First of all, I'd probably suggest looking for where the current best-known algorithms for this problem have been published, and look into similar channels. You say you know what's currently done; where did those appear?
If you're interested in an academic publication I have a few broad suggestions for you, although you may face an uphill battle if you're starting from "never having read a research paper." I say this not because academics control the publication process with an iron fist and won't let anything else in, but simply because you have less knowledge of how to write an academic paper.
I'd start by looking at related academic publications. I can't point you to anything specific, but try searching Google Scholar with related terms and seeing what comes up. Note where the paper was published (which journal or conference -- note that unlike many sciences, computer science publishes primarily in conferences, although for theoretical computer science journals are fairly well regarded also). You might also want to look through the ACM's portal or Digital Library to see if you can quickly find any conferences or journals that might publish such research.
Also note the style of the related articles - there is an overall form that is common to most research papers in the area (Abstract, Intro, Related Work, The Techical Parts, Results, Conclusion).
Make sure you do your background research and see what other work has been done in this area; if you've really got a new algorithm, then definitely publish it! But do be prepared for disappointment -- there are lots of smart people out there and frequently one of them has already had your idea:-). But don't think I'm trying to discourage you! Definitely check things out and try to get your work published
Should I find myself in such a situation, do you think I can insist on my right to trial by a jury of my peers, where "my peers" are those who can understand basic probability and statistics?
I've been thinking for a while now that the entire hardware/software stack needs to be re-thought from the point of view of a user. That's already happened in the mobile and embedded space, because cycles are at a premium and you're close enough to the bare metal to be able to control the whole stack. It seems like with conventional PCs, the system design is carried over from an era where computation was at the center rather than the user. To be honest, I'm not sure precisely what would change, but I just have this suspicion that if you were to try to answer the question "what actually happens when I click my mouse?", you'd find a deep, deep stack of code that's ripe for optimization...
Without disputing whether cameras helped at that location, I need to add that there's no substitute for beat cops (preferably on foot) in the locations where they're needed. Cameras can act as a deterrent, but they're actually not that great, and the effectiveness goes down as more are installed.
People seem to want a cheap technological solution, when in fact the problem is a human one. Police officers are more expensive than cameras, but they do a heck of a lot better job.
Whether a lowering of the crime rate corresponds to an increase in safety depends on which crimes are being reduced, of course, but typically a reduction in crime rate corresponds to a reduction in violent and property crimes.
Now, padding arrest rates with drug possession/prostitution arrests may be political posturing, but arrest rate is not the same as crime rate.
I don't think anyone needs to "graduate up the ladder", but it sure would be nice to have a spectrum. Right now it seems like there's precious little between "waggle this stick at the TV screen" and "spend 2500 hours learning military tactics and then we'll talk." There are a few exceptions for sure...
You could probably quantify the complexity of gameplay mechanics, and it's nice to have a spectrum. The level of complexity that people enjoy seems to vary with their level of familiarity, so "hardcore" gamers crave complexity, and "casual" gamers crave simplicity.
I think there's a room for a medium level of complexity... if you go back to something like the SNES, hardware limitations sort of bounded complexity, and that was honestly a nice level for me, but maybe that's just nostalgia talking...
I'm almost embarrassed to admit this, but, yeah, even FF. I loved the FF series as a kid, but I basically played no games between 1995 and 2003, until I started playing FFX at a friend's place. There was a huge leap between FF3 and FFX, and it took me a little while to get the hang of it (Sphere Grid? WTF? Aren't I supposed to just level up and the system decides what bonuses I get??)
I got the hang of it after an hour or so, and really enjoyed it, but there was definitely a learning curve, even for someone who had actually played games before.
The above point is excellent. I used to play (way too many) video games as a kid, and I really enjoyed them. But I stopped somewhere in high school, and it's really hard to go back. On the rare occasion that I have the opportunity to play an FPS with friends, I actually cringe, because I know that I will spend the next hour of my life wandering around lost holding a crappy pistol while my friends blast me with rockets that they all know where to find and I don't. Losing 100 to -40 that way is not fun.
On the other hand, I love Rock Band. Maybe being an amateur drummer helps;-).
I think the bottom line for me - and I suspect many others - is that the skill differential between players is hugely important. Casual games are great in this respect, because they take a minute to learn and a minute to master... the owner of the console doesn't have a significant advantage.
Two features that help are (1) handicapping, and (2) cooperative modes. Rock Band is a great example of both, because I can play drums on expert while a newbie friend sings on easy, and we both do OK relative to our skill level, and both have a good time.
