I work in optics and computer vision, and investigate research papers on a regular basis. In the majority of the papers I read the methods proposed either only work for the specific example in the paper (some don't even do that), or only work under such "ideal" circumstances that they barely work under lab conditions, much less real world cases. There are a few gems, but you can tell that much of what is published is just written so someone gets that degree or that quota to reach tenure. Prior to working at this job, my trust in published research was much higher. Now my tendency is to treat it all as garbage until it proves itself otherwise.
Didn't catch it last time, so let me claim ignorance and ask... If the neutrino burst from the 1987a supernova arrived any time before the light (even hours), what is the explanation that doesn't include the neutrinos traveling faster than light?
Seems like if you're promoting the programs from the regional university, you should have examples related to those programs. Surely they aren't doing solar-based programs in Alaska?
Big Ideas are there; he just doesn't see them
on
The Post-Idea World
·
· Score: 1
If the author thinks that a big idea looks like "Marx or a Nietzsche," he's going to be waiting a while. The definition of a "big idea" is that it is novel and game-changing, but based on the examples he gives in the article it appears that what the author is really lamenting is that the world no longer sees the philosophies that excited him in his formative years as new and exciting. I'm not arguing for or against the validity of the examples he gives, but rather that they have matured and are by no means on the front lines of new ideas.
Maybe he's just getting old.
1) Science deals only with the natural world. Science can't prove there is or isn't anything beyond the natural world
2) Metaphysical truths such as "The external world is real" vs. "we're all just a consciousness in a vacuum"
3) Ethics "Theft is wrong"
4) Aesthetics
5) The unproven assumptions of science itself: eg. assertion of constancy of speed of light in a vacuum... you have to assume it to espouse the theory
6) Mathematical postulates and axioms
7) Your implication that "Only scientifically proven answers are worthwhile" can't even be proven scientifically...
The problem is that if he does valid work and wins the bet, that will be viewed as getting lucky to the nutters out there that believe that climate change is happening and will likely be severe in the future.
You're right, that WAS easy!!
How many hours per week are you going to work to try and find a technical answer to a business problem? I've been in a startup or two in my time, and I must say that you can't create enough features to make up for a bad business plan! There are hard questions that need answers here:
1) Why is your software not selling with the features the business plan originally called for? Is the software too expensive for the target market? Does the software solve a problem the target market doesn't really have?
2) Do you have more reliable knowledge of the target market with the new feature set than you did with the original? Or, are you shooting in the dark?
3) Do you have a list of customers who will be interested in the software once a new set of features are created?
4) If you think the software is valuable, are there other business-related reasons why it's not selling? Bad licensing? Unattractive terms?
My experience is that bloating software no one is buying with features just creates bloated software that no one is buying. There is something more fundamental that is wrong here.
The editing of the word "subject" emphasizes the founders care to make sure that the US government be of the people, that we should not be subject to any tyranny but rather citizens with representation. Good time of year for the reminder.
You miss the point. If it were in the scientist's best interests for storm chasers to stay out of their way (the article at hand)... they would do well not to have any of their meetings on national television, and not have the scientific community participating in television shows that glamorize storm chasing. Vortex2 or any other scientific endeavour shouldn't expect to hype their craft on any media outlet, be it Discovery or the weather channel, and then get all hot and disturbed when the field gets a little more crowded....
Whatever... the "Storm Chasers" show had several episodes where they showed the IMAX movie guys pitted against the Vortex 2 folks... even filmed their meetings... every time the big rig with the radar was shown, they got "Vortex 2" into the conversation as much as possible...
If the scientists didn't talk down on everyone else... The Vortex2 project was the one that was in "Storm Chasers" building up all the hype... well what did they expect?! I'm sure they have a passion for what they are doing, but they're kind of coming off looking like pricks.... just say'in.
"Everyone believes in science" --
Under what situations do you believe in science here? I would agree that most believe in science when getting on a plane that the plane will more than likely fly, or shooting a missile that the missile will correctly find the target. But if the plane is to take you somewhere to shoot the missile at a group of people, and you're expecting science to enlighten you that what your doing is right or wrong, you're hopelessly lost, because science doesn't care! That's the difference between science and religion, science tells you what you CAN do, and religion tells you what you SHOULD do....and EVERYONE has a religion whether they believe it or not, because everyone has to make these choices that are a lot tougher than those whose answers science can predict.
Thank you. Some of the most creative people I know are carpenters, furniture makers, and other craftsmen. Or are musicians, or painters, or chefs. Most of these people went to a community college at most. Using college degrees to indicate creativity shows a misunderstanding of creativity.
Slashdot Mirror
Why won't you debate William Lane Craig?
Funny how people are always surprised by the reaction they get when they forget to consider others when making decisions
Had it been music, games, or heaven forbid..... Software.... This site would have crucified you.... I guess photographers' rights are different.
