The reason why people get flu more often in bad weather conditions is because they all crowd inside and the contamination risk is much higher when the people density is up.
It seems to me there is information there. A tiny particle blurs to 2 um. Hence it clear that you can't meaningfully distinguish between to particles less then roughly 1 um. http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm. However, if the particles are 4 um apart I can definitely distinguish them. I am sure I can do this because if I look at the image present, the dot is blurred, meaning there are multiple pixel for the single spot. Sure it is possible the that the image is super zoomed up and what we are seeing is software smoothing of a single pixel or some kind of compression algorithm creating a false sense of resolution. To my eye this does not seem to be the case [yes, very subjective/speculative statement here]. Phone cameras are now boasting 41 MPixel chips http://www.nokia.com/us-en/phones/phone/lumia1020/specifications/ This is a lot higher spacial resolution than most scientific cameras used with fluorescent microscopes so it is not far fetched to expect camera resolution is not the limiting factor. So yes, there is a little bit of assumption that the people who built this thing knew a little bit about what they are doing and are purely "faking" it. With that in mind the basis for my claims is there in the article.
Of course the other post has plenty of hand waving. The only point of that is that there are reasons why the particular implementation may not be stupid, not that I know all the details of what was done.
It certainly is a microscope. It can build up an image out of those dots. The real question is what is the true resolution and are there meaningful applications for that resolution. Plenty of interesting things can be found without high resolution, so there needs to value provide the resolution. Those tiny dots are blurring to about 2 um. Individual cells are roughly 4 to 8 um range. So you can probably spot individual cells. This is a lot more valuable with second image, either transmitted light or a second fluorescent wavelength. With two images you can do % of cells of a certain type. For example, percent of live cells, percent of cells with a specific protein etc. You can probably get reasonable number just by coverage areas even if the cells are not separable. What you can do with a single wavelength is more limited. You can get more accurate counts, Maybe you can develop a two stage assay: Stain for article of interest, Take a picture. Stain for all cells. Now you have %.
It is not so stupid as it sounds. Yes, they basically attached a fluorescent microscope. However, there was some engineering involved and there area some benefits over a web cam. - Built in capabilities.
- connectivity allowing for remote diagnoses, software upgrades etc
- phone providing very large range of travel and maintaining data access
- storage of image can be linked with other patient data
- OS for automatic analysis, image enhancement etc
- high quality monitor with build in zoom function - Versatility. Other aspects of the phone can be used for other apps such as making phone call, looking up research or related material, GPS - Ubiquity. Smart phones are showing up all over the place,
- third world countries are skipping wired and going directly to wireless
- used equipment is available cheaply and deliver significant bang for the buck because the original purchase was defrayed by data plan - Camera quality. Phone camera quality has become quite good. - Engineering the fluorescent microscope to the form factor is not trivial. All that said, staining is probably a pretty big hurdle for field diagnostics. On the other hand a mobile clinic might have more capabilities. The device would not need to be used by one doctor making a house call..
No, no, no,I was *joking*! It really is Y2K like? Actually, I remember there were a couple of other Y2K style rollover dates people were warning about, although I can't recall if 2013 was one.
Although the exact cause of the loss is not known, analysis has uncovered a potential problem with computer time tagging that could have led to loss of control for Deep Impact's orientation.
Aha! Y2K. The time tagging problem is a little worse than presented.
Absolutely. There are many worthy causes: poverty, global warming, drugs, censorship, domestic violence, corruption, election reform, on and on. A worthy cause is just that, worthy. Working on a worthy cause should be applauded, not belittled because it is not worthy enough. In some cases, as presumably this one, the cause is combined with a profit motive. It is still better than profiting off of misery.
The way the dogs interact with robots programmed to interact like human's seems pretty analogous to the way humans interact with robot pets. How do dogs interact with robots that are programmed to act like dogs? Then we can see how the dog-bots interact with robots. Now lets add some cat-bots, mouse-bots and cheese-bots. When you stir this pot I think you end up with a Tom and Jerry cartoon that may already exist.
Copying stroke for stroke is a different thing altogether. There is a whole industry for this. http://www.artsstudio.com/ Price ranges with quality. Genuine paintings done by hand go from $200 to somewhere around $10,000 to $15,000 I think. They are not priceless. There is something about human nature the values the original. The price of art is a pure economic ideal. It is worth exactly what someone is willing to pay for it, so you can't really argue that someone overpaid.