I pretty much agree with that. I was specifically responding to the parent's point about reducing the FDA to a "seal of approval", and I think they need real regulatory power when it comes to (as you say) corporate choice.
I really think the people demanding to see "macro-evolution" want to see something like a giraffe turning into, I don't know, a Giraffe 2.0. They want to see human-scale animals turn into noticeable different human-scale animals in the laboratory, it seems, and they just don't get that it can't happen within the time scale of a human life. They reject the evidence of the fossil record, or at least put demands on it that it can't satisfy, at least yet, and try to use that as a reason to support some bogus fantasy.
That's not to say there aren't significant, real questions to answer. It's incredible that complex, multicellular life has evolved from other complex multicellular life, and understanding how gradual evolutionary change produces those very non-subtle changes is truly fascinating. It's almost unbelievable, but you can't just fall back on the argument from incredulity and propose something completely preposterous.
I don't know about this idea. In principle, I guess I agree with you - I should be free to do what I want with/to my own body. Someone facing a terminal disease may be willing to undergo a very, very risky procedure, with fully informed consent. I respect that.
On the other hand, unscrupulous people and/or corporations really would have an incentive to obscure or obfuscate the risks and overplay the benefits of treatments. Food distributors may be willing to risk the occasional lawsuit (which may prove inconclusive anyways, in the absence of regulators and inspectors).
Furthermore, there's a kind of freedom that comes from having a strong regulatory body... I know that when I buy a nasal decongestant from the drug store that it's not deadly poison, and that it at least sort of works, and that those claims have been evaluated by individuals far more qualified than I. And while I have the ultimate responsibility for my own decisions, it certainly makes those decisions easier, and less fraught.
So, I guess you can mod me down, because I'm willing to trade freedom for security, or something like that, but when it comes to food and medicine... man, I sure like some security.
Honestly, you'll probably be out of luck. I was recently looking for a semi-old movie (from 1997, which feels weird to call semi-old) recently, and had no luck, even at places like Blockbuster. Shelf space is apparently at a premium, and unless a movie is a bona fide classic or new release, it's hard to justify stocking it... I guess.
I have no objection to Netflix, so I'll probably go that route one of these days, but an alternative that I like is Amazon/iTunes rentals. I know they're DRM-ed, so many here will object, but I consider a rental a disposable purchase anyways. I don't mind if it has no future compatibility and limited viewing options, I just want to watch the movie this evening and then forget about it.
You're overreacting (I know, I know, "welcome to the Internet"). Software should behave in some sane, safe manner given any input. Sometimes, the sane thing to do is to throw an error, or say "Sorry, Dave, I can't do that."
In particular, systems don't necessarily have to shoehorn insane data into their processing. To use a relevant example, simply because Prince wants to upload a PNG in the "Name" field doesn't mean that the software has to let him. Rejecting this case does not doom said software system to "become a botnet" or "leave a trail of broken data."
"How are we supposed to have free reign to let America's infrastructure steadily decay, if regulation comes from someone other than the politicians we bought?"
There's an interesting sentiment here. It seems like we (or some of us, at least) trust unelected officials - in this case the FCC - more than our elected representatives. Of course, couldn't the unelected officials be bought as well?
Sorry, but this is a pet peeve of mine: sales of a competing company's product cannot "cannibalize" the competition. That term is used when a product lessens the sales of another product made by the same company./pedant
take a look at apps which are essentially packaged rss feeds or UIs for webpages (is mobile Safari suddenly not enough?)
Yes, yes, a thousand times yes! It is so unbelievably annoying that site developers seem to want to create an app for their site rather than just a mobile version of their standard web page! One site I frequent actually wants to *sell* that app to me! It's only 99 cents, but seriously??
One problem -- from a business perspective -- of linking data in a machine-understandable way is that it makes it much easier for third parties to use that data. At first that may seem like a good thing, but for many companies the data are the entire business. If a third party can quickly aggregate related data from many sites in a way that is more useful than the individual sites, those sources suffer.
We're seeing this tension already with Google vs. publishers, where the data in question are news stories, and Google News is the aggregator.
While linked data could be enormously beneficial for the user/consumer, the producers have little incentive to expose their intellectual property in a way that is easily used by other automated services.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, look at Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, and the Beatles, they starved for their craft.
First of all, I'd probably suggest looking for where the current best-known algorithms for this problem have been published, and look into similar channels. You say you know what's currently done; where did those appear?
