To all those companies that are being so helpful in "parking" domain names for me and then charging outrageous prices to "register" them........ FSCK YOU!!!. Seriously though, how many of you have tried to go out and register even the most obscure of domain names for your website only to have companies like Marchex or GoDaddy say "Sure, we'll get that domain for you for the low, low price of $5000.00" (or more). This is the concept of the middle man taken to criminal levels. Can someone enlighten me as to what benefit(s) they provide? What services do they provide? Is there anything good at all about these companies or are they simply parasitic ticks feeding off the belly of the Internet?
And what does it say about the market audience when domain names with misspelled words (like Mortage.com) can go for $242,000?
Oh, I forgot.... at least one domain level parking company provides Microsoft with advertising because they "parked" all of their unused domains on IIS servers....which......appear at some level to be able to handle those traffic loads.:-)
Maybe you should come off of your high horse....Hmmm?
You are the one that said: "I am calling bullshit on you and your entire post.", right? So, essentially you were calling me out, yeah? Well, I am here and I am going to hold your feet to the fire on that.
I suppose you have no idea of the astonishing arrogance of both your original posting and your reply to my posting.
You are a troll, right? I mean come on now, you call bullshit on my entire post, tell me that I don't seem interested in what I do, imply that I am lying then you have the cojones to call me arrogant? Please! I am responding to you in the hopes that some civil discourse can occur here.
So, just what's your complaint here? I am telling you that we are hiring programmers, that we are actively involved in cutting edge research and cannot find enough of the talent we need. The money is there, the need is there, thus my encouragement for students to get into CS. We need programmers that can do image processing work, image registration, image mosaicing and image classification. Those skills are not a dime a dozen right now.
The trick I believe to staying competitive in any field is to stay on top of technology and make sure that your skills are kept in demand. Get lazy and you fall behind. This goes not just for CS, but for just about every other field I can think of.
The people that they are trying to get to go into computer science have as much chance of getting into a Ph.D program as the average sand lot baseball player has of getting into the majors.
Oh, come on now. It's waaaaaay easier to get into a CS grad program than it is to get into medical school for example. It's a numbers game and going into a doctoral program in CS is a paid trip. You get a tuition waver AND a stipend.
Most Ph.D grads in CS seem to feel pretty lucky to get a job paying $50K to teach at a community college.
Jeeez, I know a bunch of folks that have gone to work for Google, Adobe, Apple and a number of other companies with Ph.D.'s and they are making a fair bit more than that. I know a bunch of folks that have bachelors and masters degrees as well that are making significantly more than $50k as well. The one Ph.D. that went to Google was *heavily* recruited by them and got an amazingly sweet package including stock options that were set up before the IPO (yes, I was jealous).
I knew Henderson when he was a brand new professor at the UofU and I was a grad student desperately trying to finish a thesis.
Should Companies Delay Products for More Features?
Companies should release products when they are *done*. This means that they define a set of parameters they want to meet and then complete them. Putting a product out in a date driven fashion is a sure fire way to release crap that you end up beta testing on your customers while trying to add in new features/technology results in version creep. Want to please your customers and get them to come back for your other products? Release a product when it is done and if you want to introduce new features, that is an incremental release.
*Disclaimer: This only works if you do not have a monopoly...:-)
My karma is always excellent, and my posting philosophy is to never be swayed by the potential of bad karma. There are plenty of places to post outside of Slashdot, but holding yourself back results in the mediocre quality that gets you on average modded down.
Mod parent up! Big time... Seriously, yes, there are mod abuses that are a fact here on Slashdot. In fact, I just got modbombed by somebody who did not agree with me regardless of whether or not what I had to say contributed. However, if your contributions are worthy and help to inform the audience here, then your Karma in the long run will not suffer.
For the creationist folks, they'll continue to dispute this because their blind faith requires it.
While I am a scientist, I also believe in God, and that was partially my point in the original post, albeit glibly stated. The amazing thing about the creationists and the fundies is that there is no allowance for thought. Look, we have been given the gift of choice and the gift of intellect so that we can question and discover the wonder of the universe through science. Nothing out there says that God/Allah/Yahweh/Jehova etc...etc...etc... cannot work through science. Of course this is partially the deal that ID folks want to play up, but the problem with their perspective is that they *are* blinded by preconceived notions rather than allowing themselves the dangerous and subversive prospect of questioning and thinking for themselves.
For my part, I don't care what people decide to believe or not as long as they don't tell me what I have/should believe. More importantly, there are fundamental issues related to education and economic development and freedom that are dependent upon having a basic understanding of how things work scientifically and mathematically. To cripple education through the agenda that the ID folks are proposing is doing a disservice to us all.