The high end copies entail using the same techniques and materials which can be quite laborious. Some material are hand made and recreation requires a lot of specialized knowledge practice. Working with the material also takes lots of skill and practice. Glazing techniques, etc take a long time are more that stroke copy. Even if the robot can make the exact marks, the materials will come from someone else,
So if the robot is very good a stroke for stroke copy it would be better than what the low end people are producing. However, making the material and some techniques are probably outside a stroke for stroke copy. So I estimate the value at $500.
As a someone with a Masters of Fine Art in painting, I can tell you there is not a lot of interest relating to art.
First: "Our hypothesis is that painting... can be seen as optimization processes in which color is manually distributed on a canvas until the painter is able to recognize the content" is off base All the lines in all the work are all the same length and thickness. Almost no artist simple distributes color. Artist chose details and focus.In this case David is being helped because it is using composed photography to copy.
Second: Even if they could get close to copying human style, it is not that interesting precisely because it is following an algorithm. The idea "the machine might enable new techniques since labor plays no role any more" is pretty weak. Artists typical employ computers to do what a computer does well, not to imitate humans. It is quite possible someone will actually do precisely what the authors suggest and use the machines ability for work without rest. There are always artist who find ways to use tools in new ways or to use them to make commentary on the process. This puts the robot in the same league as a chainsaw for carving wood, or paint that drips down from a rope.
As someone who as worked with machine learning a bit, there is not a huge amount of interest here either.
All in all it was probably fun and interesting to work on, but not all the interesting to read about or watch.
Comparing the maps side by side, the most noticeable difference is the font size and the thickness of the route lines. This makes it seem more organized and less squeezed together. But in reality, to be able to read it from the same distance it would have to be in a larger format.
You can probably "improve" the current map by the same techniques and not have the same level of distortion. Maybe, a more detailed version can be put in pamphlet form and large station kiosks and the current form can go in each train.
It sounds like you want to work with a scientific group as a programmer, not be doing your own independent research. If this is true there are a variety of positions out there. My experience is in life sciences and imaging. There are research institution like the Broad Institute http://www.broadinstitute.org/ or HHMI Janelia Farms http://www.janelia.org/ that staff a fair number of programmers. Also, many Universities have core imaging facilities and there may be similar types of facilities in other scientific areas.
There also a significant number of companies that do research. Bioinformatics is a big topic for example pharmaceutical companies so big data experience is important. There are plenty of biotech companies too, some are providing research, some are trying to develop profitable technologies such as new tools for discovery and bio fuel etc. A number of companies that provide instrumentation and software to do research. There are a number of large players, such as Thermo Scientific, GE and Dananaher companies such as ABSciex, Beckman and Coulter. Obviously any company will be profit driven, so you will have to decide whether it is for you, but the jobs will contribute to research one way or another.
My suggestion is to get some scientific journal in you field of interest. Look at the advertiser and institution that do interesting things. Then go the websites of these places and see what openings may be out there. If you find something really interesting in a research paper that clearly involves computing you should directly contact them and see if they are interested in hiring. Most researcher are interested in the research problem and don't want to spend all there time coding. Often they are not good at finding developers just like developers are not good at finding these small research position. They may welcome someone who is interested enough in their researcher to seek them out. They might also point you to someone who will.
I agree with you and with Curt Woodward's final summation, "It makes sense, if you can stay awake." There is some meaning behind the catch phrases. I also agree with you that it about putting the overall company goals above the idiosyncratic.
I disagree that this is necessarily bad or means removing small high functioning teams. The ability for a developer to create an application that functions is different environments, such as desk top, cloud and tablet is significant. What is means for Microsoft is understanding requirements, a high level vision, and how to generate a standard across team. This is the kind of thing a large company can do. They can make their own de facto standard and stick to it. Sometime that means their engineers can't do things the most natural way for a specific environment, but being intuitive for the internal engineer is not the most important element of the product. How it suits the customers, such as an external engineer and end users is what matters.
Sure their needs to be tailoring by the external engineer so that the application would suite a give format. But this is a lot different than having to retool the whole thing because each technology from the same company is fundamentally different.
The plane had to support the weight of the batteries and the solar cells. It had to be able to lift off and travel across the country so it could not rely on ridge lift for most sections of the flight. This same plane made it over night, all be it with the help of sailplane flying techniques. However, it is not, in fact, designed to be a sailplane nor does if function solely as one.
