When people WANT to view an advertisement, we'll look for a product then.
ThinkGeek proves you wrong... I didn't know I wanted *half* that stuff! Seriously, targeting a specialist *site* works wonders, while targeting an individual is annoying. It's old technique though; for example, in specialist-enough niche (print) magazines for hobbyists, the ads are actually quite often interesting and useful to their audience.
Shows how much you know. "Heavy thunderstorms expected in the Sierra Nevadas with potential hail" is actually code for "Execute Plan Alpha; bomb Beijing immediately."
Hey, we at NOAA do oceanography too, and we had absolutely nothing to do with those reports of that giant-tentacled rubber-suit-looking creatures that washed up oh excuse me, my boss is trying to tell me someth
I'm in my 40s now, and time is so precious and I just see something like this as a sad waste.
At least you have time to comment about it on Slashdot:). I'm in my 40s, feel the time pressure daily, then two weeks ago randomly decided to implement a sort algorithm in Brainfuck (a language I'd never tried before). Engrossing, relaxing, and pleasurable, and utterly useless. Reminded me of how fun some of all this can be. Thought for thought's sake: makes you stronger.
Joysticks always worked best in an arcade environment where the rotational forces were absorbed by the heavy machines rather than your hands.
I'm surprised noone's mentioned the other end of the spectrum: The precision Apple II dual-pot analog approach. The fine-scaled two-fingered control that you have over your choplifter can't be beat for carefully landing on...er...rescuing hostages.
Of course, that led to the raging debate: self-centering or non-self-centering?
I'm sure any number of people would love to gain access to government data or databases.
My agency was and is quite proactive at promoting telecommuting, trip reduction, alternate transport (good thing too... NOAA is somewhat concerned with climate issues...) but admittedly lagged behind in security. But this is also mindset: we are all academic-minded research-lab types working with public data (e.g. satellite info) and we like to make work public, so getting the security issues were a second priority.
Encryption? Sure, no biggie (late following the Socical Security boo-boos but no losses). VPNs? Ok. Higher security? You mean, I don't have admin passwords to install my favorite Open Source Unix tools (we're all geeks), wait a minute, public information wants to be free! Of course, it's when that sort of "free" information is mixed with non-free information (e.g. HR department info) that the trouble comes up... problem is, big agencies tend to be reactive... do nothing and then overreact when the crisis arises. Of course, that's the general public, too.
Now I can't speak for other Federal agencies of course...
It varies not just by Agency, but by division, line office, supervisor all the way down. Where I work in NOAA is even more flexible for many, especially scientific personnel (2 or even 3 days/week is not uncommon), with plenty of resources to make it work. Been doing this for a couple years, though recent across-the-board laptop security issues (changes driven from the top after some of the well-publicized losses in other agencies) has made it harder.
"Um... try to eat right... and get more sleep... just try to learn to cope with your problem, don't let it get you down."
"What about Neophil [thinking about TV ad]?"
"Uh... sure, that'll work too... if that's what you want."
Heh. That's actually why I chose architects:
"We've put an 10'' support column every 20 feet."
"What about a glass-enclosed cantilever (thinking of an issue of Dwell)
"Uh, sure (doing rough calcs that will require triple-cost strengthened beams) if that's what you want..."
-Doctors routinely change their treatment regimens based on an ignorant patient's suggestion. (else why would pharmas invest so much in TV ads and drug bimbos?)
-Doctors are more than happy to mandate strict entry requirements, but not require that they be routinely re-tested based on the latest science.
-Why there's so much subjectivity in medicine (why doctors can disagree on treatment).
Let's use slashdot terms. The MDs are the engineers and the Med PhDs are the physicists. An engineer needs to learn physics, but in designing buildings day-in, day-out, he may rely on specific products that were even the subject of marketing (concrete, fasterners, etc.) and may have to listen to the needs of the ignorant patients (in other words, the architects). He has to make his own effort to keep knowledge current, may rely on his own rules of thumb that other engineers disagree with, and sometimes the most competent engineer falls behind the cutting edge. And yes, he can make mistakes, and there are incompetent ones.
I had a college roommate my freshman year who (I just learned in class notes) is a "lawyer for the entertainment industry." Based on my knowledge of him, I'd say that they are incapable of not being raging cockbags.
