These people aren't paid for their own work. Their salary, bonuses and benefits are meant to inspire and motivate those below to work harder. It doesn't matter what he does.
I'm sure that someone will try (or even has already tried). Something free, something in the public domain, is just another resource to grab for yourself while blocking everyone else from having access.
It's interesting to think about the fact that trees might be darker than the plants/crops/terrain that they are replacing. In this case they might contribute more to warming through albedo effects than they contribute to cooling through CO2 sequestration.
First some clever people will model the neurons in some simple animal. Some good examples might be worms or ants. They will tweak that and play with it and learn a lot about how such simple networks lead to (what appears to be) complex behaviour. Then when they have that working they'll move on to a more complex critter, and so on and so on (some recent fiction has suggested lobsters as good early choice). Eventually they'll get to something really interesting. They will have a lot of experience to draw on from simple critters. They'll be able to run many different simulations, searching some large parameter space for patterns, varying parameters etc. Eventually the simulation will be equivalent to something smart and we'll ask it to think about its own parameters. It will soon be fine tuning itself. After this point we're probably all doomed.
It is naive to think that simply appending an email with.edu will somehow lend credibility to your text. First of all there must be millions of people with email addresses like that who aren't accredited in any way. Secondly,.edu corresponds to education institutions in the United States. There are probably more experts in general who don't have.edu email addresses than there are those that do. What the author is reaching for is an open, international accreditation data bank. Your official credentials, your C.V., what ever might be useful to establish why you are significant, could be stored there, in public, for interested parties to examine. What I think is also likely, or even more likely, to happen is that chains of signed certificates will grow and support an individual's credentials. Ultimately we'll all rely on authority houses to vet individuals and assign value to their credentials. This will happen especially where people will want credit for something that might not be public. I'm sure that both of these ideas can be expanded upon (indeed I am sure that they have already been expanded upon by many others more qualified than myself) but for the sake of brevity...
Bird in this context is jargon. Jargon is often used as a shorthand by those in the know and can make their lives easier in many ways. It has also the wonderful side benefit of making sure that those who are unfamiliar with the technical issues feel dumb. So if you really want to help those unfamiliar with the technical issues don't use jargon. If you don't want to help and want to look like a wise, mysterious druid then by all means use jargon. Unfortunately I think that most of us would rather see the wise, mysterious druid crushed by a falling lintel stone.
Also it sounds a bit like movie air force talk. I'm thinking of Top Gun a little too much after hearing it. Maybe that's really what's bugging me.
Linus who? Why does it matter what one guy thinks? I suppose being the Creator gives you the power to administer blessings for a while but should that go on forever?
At one time we were an IBM AIX lab -- even had our own SP2 if you know what that is. Then we saw the light and bought cheap PCs and ran linux on them. Time went on. Now we still have a bunch of linux boxes but everyone is sitting in front of an iMac. Linux is still used but only as back end servers for compiling, data storage and analysis, no desktop work. On the Macs we are using Matlab and IDL, compiling and running our models--unix-like work. On the Macs we also get the other side of things -- iTunes, Photoshop, Illustrator, etc., even Word (I do discourage that, many of us use LaTeX). For the price of an iMac you really do seem to get the ideal mix of tools for a present-day science lab with little fuss and bother.
"A federal court recently ruled that passwords are protected under the 5th amendment."
True if you are a citizen of the United States of America. I don't imagine the USA constitution applies to foreigners. I would guess that you have no recourse whatsoever if they decided at the border (in an airport for example) that you are suspicious in some way and that they want your laptop and its data.
Not all work done by graduate students is of obviously lesser quality. Some of it is very novel. In an environment where promotion is driven by publication (and other factors as well, I admit) taking credit for some novel work by a grad student might be very appealing to some. Any time there is some benefit that can be obtained by someone in a position of power there will be those who take advantage of it and those who pass on it. By passing on the credit, doing the right thing, such individuals may obtain a different kind of status and that may appeal to them personally more than the glory being credited with hot new research results.
I agree completely. Have you ever looked down into the water before jumping off the dock into a beautiful northern lake? I have and once something was looking back. A very large reptilian something with a sharp beak, scaly shell and beady eyes. It swam away and I didn't swim that day.
My graduate supervisor was very outspoken about the fact that his name would not come first on any paper from my research. He said it was his duty to help get the work published but that I deserved the credit. He has done this consistently with all of his graduate students (MSc and PhD). So my point is that not all scientists are so unscrupulous. However, from what I have observed (a bit), the fields of anthropology, archeology and paleontology are filled with people fighting little turf wars. I have heard of people hiding material that they have discovered so that no one else would have a chance to describe it at all. Then they fight any reinterpretation of their results without regard for facts. This is why progress in these fields can be so slow. Any new interpretation is heresy. Even worse, most of the time, they have a tooth, or middle toe or something to hang entire new species on.
Slashdot Mirror
These people aren't paid for their own work. Their salary, bonuses and benefits are meant to inspire and motivate those below to work harder. It doesn't matter what he does.
Jolly good fun sir!
Good comments except that physical access being a weakness is a tenet.