As someone who hires from time to time, I am always impressed when people show they can adjust to different situations and learn quickly. I think in the interview you should emphasis the variety of challenges you faced. I think there is often a fear that a military person may be rigid. The concern is that the candidate will be unbending or may follow orders without thinking for themselves. Show that you are able to recognize how different environment require different approaches. Tell how quickly you were able to succeed in situation which were outside your previous experience.
I agree with the rest of the posts that it is all about the business case. One critical component is how easy it will be for someone else to duplicate if the business is successful. Patents can be worked around and expose key elements of the technology to examination, so it is OK for someone else to accomplish the same results with a different mechanism. Technically algorithms can't be patented, but you can patent it, if you say its part of a system. So it may be more valuable if you have something so advance that no one else is capable of reproducing it. If you have years of research with top level people then you should mention it in the presentation. This includes marketing research etc. Being first to market is also important, and you will be asked how you know someone is not doing the exact same thing right now and has it ready to launch. Anything that makes your work unique will help answer the question.
Sorry. I wasn't really serious. I should have been more clear about that. Maybe a;). My point is that the sample is non-statistical in nature. There are many possible explanation of why the reports would be skewed. Included in this would be reasons why one group of the other was being more prone to being caught.
I know gender issues are really challenging subject, especially in science. I think the exchange here highlights the point. The direct meaning of what I wrote is that men are not even good at cheating. It is interpreted as bias because of the stereotypes in the culture. The accurate interpretation is that I'm not very good at making a point.
In all honesty I know lots of scientists, Some are really good at what they do some aren't. Gender does not make an appreciable difference from what I have noticed. With older scientists, now near retirement age, what I have seen is that all the women are quite good. I think this is because only the really good ones could succeed despite the biases. Of course this is very anecdotal and I am no expert in judging scientists.
From my reading of the article, the point seems to be that people apply game theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory) modeling to real world problems using the assumption that everyone understand the system. This is one of two of the most problematic tenants with economic modeling. The other is that people behave in their rational best interest. The emerging idea of behavioral economics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_economics) is one way people are looking to address that. I think the article is try to push home that that people can't and don't behave rationally if the system is too complex. So they are saying this needs to be accounted for in predictive modeling.
It is the article and the post that says that entrepreneurs innovate better. They are referencing "common knowledge". Based on later quotes in the article the research does not appear to make any such claim. The research just seems to be that they are creating more emotionally. Whether this is an advantage in anyway is an open question. Certainly you can hardly be impressed by innovation of the "snuggie". It is possible that thinking emotionally and artistically might allow an entrepreneur to think further outside the box. If so, then there could be a wider range of quality from entrepreneurs, and thus some of the biggest innovations. However, I tend to believe the common knowledge is because of how memorably and notable it is when an entrepreneur becomes success with a new product. When companies started producing a new products, such as USB thumb drives or whatever you might think of, it tends to be considered more of an inevitable or natural progression than as innovative. Perhaps there is a feeling that a group can't be innovative and that managers do not come up with ideas, and rather idea are formed by the group. Perhaps the entrepreneur is noteworthy because he is the exception and manages to forge a company against long odds. Maybe it is just because he makes a big deal of himself. I am sure sometime the common knowledge comes from ideas that companies rejected but went on to be successful.
I so baffled by this comment: 'I'm so baffled by this idea that we're not supposed to Google people,' says Dean Olsher. 'Why would there be a line? Like everyone else is allowed to know something but I'm not?'
Googling someone and reading things they have posted is not so good but not too bad either. People probably expect time and obscurity will make them anonymous to future acquaintences.
Looking through everything that is available through google or on line is like rifling through someone personal papers on their desk. You might find some payroll item on a persons desk at work, or you might find letters at someones home. Both are way out of line. You have access to them but not because the individual expected you to access them. There is no law preventing you from reading the material but you are breaking a social contract. It is OK for everyone else to know something because it can't be prevent. This is not the same as it is OK for my friend to dig for dirt on line.
I do Google a couple fo friends occasionally. These friends will sometimes be interviewed or have a lecture posted. I assume I don't hear from the them directly because they assume I am not that interested. I get the benefit of hearing more about my friends. These are current presentations of themselves and we have been close friends for a long time. So I think I am not crossing any lines. I could imagine cases when even doing this would be somewhat unappropriate.