The agency I work for has... it has a scientific report series that solicits peer-reviews among experts (not just agency insiders), performs editorial tasks, and then publishes online. Quite cost-effective, I'm told (I haven't seen the bill except for paper reprint printing costs). Problem is, it's just not "big name" so despite having similar quality in scientific content to any mid-range journal out there, and being freely available online, it's still not considered anything more than "gray lit."
So you boot the thing up and notice that you have a government laptop in your hands.
And if it's from one of the smart gov agencies that followed policies since the SSA lost some laptops, you may or may not notice that through BIOS it's phoned home provided it's been reported stolen, and you've got full disk encryption on your hands. Have fun!
The real question is why "smart" doesn't seem to extend to TSA and their contractors. Agency I contracted for mandated that over a year ago.
In other words, it proabbly wouldn't make any sense to use a 16 note scale or something like that. The 12 note scale has roots in something very mathematical, not something random or "human".
As an (amateur) player of middle-eastern music I find this comment laughable. middle eastern scales have 9 distinct divisions between whole notes, and a "scale" may consist of 12-20 of these divisions between an octave (yes, I'll grant "natural"ness of an octave). The distinction from western music is that the middle-eastern tunes depend on melodies rather than harmonies, so the need for simultaneous notes to have harmonic (e.g. rational, matching) subfrequencies is obviated, and in fact sounds quite artificial to the middle eastern ear listening to a cascading melody with many subtones.
A common comment among professional musicians of this background is "his A is not my A", implying that different musicians will select different and arbitrary starting points based on their own tastes, and this is an expression of their art rather than a mistake.
Even though private investment can, always has, and always will produce private science, the public needs lots of public science. And the private science is not nearly as reliable, therefore valuable, as public science.
As 90% of the public funds I work with are directly from the government, and as most of my results are (by law) public domain, I agree with you. However, the broad "funding model" does leave much to be desired as well, especially in terms of being afraid (as any large committee are afraid) of the cutting edge and non-mainstream work. Perhaps, given the publicity of this researcher, I took it for granted that results from this small scale private funding would be "published" (while allowing for patents, etc.). If it were my funds, I'd insist on published/ publically available results before investing the funds. But again, such an insistence would go against the standard private investor's model of profits/ROI first.
Done right, this kind of thing could be like the X-prize for the non super-rich, something for the rest of us to enjoy investing in as a pleasure.
The distinction between "scientific" and "financial" is either nonexistent, or largely irrelevant, except in determining in which terms the funding is decided to grant, and in which terms the return is evaluated for success. The real distinction is whether funding is private or public, and whether the results are kept private or published.
The "standard" model is that private investors see financial returns as success, while public investors see scientific returns (e.g. publications) as success. This is of course not black/white. It's innovative to see small scale private funding where the investors see scientific returns as the primary success metric. Call it micro-science, a bit like micro-credit, for a small investment a private individual can "pay" to play a role and review and fund science (not the other way around, as you mis-read me).
The earlier posts in this thread were along the black/white standard model -- "if there's no massive financial return on a private investment, you're being suckered!" That's a bit disappointing.
If time travel can be produced, it's worth (asymptotically) nearly any amount of investmemnt to get it.
It is extraordinarily sad to me that the "geeks" of this forum are considering this a financial investment rather than a scientific investment. I am a scientist, and I know that the logic of grants and funding agencies is a game that can be far removed from science, supportive of the status quo and the tenured. For $2-10K, if I had it lying around, I'd happily play "funding reviewer" in the hope of funding something small but with good potential.
This "private investment" model is intriguing, it's much more accessible than the mammoth granting agencies, perhaps better for the public than funneling public money through the NSF. It creates direct communication between scientists and interested supporters. Especially as the article quotes seem to indicate the investors are intelligent - the pooling of a small amount of money for a credible scientific result is to be encouraged. Though I do recognize one must be careful, it can be a fine line sometimes between this credible (though bleeding edge and possibly wrong) research and snake oil.
And small investments help: a year of a grad student can get a lot done. Well, with some grad students.
"Hello world" just isn't as inspiring to kids as seeing a colored square on screen that they made.
