh? that's over two whole days! sign me up!
Editors -
Please don't link to the goatse man without at least some warning.
Thanks.
I think you're pretty wrong here. Many resources are hosted in the lab, rather than by the department. Looking at the logs is easy. I am quite sure that people do it. We submitted a paper recently where it would have been very easy to determine the reviewers by looking at the logs. We didn't, but it would have been dead simple.
This can be particularly bad because, in academia, there are quite a few people who hold grudges for way too long.
I don't know for sure, but I would guess that it's easier to get into college and then take a year off than it is to take a year off first. I wasn't sure that I wanted to go to college straight out of highschool, but I did anyway. After my 2nd year, I was clearly unhappy, so I took a year off (I was a City Year corps member if you're interested).
Taking a year off was a great idea for me; it made things much more clear in my head, and I went back to college knowing exactly why I was there.
Do something interesting, though. Don't be one of those poor souls that go to high school, go to college, get a job, turn 30 and wonder why they're stuck with a job that makes you miserable.
XEmacs didn't want to be left out. If you copy and paste into XEmacs (SuSE 9.2 .. dunno about Windows), it still says paypal. The "a" looks a little larger than normal, though.
I read the Nature summary, but no real articles .. anyone know how they do the "working backwards" thing? I would've guessed some sort of Bayesian analysis, just like most people use to come up with phylogenetic trees, but it sounds like there's something more interesting going on here.
Yup. Like the PEP says,
I think I know where the OP got the idea that genexps would be slow
Nice :). That wasn't a sig (I can't tell if you realized this), and I'm not always tired and cranky, but that just makes your reply funnier.
Eh? That makes my brain hurt. What did they say "in no uncertain terms?"
The image of them standing around and yelling "are the delays in opening the game to the customers their fault" is funny, though.
I'm guessing this meant to say "Voodoo Extreme has news from Steam that says, in no uncertain terms, that the delays are not Steam's fault."
Note: my comment has no useful content. I'm just tired and cranky.
That's a good point. If I could mod it up, I would .. my reply should get rated higher than an AC reply, though, so if the OP is still looking at this thread, maybe this'll catch his eye.
you might want to check out ANTLR.
Did you just say "I can only use GPL'd things. Python isn't GPL'd. Can I use it?" I'll assume you meant something like "I want something with a nice license. Does Python have a nice license?" instead. If that's what you meant, you should check out the Python license for yourself. Summary: it's a nice license. It's a certified Open Source license, imposes fewer restrictions than the GPL and is compatible with the GPL.
Python definitely doesn't fit into 5000 lines of source, though, so Perl1 might be a better bet. PyPy is pretty cool, if you're looking for something smallish and Pythonish.
Sorry if you're looking for something else and these comments turn out to be totally useless.
it's not.
(sorry. couldn't resist.)
And the article he's talking about has one person saying
So, fine, you may disagree with that, but it's not quite the fantastical position that you imply.
It's hard to believe that the sampling is any good when this site's results have Kerry up 72% to 20% among USA voters..
Right. I think it's clear from your post and zandermander's post that I'm definately underestimating how much competitive marathoners (and probably competitive runners, for that matter) run. Sorry about that.
you've definately got me beat, then!
sounds about right. i also think there was a time when the standard german (might've been chinese) training program was to run really high distances like that. i think their standard runs were 40+ miles.
i'm running a marathon in a few weeks, and i'm impressed that ya'll can fit 90-110 MPW in with full time jobs. i'm a grad student, so i work a little more than full time, but i have to work at it to fit 40-50 in. i'm not what you'd call a "serious" marathoner, though
too much pavement kills my knees and shins. i didn't think i'd ever be able to run a marathon until my wife convinced me to train for a trail marathon. hills can be tough, but at least i can still walk the next day
i definately believe it. i don't know if my body could take that, but i'd like to try sometime.
i think most folks who run their first marathon are definately in danger of overtraining.
also, now that i think about it some more, i'm definately underestimating the mileage my ultramarathon friends put in.
Are you serious about the 140 miles per week thing? That seems way high. I don't know any ultramarathoners, much less marathoners, who run that much consistently.
.. inflamed bursa on his hip .. sucks. Be careful.
For instance, Hal Higdon's advanced training schedules peak around 50 miles per week. I'm sure you know what you're doing, but you should definately be careful.
A friend of mine can't run right now because he tried to combine speed and distance training by making his Saturday runs 20 6:30 miles
OK, I'm intrigued now. I've read quite a few intro Quantum books, but I haven't read Shankar. I'll check it out.
When I went back to Griffiths after some more advanced books (Cohen and Tannoudji, Sakurai, etc.), I was a little disappointed that he didn't use Dirac notation more, but I remember that a lot of my classmates were pretty happy with the balance he struck.
Thanks for the recommendation.
There is absolutely no question. David Griffith's Introduction to Quantum Mechanics is by far the best intro book out there. His prose is amazing, his explainations are always interesting and illuminating, and (pehaps best of all), he always gets the math right.
If you haven't poked around in a lot of intro (or "advanced"!) quantum books, you may not realize how important those things (especially the math bit) are. But it wouldn't matter if hadn't read any other books. If you gave them all a fair shot, you'd choose Griffiths because his explanations are just so much better than everyone else's.
Trust me. Griffiths.
Once you've read it, you may be ready for something more advanced (maybe Sakurai, or even the poorly written but still amazingly complete Cohen and Tannoudji, or even Feynman's QED), but nothing compares to Griffiths for a good introduction to Quantum.
Note that the only "special content" offered on a search for yankee scores is a solitary "sponsor link." Maybe the article should have used an example that actually works (like final four for instance).