Surely you must be jonking that no one has yet mention "Surely You Must Be Joking Mr Feynman". An amazing set anecdotes. There is a lot in there about winging it and taking risks. Also some lessons in paying attention to what is going on around you.
For Coding: Head First Design Patterns. I didn't really get patterns until I read this. This may be because of my general coding level at the time, but understanding patterns was an import step for me.
For User Interface Design: About Face by Cooper and Spolsky on Software. About Face was dated even when I read it many years ago. It also way too much on details. Spolsky has to be tempered somewhat. However both books get straight to the heart of user interface design and they don't read like textbooks like most user experience books I see these days.
For Life: As much different fiction as I could get. Hemingway may be one the top for me. I learned a lot about integrity and perseverance. In non ficition I got a lot of out of GK Chesterton and the importance of attitude and perspective, even though I was never, and never will be, a Catholic
Here is my list of what I would put into a report on the benefits:
1) History/Debugging: It lets us review what changes are made when and why. This can really help debugging because we often know when the problem started showing up so we can see what changed and what might have beend the cause.
2) Undo: We can go back to an earlier version when some changes we made were bad or headed in the wronge direction
3) Collaboration: It has powerful tools for collaboration that make it easier for team to work on a project at the same time
4) Sand Box: It provides a way to create local trial versions that are not shared by everyone and can be merged in later.
5) Backup: Organized system of backup and retrieval, nothing is accidentally lost and we don't each come up with out own way to back it files
6) Versioning/Stability: It allows us to have some people fixing bugs in the version everyone is using while most people are working on new features. So no one has to deal with an unstable version in order to get an update with fixed bugs.
Personally I would like to a see a good layout for one hand. Hold the device in one hand and type with the other. No more typing with thumbs. One thing this layout has going for it is more rows so each key is not squeezed together so tightly. I don't thing this app has any chance of growing to a standard. However if apple were to push a more natural layout for phones then I could see it overtaking qwerty. I could even see it make its way back to the PC where one hand could do the typing and the other could stay on the mouse. Such a change seems possible to me, although not necessarily likely.
Slashdot Mirror
The reason why people get flu more often in bad weather conditions is because they all crowd inside and the contamination risk is much higher when the people density is up.
There is some evidence that is does actually relate to the bad whether. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/12/121204162125.htm
It seems to me there is information there. A tiny particle blurs to 2 um. Hence it clear that you can't meaningfully distinguish between to particles less then roughly 1 um. http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm. However, if the particles are 4 um apart I can definitely distinguish them. I am sure I can do this because if I look at the image present, the dot is blurred, meaning there are multiple pixel for the single spot. Sure it is possible the that the image is super zoomed up and what we are seeing is software smoothing of a single pixel or some kind of compression algorithm creating a false sense of resolution. To my eye this does not seem to be the case [yes, very subjective/speculative statement here]. Phone cameras are now boasting 41 MPixel chips http://www.nokia.com/us-en/phones/phone/lumia1020/specifications/ This is a lot higher spacial resolution than most scientific cameras used with fluorescent microscopes so it is not far fetched to expect camera resolution is not the limiting factor. So yes, there is a little bit of assumption that the people who built this thing knew a little bit about what they are doing and are purely "faking" it. With that in mind the basis for my claims is there in the article.
Of course the other post has plenty of hand waving. The only point of that is that there are reasons why the particular implementation may not be stupid, not that I know all the details of what was done.
It certainly is a microscope. It can build up an image out of those dots. The real question is what is the true resolution and are there meaningful applications for that resolution. Plenty of interesting things can be found without high resolution, so there needs to value provide the resolution. Those tiny dots are blurring to about 2 um. Individual cells are roughly 4 to 8 um range. So you can probably spot individual cells. This is a lot more valuable with second image, either transmitted light or a second fluorescent wavelength. With two images you can do % of cells of a certain type. For example, percent of live cells, percent of cells with a specific protein etc. You can probably get reasonable number just by coverage areas even if the cells are not separable. What you can do with a single wavelength is more limited. You can get more accurate counts, Maybe you can develop a two stage assay: Stain for article of interest, Take a picture. Stain for all cells. Now you have %.
It is not so stupid as it sounds. Yes, they basically attached a fluorescent microscope. However, there was some engineering involved and there area some benefits over a web cam.
- Built in capabilities.