Hey, if you want to inspire kids with a result, what about a little php (or other webscripting language). Maybe the "I made a web page do something" is the equivalent coolness factor to big banner print statements in my day?
Irregardless copyright infringement isn't theft and thus isn't criminal. Illegal drugs and underage consumption, regardless of our personal feelings on the subject, are criminal and are handled in criminal court.
Ah, you are distinguishing between civil and criminal proceedings. Point taken... the universities should be, and should be permitted to be, more protective of students facing civil issues that criminal ones. Unfortunately, it will come down to protecting school reputations, and congress can apply pressure, one way or the other.
Slashdot Mirror
But if they reveal their opinions, should you switch hands?
ThinkGeek proves you wrong... I didn't know I wanted *half* that stuff! Seriously, targeting a specialist *site* works wonders, while targeting an individual is annoying. It's old technique though; for example, in specialist-enough niche (print) magazines for hobbyists, the ads are actually quite often interesting and useful to their audience.
Hey, we at NOAA do oceanography too, and we had absolutely nothing to do with those reports of that giant-tentacled rubber-suit-looking creatures that washed up oh excuse me, my boss is trying to tell me someth
At least you have time to comment about it on Slashdot :). I'm in my 40s, feel the time pressure daily, then two weeks ago randomly decided to implement a sort algorithm in Brainfuck (a language I'd never tried before). Engrossing, relaxing, and pleasurable, and utterly useless. Reminded me of how fun some of all this can be. Thought for thought's sake: makes you stronger.
So how is this stuff different from Silly Putty?
But that would be worth achieving, otherwise this is just an unexciting automation of the analog hole.
I'm surprised noone's mentioned the other end of the spectrum: The precision Apple II dual-pot analog approach. The fine-scaled two-fingered control that you have over your choplifter can't be beat for carefully landing on...er...rescuing hostages.
Of course, that led to the raging debate: self-centering or non-self-centering?
My agency was and is quite proactive at promoting telecommuting, trip reduction, alternate transport (good thing too... NOAA is somewhat concerned with climate issues...) but admittedly lagged behind in security. But this is also mindset: we are all academic-minded research-lab types working with public data (e.g. satellite info) and we like to make work public, so getting the security issues were a second priority.
Encryption? Sure, no biggie (late following the Socical Security boo-boos but no losses). VPNs? Ok. Higher security? You mean, I don't have admin passwords to install my favorite Open Source Unix tools (we're all geeks), wait a minute, public information wants to be free! Of course, it's when that sort of "free" information is mixed with non-free information (e.g. HR department info) that the trouble comes up... problem is, big agencies tend to be reactive... do nothing and then overreact when the crisis arises. Of course, that's the general public, too.
It varies not just by Agency, but by division, line office, supervisor all the way down. Where I work in NOAA is even more flexible for many, especially scientific personnel (2 or even 3 days/week is not uncommon), with plenty of resources to make it work. Been doing this for a couple years, though recent across-the-board laptop security issues (changes driven from the top after some of the well-publicized losses in other agencies) has made it harder.
Anyone else think of Dark Star? Or would that be 'Logical Bomb'?
They screwed up, giving the bit three states: 1, 0, and "waiting for question".
It's a pointer. It sits there quietly until you access it.
"Um
"What about Neophil [thinking about TV ad]?"
"Uh
Heh. That's actually why I chose architects:
"We've put an 10'' support column every 20 feet."
"What about a glass-enclosed cantilever (thinking of an issue of Dwell)
"Uh, sure (doing rough calcs that will require triple-cost strengthened beams) if that's what you want..."
-Doctors are more than happy to mandate strict entry requirements, but not require that they be routinely re-tested based on the latest science.
-Why there's so much subjectivity in medicine (why doctors can disagree on treatment).
Let's use slashdot terms. The MDs are the engineers and the Med PhDs are the physicists. An engineer needs to learn physics, but in designing buildings day-in, day-out, he may rely on specific products that were even the subject of marketing (concrete, fasterners, etc.) and may have to listen to the needs of the ignorant patients (in other words, the architects). He has to make his own effort to keep knowledge current, may rely on his own rules of thumb that other engineers disagree with, and sometimes the most competent engineer falls behind the cutting edge. And yes, he can make mistakes, and there are incompetent ones.
But damn if the buildings aren't solid.