If you're interested in an academic publication I have a few broad suggestions for you, although you may face an uphill battle if you're starting from "never having read a research paper." I say this not because academics control the publication process with an iron fist and won't let anything else in, but simply because you have less knowledge of how to write an academic paper.
I'd start by looking at related academic publications. I can't point you to anything specific, but try searching Google Scholar with related terms and seeing what comes up. Note where the paper was published (which journal or conference -- note that unlike many sciences, computer science publishes primarily in conferences, although for theoretical computer science journals are fairly well regarded also). You might also want to look through the ACM's portal or Digital Library to see if you can quickly find any conferences or journals that might publish such research.
Also note the style of the related articles - there is an overall form that is common to most research papers in the area (Abstract, Intro, Related Work, The Techical Parts, Results, Conclusion).
Make sure you do your background research and see what other work has been done in this area; if you've really got a new algorithm, then definitely publish it! But do be prepared for disappointment -- there are lots of smart people out there and frequently one of them has already had your idea :-). But don't think I'm trying to discourage you! Definitely check things out and try to get your work published
Should I find myself in such a situation, do you think I can insist on my right to trial by a jury of my peers, where "my peers" are those who can understand basic probability and statistics?
... leave, let the company tank, then make a triumphant return! :-D
I've been thinking for a while now that the entire hardware/software stack needs to be re-thought from the point of view of a user. That's already happened in the mobile and embedded space, because cycles are at a premium and you're close enough to the bare metal to be able to control the whole stack. It seems like with conventional PCs, the system design is carried over from an era where computation was at the center rather than the user. To be honest, I'm not sure precisely what would change, but I just have this suspicion that if you were to try to answer the question "what actually happens when I click my mouse?", you'd find a deep, deep stack of code that's ripe for optimization...
Without disputing whether cameras helped at that location, I need to add that there's no substitute for beat cops (preferably on foot) in the locations where they're needed. Cameras can act as a deterrent, but they're actually not that great, and the effectiveness goes down as more are installed.
People seem to want a cheap technological solution, when in fact the problem is a human one. Police officers are more expensive than cameras, but they do a heck of a lot better job.
Whether a lowering of the crime rate corresponds to an increase in safety depends on which crimes are being reduced, of course, but typically a reduction in crime rate corresponds to a reduction in violent and property crimes.
Now, padding arrest rates with drug possession/prostitution arrests may be political posturing, but arrest rate is not the same as crime rate.
I don't think anyone needs to "graduate up the ladder", but it sure would be nice to have a spectrum. Right now it seems like there's precious little between "waggle this stick at the TV screen" and "spend 2500 hours learning military tactics and then we'll talk." There are a few exceptions for sure...
You could probably quantify the complexity of gameplay mechanics, and it's nice to have a spectrum. The level of complexity that people enjoy seems to vary with their level of familiarity, so "hardcore" gamers crave complexity, and "casual" gamers crave simplicity.
I think there's a room for a medium level of complexity... if you go back to something like the SNES, hardware limitations sort of bounded complexity, and that was honestly a nice level for me, but maybe that's just nostalgia talking...
I'm almost embarrassed to admit this, but, yeah, even FF. I loved the FF series as a kid, but I basically played no games between 1995 and 2003, until I started playing FFX at a friend's place. There was a huge leap between FF3 and FFX, and it took me a little while to get the hang of it (Sphere Grid? WTF? Aren't I supposed to just level up and the system decides what bonuses I get??)
I got the hang of it after an hour or so, and really enjoyed it, but there was definitely a learning curve, even for someone who had actually played games before.
The above point is excellent. I used to play (way too many) video games as a kid, and I really enjoyed them. But I stopped somewhere in high school, and it's really hard to go back. On the rare occasion that I have the opportunity to play an FPS with friends, I actually cringe, because I know that I will spend the next hour of my life wandering around lost holding a crappy pistol while my friends blast me with rockets that they all know where to find and I don't. Losing 100 to -40 that way is not fun.
On the other hand, I love Rock Band. Maybe being an amateur drummer helps ;-).
I think the bottom line for me - and I suspect many others - is that the skill differential between players is hugely important. Casual games are great in this respect, because they take a minute to learn and a minute to master... the owner of the console doesn't have a significant advantage.
Two features that help are (1) handicapping, and (2) cooperative modes. Rock Band is a great example of both, because I can play drums on expert while a newbie friend sings on easy, and we both do OK relative to our skill level, and both have a good time.