- connectivity allowing for remote diagnoses, software upgrades etc
- phone providing very large range of travel and maintaining data access
- storage of image can be linked with other patient data
- OS for automatic analysis, image enhancement etc
- high quality monitor with build in zoom function
- Versatility. Other aspects of the phone can be used for other apps such as making phone call, looking up research or related material, GPS
- Ubiquity. Smart phones are showing up all over the place,
- third world countries are skipping wired and going directly to wireless
- used equipment is available cheaply and deliver significant bang for the buck because the original purchase was defrayed by data plan
- Camera quality. Phone camera quality has become quite good.
- Engineering the fluorescent microscope to the form factor is not trivial.
All that said, staining is probably a pretty big hurdle for field diagnostics. On the other hand a mobile clinic might have more capabilities. The device would not need to be used by one doctor making a house call..
No, no, no,I was *joking*! It really is Y2K like? Actually, I remember there were a couple of other Y2K style rollover dates people were warning about, although I can't recall if 2013 was one.
So this is now my 3rd favorite software bug, following:
1) Ariane 5 16 bit speed roll over http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariane_5
2) Mars Climate Orbiter pound-force/newtons fiasco http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Climate_Orbiter
Aha! Y2K. The time tagging problem is a little worse than presented.
False Dichotomy.
Absolutely. There are many worthy causes: poverty, global warming, drugs, censorship, domestic violence, corruption, election reform, on and on. A worthy cause is just that, worthy. Working on a worthy cause should be applauded, not belittled because it is not worthy enough. In some cases, as presumably this one, the cause is combined with a profit motive. It is still better than profiting off of misery.
Poit!
The way the dogs interact with robots programmed to interact like human's seems pretty analogous to the way humans interact with robot pets. How do dogs interact with robots that are programmed to act like dogs? Then we can see how the dog-bots interact with robots. Now lets add some cat-bots, mouse-bots and cheese-bots. When you stir this pot I think you end up with a Tom and Jerry cartoon that may already exist.
Copying stroke for stroke is a different thing altogether. There is a whole industry for this. http://www.artsstudio.com/ Price ranges with quality. Genuine paintings done by hand go from $200 to somewhere around $10,000 to $15,000 I think. They are not priceless. There is something about human nature the values the original. The price of art is a pure economic ideal. It is worth exactly what someone is willing to pay for it, so you can't really argue that someone overpaid.
The high end copies entail using the same techniques and materials which can be quite laborious. Some material are hand made and recreation requires a lot of specialized knowledge practice. Working with the material also takes lots of skill and practice. Glazing techniques, etc take a long time are more that stroke copy. Even if the robot can make the exact marks, the materials will come from someone else,
So if the robot is very good a stroke for stroke copy it would be better than what the low end people are producing. However, making the material and some techniques are probably outside a stroke for stroke copy. So I estimate the value at $500.
As a someone with a Masters of Fine Art in painting, I can tell you there is not a lot of interest relating to art.
First: "Our hypothesis is that painting ... can be seen as optimization processes in which color is manually distributed on a canvas until the painter is able to recognize the content" is off base
All the lines in all the work are all the same length and thickness. Almost no artist simple distributes color. Artist chose details and focus.In this case David is being helped because it is using composed photography to copy.
Second: Even if they could get close to copying human style, it is not that interesting precisely because it is following an algorithm. The idea "the machine might enable new techniques since labor plays no role any more" is pretty weak. Artists typical employ computers to do what a computer does well, not to imitate humans. It is quite possible someone will actually do precisely what the authors suggest and use the machines ability for work without rest. There are always artist who find ways to use tools in new ways or to use them to make commentary on the process. This puts the robot in the same league as a chainsaw for carving wood, or paint that drips down from a rope.
As someone who as worked with machine learning a bit, there is not a huge amount of interest here either.
All in all it was probably fun and interesting to work on, but not all the interesting to read about or watch.
Comparing the maps side by side, the most noticeable difference is the font size and the thickness of the route lines. This makes it seem more organized and less squeezed together. But in reality, to be able to read it from the same distance it would have to be in a larger format.
You can probably "improve" the current map by the same techniques and not have the same level of distortion. Maybe, a more detailed version can be put in pamphlet form and large station kiosks and the current form can go in each train.