I'm sure that someone will try (or even has already tried). Something free, something in the public domain, is just another resource to grab for yourself while blocking everyone else from having access.
It's interesting to think about the fact that trees might be darker than the plants/crops/terrain that they are replacing. In this case they might contribute more to warming through albedo effects than they contribute to cooling through CO2 sequestration.
First some clever people will model the neurons in some simple animal. Some good examples might be worms or ants. They will tweak that and play with it and learn a lot about how such simple networks lead to (what appears to be) complex behaviour. Then when they have that working they'll move on to a more complex critter, and so on and so on (some recent fiction has suggested lobsters as good early choice). Eventually they'll get to something really interesting. They will have a lot of experience to draw on from simple critters. They'll be able to run many different simulations, searching some large parameter space for patterns, varying parameters etc. Eventually the simulation will be equivalent to something smart and we'll ask it to think about its own parameters. It will soon be fine tuning itself. After this point we're probably all doomed.
I think those lines are made from aluminum. That's still expensive though.
Well done sir! I tip my hat to you.
It is naive to think that simply appending an email with .edu will somehow lend credibility to your text. First of all there must be millions of people with email addresses like that who aren't accredited in any way. Secondly, .edu corresponds to education institutions in the United States. There are probably more experts in general who don't have .edu email addresses than there are those that do. What the author is reaching for is an open, international accreditation data bank. Your official credentials, your C.V., what ever might be useful to establish why you are significant, could be stored there, in public, for interested parties to examine. What I think is also likely, or even more likely, to happen is that chains of signed certificates will grow and support an individual's credentials. Ultimately we'll all rely on authority houses to vet individuals and assign value to their credentials. This will happen especially where people will want credit for something that might not be public. I'm sure that both of these ideas can be expanded upon (indeed I am sure that they have already been expanded upon by many others more qualified than myself) but for the sake of brevity...
"This bird is in a decaying orbit."
Bird in this context is jargon. Jargon is often used as a shorthand by those in the know and can make their lives easier in many ways. It has also the wonderful side benefit of making sure that those who are unfamiliar with the technical issues feel dumb. So if you really want to help those unfamiliar with the technical issues don't use jargon. If you don't want to help and want to look like a wise, mysterious druid then by all means use jargon. Unfortunately I think that most of us would rather see the wise, mysterious druid crushed by a falling lintel stone.
Also it sounds a bit like movie air force talk. I'm thinking of Top Gun a little too much after hearing it. Maybe that's really what's bugging me.
Why did you insert the...dramatic pause? Does it help...explain the difference?
This is great. I really think so. Don't add the parenthetical comments next time though. Just go for it!
Linus who? Why does it matter what one guy thinks? I suppose being the Creator gives you the power to administer blessings for a while but should that go on forever?
At one time we were an IBM AIX lab -- even had our own SP2 if you know what that is. Then we saw the light and bought cheap PCs and ran linux on them. Time went on. Now we still have a bunch of linux boxes but everyone is sitting in front of an iMac. Linux is still used but only as back end servers for compiling, data storage and analysis, no desktop work. On the Macs we are using Matlab and IDL, compiling and running our models--unix-like work. On the Macs we also get the other side of things -- iTunes, Photoshop, Illustrator, etc., even Word (I do discourage that, many of us use LaTeX). For the price of an iMac you really do seem to get the ideal mix of tools for a present-day science lab with little fuss and bother.
"A federal court recently ruled that passwords are protected under the 5th amendment."
True if you are a citizen of the United States of America. I don't imagine the USA constitution applies to foreigners. I would guess that you have no recourse whatsoever if they decided at the border (in an airport for example) that you are suspicious in some way and that they want your laptop and its data.
Not all work done by graduate students is of obviously lesser quality. Some of it is very novel. In an environment where promotion is driven by publication (and other factors as well, I admit) taking credit for some novel work by a grad student might be very appealing to some. Any time there is some benefit that can be obtained by someone in a position of power there will be those who take advantage of it and those who pass on it. By passing on the credit, doing the right thing, such individuals may obtain a different kind of status and that may appeal to them personally more than the glory being credited with hot new research results.
Actually, what was old is new again ...
http://www.washington.edu/alpine/
I agree completely. Have you ever looked down into the water before jumping off the dock into a beautiful northern lake? I have and once something was looking back. A very large reptilian something with a sharp beak, scaly shell and beady eyes. It swam away and I didn't swim that day.
Why do you think that forecasting seasons is easy?
My graduate supervisor was very outspoken about the fact that his name would not come first on any paper from my research. He said it was his duty to help get the work published but that I deserved the credit. He has done this consistently with all of his graduate students (MSc and PhD). So my point is that not all scientists are so unscrupulous. However, from what I have observed (a bit), the fields of anthropology, archeology and paleontology are filled with people fighting little turf wars. I have heard of people hiding material that they have discovered so that no one else would have a chance to describe it at all. Then they fight any reinterpretation of their results without regard for facts. This is why progress in these fields can be so slow. Any new interpretation is heresy. Even worse, most of the time, they have a tooth, or middle toe or something to hang entire new species on.
My understanding was that they moved all of their business affairs to countries with lower tax regimes as well.