Back on topic, why do you think the Babylonians used Base 60 for things like minutes, seconds? Some cultures knew what they were doing...
I had a college roommate my freshman year who (I just learned in class notes) is a "lawyer for the entertainment industry." Based on my knowledge of him, I'd say that they are incapable of not being raging cockbags.
The agency I work for has... it has a scientific report series that solicits peer-reviews among experts (not just agency insiders), performs editorial tasks, and then publishes online. Quite cost-effective, I'm told (I haven't seen the bill except for paper reprint printing costs). Problem is, it's just not "big name" so despite having similar quality in scientific content to any mid-range journal out there, and being freely available online, it's still not considered anything more than "gray lit."
And if it's from one of the smart gov agencies that followed policies since the SSA lost some laptops, you may or may not notice that through BIOS it's phoned home provided it's been reported stolen, and you've got full disk encryption on your hands. Have fun!
The real question is why "smart" doesn't seem to extend to TSA and their contractors. Agency I contracted for mandated that over a year ago.
As an (amateur) player of middle-eastern music I find this comment laughable. middle eastern scales have 9 distinct divisions between whole notes, and a "scale" may consist of 12-20 of these divisions between an octave (yes, I'll grant "natural"ness of an octave). The distinction from western music is that the middle-eastern tunes depend on melodies rather than harmonies, so the need for simultaneous notes to have harmonic (e.g. rational, matching) subfrequencies is obviated, and in fact sounds quite artificial to the middle eastern ear listening to a cascading melody with many subtones.
A common comment among professional musicians of this background is "his A is not my A", implying that different musicians will select different and arbitrary starting points based on their own tastes, and this is an expression of their art rather than a mistake.
It's still random, it's just random with a different distribution from 50-50.
As 90% of the public funds I work with are directly from the government, and as most of my results are (by law) public domain, I agree with you. However, the broad "funding model" does leave much to be desired as well, especially in terms of being afraid (as any large committee are afraid) of the cutting edge and non-mainstream work. Perhaps, given the publicity of this researcher, I took it for granted that results from this small scale private funding would be "published" (while allowing for patents, etc.). If it were my funds, I'd insist on published/ publically available results before investing the funds. But again, such an insistence would go against the standard private investor's model of profits/ROI first.
Done right, this kind of thing could be like the X-prize for the non super-rich, something for the rest of us to enjoy investing in as a pleasure.
The "standard" model is that private investors see financial returns as success, while public investors see scientific returns (e.g. publications) as success. This is of course not black/white. It's innovative to see small scale private funding where the investors see scientific returns as the primary success metric. Call it micro-science, a bit like micro-credit, for a small investment a private individual can "pay" to play a role and review and fund science (not the other way around, as you mis-read me).
The earlier posts in this thread were along the black/white standard model -- "if there's no massive financial return on a private investment, you're being suckered!" That's a bit disappointing.
It is extraordinarily sad to me that the "geeks" of this forum are considering this a financial investment rather than a scientific investment. I am a scientist, and I know that the logic of grants and funding agencies is a game that can be far removed from science, supportive of the status quo and the tenured. For $2-10K, if I had it lying around, I'd happily play "funding reviewer" in the hope of funding something small but with good potential.
This "private investment" model is intriguing, it's much more accessible than the mammoth granting agencies, perhaps better for the public than funneling public money through the NSF. It creates direct communication between scientists and interested supporters. Especially as the article quotes seem to indicate the investors are intelligent - the pooling of a small amount of money for a credible scientific result is to be encouraged. Though I do recognize one must be careful, it can be a fine line sometimes between this credible (though bleeding edge and possibly wrong) research and snake oil.
And small investments help: a year of a grad student can get a lot done. Well, with some grad students.
Hey, if you want to inspire kids with a result, what about a little php (or other webscripting language). Maybe the "I made a web page do something" is the equivalent coolness factor to big banner print statements in my day?
I can use many such products with moderation and responsibility. Don't lock me up because someone else can't.
Ah, you are distinguishing between civil and criminal proceedings. Point taken... the universities should be, and should be permitted to be, more protective of students facing civil issues that criminal ones. Unfortunately, it will come down to protecting school reputations, and congress can apply pressure, one way or the other.