It sounds like you want to work with a scientific group as a programmer, not be doing your own independent research. If this is true there are a variety of positions out there. My experience is in life sciences and imaging. There are research institution like the Broad Institute http://www.broadinstitute.org/ or HHMI Janelia Farms http://www.janelia.org/ that staff a fair number of programmers. Also, many Universities have core imaging facilities and there may be similar types of facilities in other scientific areas.
There also a significant number of companies that do research. Bioinformatics is a big topic for example pharmaceutical companies so big data experience is important. There are plenty of biotech companies too, some are providing research, some are trying to develop profitable technologies such as new tools for discovery and bio fuel etc. A number of companies that provide instrumentation and software to do research. There are a number of large players, such as Thermo Scientific, GE and Dananaher companies such as ABSciex, Beckman and Coulter. Obviously any company will be profit driven, so you will have to decide whether it is for you, but the jobs will contribute to research one way or another.
My suggestion is to get some scientific journal in you field of interest. Look at the advertiser and institution that do interesting things. Then go the websites of these places and see what openings may be out there. If you find something really interesting in a research paper that clearly involves computing you should directly contact them and see if they are interested in hiring. Most researcher are interested in the research problem and don't want to spend all there time coding. Often they are not good at finding developers just like developers are not good at finding these small research position. They may welcome someone who is interested enough in their researcher to seek them out. They might also point you to someone who will.
I agree with you and with Curt Woodward's final summation, "It makes sense, if you can stay awake." There is some meaning behind the catch phrases. I also agree with you that it about putting the overall company goals above the idiosyncratic.
I disagree that this is necessarily bad or means removing small high functioning teams. The ability for a developer to create an application that functions is different environments, such as desk top, cloud and tablet is significant. What is means for Microsoft is understanding requirements, a high level vision, and how to generate a standard across team. This is the kind of thing a large company can do. They can make their own de facto standard and stick to it. Sometime that means their engineers can't do things the most natural way for a specific environment, but being intuitive for the internal engineer is not the most important element of the product. How it suits the customers, such as an external engineer and end users is what matters.
Sure their needs to be tailoring by the external engineer so that the application would suite a give format. But this is a lot different than having to retool the whole thing because each technology from the same company is fundamentally different.
The plane had to support the weight of the batteries and the solar cells. It had to be able to lift off and travel across the country so it could not rely on ridge lift for most sections of the flight. This same plane made it over night, all be it with the help of sailplane flying techniques. However, it is not, in fact, designed to be a sailplane nor does if function solely as one.
As someone who hires from time to time, I am always impressed when people show they can adjust to different situations and learn quickly. I think in the interview you should emphasis the variety of challenges you faced. I think there is often a fear that a military person may be rigid. The concern is that the candidate will be unbending or may follow orders without thinking for themselves. Show that you are able to recognize how different environment require different approaches. Tell how quickly you were able to succeed in situation which were outside your previous experience.
I agree with the rest of the posts that it is all about the business case. One critical component is how easy it will be for someone else to duplicate if the business is successful. Patents can be worked around and expose key elements of the technology to examination, so it is OK for someone else to accomplish the same results with a different mechanism. Technically algorithms can't be patented, but you can patent it, if you say its part of a system. So it may be more valuable if you have something so advance that no one else is capable of reproducing it. If you have years of research with top level people then you should mention it in the presentation. This includes marketing research etc. Being first to market is also important, and you will be asked how you know someone is not doing the exact same thing right now and has it ready to launch. Anything that makes your work unique will help answer the question.
Sorry. I wasn't really serious. I should have been more clear about that. Maybe a ;). My point is that the sample is non-statistical in nature. There are many possible explanation of why the reports would be skewed. Included in this would be reasons why one group of the other was being more prone to being caught.
I know gender issues are really challenging subject, especially in science. I think the exchange here highlights the point. The direct meaning of what I wrote is that men are not even good at cheating. It is interpreted as bias because of the stereotypes in the culture. The accurate interpretation is that I'm not very good at making a point.
In all honesty I know lots of scientists, Some are really good at what they do some aren't. Gender does not make an appreciable difference from what I have noticed. With older scientists, now near retirement age, what I have seen is that all the women are quite good. I think this is because only the really good ones could succeed despite the biases. Of course this is very anecdotal and I am no expert in judging scientists.
Female scientist are just better at getting away with it.
From my reading of the article, the point seems to be that people apply game theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory) modeling to real world problems using the assumption that everyone understand the system. This is one of two of the most problematic tenants with economic modeling. The other is that people behave in their rational best interest. The emerging idea of behavioral economics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_economics) is one way people are looking to address that. I think the article is try to push home that that people can't and don't behave rationally if the system is too complex. So they are saying this needs to be accounted for in predictive modeling.