Gentlemen, we can rebuild him. We have the technology. Better than he was before. Better, stronger, faster.
Thanks for posting. This should have a slash dot story of its own. Would love to see more opinions on this.
I work in optics and computer vision, and investigate research papers on a regular basis. In the majority of the papers I read the methods proposed either only work for the specific example in the paper (some don't even do that), or only work under such "ideal" circumstances that they barely work under lab conditions, much less real world cases. There are a few gems, but you can tell that much of what is published is just written so someone gets that degree or that quota to reach tenure. Prior to working at this job, my trust in published research was much higher. Now my tendency is to treat it all as garbage until it proves itself otherwise.
Thanks!
Didn't catch it last time, so let me claim ignorance and ask... If the neutrino burst from the 1987a supernova arrived any time before the light (even hours), what is the explanation that doesn't include the neutrinos traveling faster than light?
Don't you just peddle backwards?
Seems like if you're promoting the programs from the regional university, you should have examples related to those programs. Surely they aren't doing solar-based programs in Alaska?
If the author thinks that a big idea looks like "Marx or a Nietzsche," he's going to be waiting a while. The definition of a "big idea" is that it is novel and game-changing, but based on the examples he gives in the article it appears that what the author is really lamenting is that the world no longer sees the philosophies that excited him in his formative years as new and exciting. I'm not arguing for or against the validity of the examples he gives, but rather that they have matured and are by no means on the front lines of new ideas. Maybe he's just getting old.
1) Science deals only with the natural world. Science can't prove there is or isn't anything beyond the natural world 2) Metaphysical truths such as "The external world is real" vs. "we're all just a consciousness in a vacuum" 3) Ethics "Theft is wrong" 4) Aesthetics 5) The unproven assumptions of science itself: eg. assertion of constancy of speed of light in a vacuum... you have to assume it to espouse the theory 6) Mathematical postulates and axioms 7) Your implication that "Only scientifically proven answers are worthwhile" can't even be proven scientifically...
The problem is that if he does valid work and wins the bet, that will be viewed as getting lucky to the nutters out there that believe that climate change is happening and will likely be severe in the future. You're right, that WAS easy!!
in 10 years when the results are in, it's not going to matter what their titles are. As it should be.
How many hours per week are you going to work to try and find a technical answer to a business problem? I've been in a startup or two in my time, and I must say that you can't create enough features to make up for a bad business plan! There are hard questions that need answers here: 1) Why is your software not selling with the features the business plan originally called for? Is the software too expensive for the target market? Does the software solve a problem the target market doesn't really have? 2) Do you have more reliable knowledge of the target market with the new feature set than you did with the original? Or, are you shooting in the dark? 3) Do you have a list of customers who will be interested in the software once a new set of features are created? 4) If you think the software is valuable, are there other business-related reasons why it's not selling? Bad licensing? Unattractive terms? My experience is that bloating software no one is buying with features just creates bloated software that no one is buying. There is something more fundamental that is wrong here.
The editing of the word "subject" emphasizes the founders care to make sure that the US government be of the people, that we should not be subject to any tyranny but rather citizens with representation. Good time of year for the reminder.
You miss the point. If it were in the scientist's best interests for storm chasers to stay out of their way (the article at hand)... they would do well not to have any of their meetings on national television, and not have the scientific community participating in television shows that glamorize storm chasing. Vortex2 or any other scientific endeavour shouldn't expect to hype their craft on any media outlet, be it Discovery or the weather channel, and then get all hot and disturbed when the field gets a little more crowded....
Whatever... the "Storm Chasers" show had several episodes where they showed the IMAX movie guys pitted against the Vortex 2 folks... even filmed their meetings... every time the big rig with the radar was shown, they got "Vortex 2" into the conversation as much as possible...
If the scientists didn't talk down on everyone else... The Vortex2 project was the one that was in "Storm Chasers" building up all the hype... well what did they expect?! I'm sure they have a passion for what they are doing, but they're kind of coming off looking like pricks.... just say'in.
"Everyone believes in science" -- Under what situations do you believe in science here? I would agree that most believe in science when getting on a plane that the plane will more than likely fly, or shooting a missile that the missile will correctly find the target. But if the plane is to take you somewhere to shoot the missile at a group of people, and you're expecting science to enlighten you that what your doing is right or wrong, you're hopelessly lost, because science doesn't care! That's the difference between science and religion, science tells you what you CAN do, and religion tells you what you SHOULD do....and EVERYONE has a religion whether they believe it or not, because everyone has to make these choices that are a lot tougher than those whose answers science can predict.
So basically the only people who see a problem between science and religion are those people to whom science IS their religion...
Thank you. Some of the most creative people I know are carpenters, furniture makers, and other craftsmen. Or are musicians, or painters, or chefs. Most of these people went to a community college at most. Using college degrees to indicate creativity shows a misunderstanding of creativity.