I pretty much agree with that. I was specifically responding to the parent's point about reducing the FDA to a "seal of approval", and I think they need real regulatory power when it comes to (as you say) corporate choice.
I really think the people demanding to see "macro-evolution" want to see something like a giraffe turning into, I don't know, a Giraffe 2.0. They want to see human-scale animals turn into noticeable different human-scale animals in the laboratory, it seems, and they just don't get that it can't happen within the time scale of a human life. They reject the evidence of the fossil record, or at least put demands on it that it can't satisfy, at least yet, and try to use that as a reason to support some bogus fantasy.
That's not to say there aren't significant, real questions to answer. It's incredible that complex, multicellular life has evolved from other complex multicellular life, and understanding how gradual evolutionary change produces those very non-subtle changes is truly fascinating. It's almost unbelievable, but you can't just fall back on the argument from incredulity and propose something completely preposterous.
Asbestos underwear is on, flame away!
I don't know about this idea. In principle, I guess I agree with you - I should be free to do what I want with/to my own body. Someone facing a terminal disease may be willing to undergo a very, very risky procedure, with fully informed consent. I respect that.
On the other hand, unscrupulous people and/or corporations really would have an incentive to obscure or obfuscate the risks and overplay the benefits of treatments. Food distributors may be willing to risk the occasional lawsuit (which may prove inconclusive anyways, in the absence of regulators and inspectors).
Furthermore, there's a kind of freedom that comes from having a strong regulatory body... I know that when I buy a nasal decongestant from the drug store that it's not deadly poison, and that it at least sort of works, and that those claims have been evaluated by individuals far more qualified than I. And while I have the ultimate responsibility for my own decisions, it certainly makes those decisions easier, and less fraught.
So, I guess you can mod me down, because I'm willing to trade freedom for security, or something like that, but when it comes to food and medicine... man, I sure like some security.
But if they were separate hyphenated commands then they'd tab complete! /laziness
Honestly, you'll probably be out of luck. I was recently looking for a semi-old movie (from 1997, which feels weird to call semi-old) recently, and had no luck, even at places like Blockbuster. Shelf space is apparently at a premium, and unless a movie is a bona fide classic or new release, it's hard to justify stocking it... I guess.
I have no objection to Netflix, so I'll probably go that route one of these days, but an alternative that I like is Amazon/iTunes rentals. I know they're DRM-ed, so many here will object, but I consider a rental a disposable purchase anyways. I don't mind if it has no future compatibility and limited viewing options, I just want to watch the movie this evening and then forget about it.
You're overreacting (I know, I know, "welcome to the Internet"). Software should behave in some sane, safe manner given any input. Sometimes, the sane thing to do is to throw an error, or say "Sorry, Dave, I can't do that."
In particular, systems don't necessarily have to shoehorn insane data into their processing. To use a relevant example, simply because Prince wants to upload a PNG in the "Name" field doesn't mean that the software has to let him. Rejecting this case does not doom said software system to "become a botnet" or "leave a trail of broken data."
"How are we supposed to have free reign to let America's infrastructure steadily decay, if regulation comes from someone other than the politicians we bought?"
There's an interesting sentiment here. It seems like we (or some of us, at least) trust unelected officials - in this case the FCC - more than our elected representatives. Of course, couldn't the unelected officials be bought as well?
Android will cannibalize iPhone sales
Sorry, but this is a pet peeve of mine: sales of a competing company's product cannot "cannibalize" the competition. That term is used when a product lessens the sales of another product made by the same company. /pedant
take a look at apps which are essentially packaged rss feeds or UIs for webpages (is mobile Safari suddenly not enough?)
Yes, yes, a thousand times yes! It is so unbelievably annoying that site developers seem to want to create an app for their site rather than just a mobile version of their standard web page! One site I frequent actually wants to *sell* that app to me! It's only 99 cents, but seriously??
When your girlfriend broke up with you, did she say, "It's not you, it's I"?
One problem -- from a business perspective -- of linking data in a machine-understandable way is that it makes it much easier for third parties to use that data. At first that may seem like a good thing, but for many companies the data are the entire business. If a third party can quickly aggregate related data from many sites in a way that is more useful than the individual sites, those sources suffer. We're seeing this tension already with Google vs. publishers, where the data in question are news stories, and Google News is the aggregator. While linked data could be enormously beneficial for the user/consumer, the producers have little incentive to expose their intellectual property in a way that is easily used by other automated services.