It is the article and the post that says that entrepreneurs innovate better. They are referencing "common knowledge". Based on later quotes in the article the research does not appear to make any such claim. The research just seems to be that they are creating more emotionally. Whether this is an advantage in anyway is an open question. Certainly you can hardly be impressed by innovation of the "snuggie". It is possible that thinking emotionally and artistically might allow an entrepreneur to think further outside the box. If so, then there could be a wider range of quality from entrepreneurs, and thus some of the biggest innovations. However, I tend to believe the common knowledge is because of how memorably and notable it is when an entrepreneur becomes success with a new product. When companies started producing a new products, such as USB thumb drives or whatever you might think of, it tends to be considered more of an inevitable or natural progression than as innovative. Perhaps there is a feeling that a group can't be innovative and that managers do not come up with ideas, and rather idea are formed by the group. Perhaps the entrepreneur is noteworthy because he is the exception and manages to forge a company against long odds. Maybe it is just because he makes a big deal of himself. I am sure sometime the common knowledge comes from ideas that companies rejected but went on to be successful.
I so baffled by this comment: 'I'm so baffled by this idea that we're not supposed to Google people,' says Dean Olsher. 'Why would there be a line? Like everyone else is allowed to know something but I'm not?'
Googling someone and reading things they have posted is not so good but not too bad either. People probably expect time and obscurity will make them anonymous to future acquaintences.
Looking through everything that is available through google or on line is like rifling through someone personal papers on their desk. You might find some payroll item on a persons desk at work, or you might find letters at someones home. Both are way out of line. You have access to them but not because the individual expected you to access them. There is no law preventing you from reading the material but you are breaking a social contract. It is OK for everyone else to know something because it can't be prevent. This is not the same as it is OK for my friend to dig for dirt on line.
I do Google a couple fo friends occasionally. These friends will sometimes be interviewed or have a lecture posted. I assume I don't hear from the them directly because they assume I am not that interested. I get the benefit of hearing more about my friends. These are current presentations of themselves and we have been close friends for a long time. So I think I am not crossing any lines. I could imagine cases when even doing this would be somewhat unappropriate.
Surely you must be jonking that no one has yet mention "Surely You Must Be Joking Mr Feynman". An amazing set anecdotes. There is a lot in there about winging it and taking risks. Also some lessons in paying attention to what is going on around you.
For Coding: Head First Design Patterns. I didn't really get patterns until I read this. This may be because of my general coding level at the time, but understanding patterns was an import step for me.
For User Interface Design: About Face by Cooper and Spolsky on Software. About Face was dated even when I read it many years ago. It also way too much on details. Spolsky has to be tempered somewhat. However both books get straight to the heart of user interface design and they don't read like textbooks like most user experience books I see these days.
For Life: As much different fiction as I could get. Hemingway may be one the top for me. I learned a lot about integrity and perseverance. In non ficition I got a lot of out of GK Chesterton and the importance of attitude and perspective, even though I was never, and never will be, a Catholic
Here is my list of what I would put into a report on the benefits: 1) History/Debugging: It lets us review what changes are made when and why. This can really help debugging because we often know when the problem started showing up so we can see what changed and what might have beend the cause. 2) Undo: We can go back to an earlier version when some changes we made were bad or headed in the wronge direction 3) Collaboration: It has powerful tools for collaboration that make it easier for team to work on a project at the same time 4) Sand Box: It provides a way to create local trial versions that are not shared by everyone and can be merged in later. 5) Backup: Organized system of backup and retrieval, nothing is accidentally lost and we don't each come up with out own way to back it files 6) Versioning/Stability: It allows us to have some people fixing bugs in the version everyone is using while most people are working on new features. So no one has to deal with an unstable version in order to get an update with fixed bugs.
Personally I would like to a see a good layout for one hand. Hold the device in one hand and type with the other. No more typing with thumbs. One thing this layout has going for it is more rows so each key is not squeezed together so tightly. I don't thing this app has any chance of growing to a standard. However if apple were to push a more natural layout for phones then I could see it overtaking qwerty. I could even see it make its way back to the PC where one hand could do the typing and the other could stay on the mouse. Such a change seems possible to me, although not necessarily likely.