I wrote a couple of articles about where I thought the PDA might be going back in 2002 and 2005. Specifically, I'd suppose (hope) that it might see a resurgence through the iPod phenomenon.
We really have not seen a whole lot of innovation in the PDA market aside from color screens and somewhat faster CPUs since Palm and then Microsoft entered the market. The first device that truly works as an assistant that is affordable will, like Palm did in the 90's take over the market again. Phone use will be required, but could easily function with a Bluetooth earpiece. It will have to have a big enough screen in portrait or landscape mode to surf the web (surfing the web on my Tungsten T3 sucks), will have to be able to plug into a projector and deliver Keynote (or Powerpoint) presentations, read and annotate pdf's, have an honest 4-5hr battery life (ideally more, but this will depend upon new battery technology or fuel cells), be rugged, have a decent way to enter information through a keyboard (real or virtual) and be reasonably affordable.
The Newton was the original UMPC and did many things very well (including handwriting recognition in the 110 and up), but were waaaay too expensive for their time. I had a 110 and a 120 that I used for years before they simply could not keep up, but that form factor is still ideal. Put a color screen in it, run OS X on a flash drive along with global band cell phone connectivity, 802.11 and Bluetooth and if you can sell it for $700-800 or so, you have the ideal PDA. That may be cutting the margins thin, but if Apple could sell it along with.Mac subscription/connectivity to enable syncing with your desktop/laptop and provide a cell phone service implemented like iChat, I suspect it could be highly profitable.
I am calling bullshit on you and your entire post.
Hrmmm. Careful now.... it's a small world out there. It's probably good you don't post your real identity on Slashdot, because one would want to be careful about not appearing to be ignorant, especially if one were looking for a job.
Just scanned your blog and your profile on technorati and you do not seem to be a computer scientist.
Thanks for taking that time to explore. I hope there was something of interest for you.
You don't even seems to be very interested in the subject.
????? WTF? OK, lemme lay it out for you. While I am a scientist, I am not a computer scientist by training nor do I suggest that I am. I am a neuroscientist who previous to completing my doctorate had some experience in the computer field working informally/consulting for companies like Apple, Adobe, Aspyr and Westlake Interactive. Our work, if you were remotely careful in your exploration and assessment would realize relies heavily on computational work. As such, we are collaborating with computer scientists at the U of U and UCSB to craft software tools to increase our throughput.
And I have not seen anything like what you describe.
Mmmmm, perhaps that is because we are looking for the best and the brightest students that do image analysis? I don't know what your background is or which classes you may have taken, but our collaborations with CS here rely on Drs. Henderson, Tasdizen and Whitaker to find students that are appropriate for these topics. Our collaborations with UCSB follow the same protocol and it must be working well, because I am quite impressed with the work out of the U of U and UCSB.
I realize that the Slashdot format lends itself to the kinds of posts that you just made, but I implore you to get off your high horse, think more and type less....
Even though I drag the big camera around most of the time,
LOL, yes indeed. Me too.
I still now and then find myself in situations where I didn't have it, or taking it out would have taken too long and drawn too much attention, or I just wanted to send a picture of something to my SO, and going via DSLR, computer and email was at least two steps too many and half a day too slow.
I carry around a small digital camera (Elph, but I'm looking at one of those super thin Sonys) with me for those times too as the quality out of the cell phones just does not yet cut it.
Many DoD installations do not let you take camera phones onsite.
Jeez, it's not just camera phones. Some installations practically make you strip down and leave *all* "devices" at the security gate. Laptops, PDAs, USBkeys, cell phones, even wrist watches are required to be removed. It's amazing how much electronic stuff we routinely haul around with us and it's not until you have to start paying attention to it that it strikes you how dependent we have become on it. You think "How in the hell am I going to do anything for the next few hours without all this stuff?" Taking notes, keeping in touch, etc...etc...etc...
But yeah, I hear you. I would be nice to have companies focus on delivering specifically targeted tools like a cell phone that was optimized around the user experience of talking.
Look, the number of pixels is simply not as important as the optical properties of the system. I've seen better pictures come out of a four megapixel (MP) camera with better lenses than those that come out of a seven MP camera with poorer quality optics. So, if your lenses allow clean transmission of light without chromatic aberration and little to no change to the fidelity of the image, then you will have better images than just simply bumping up the MP count through commodity CCDs.
This of course is what the phone manufacturers are doing, buying commodity CCDs because that is what is being made. It is cheaper for them to spend an extra dollar or two on a higher MP count CCD rather than putting the development dollars on improving the user experience, interface or infrastructure.
This of course is because people respond to higher MP counts in the same way they like "bling". "Ooooh shiny things!" Come-on people! Put some effort into purchasing quality products that demand a bit more work and are functional for longer periods of time instead of purchasing things that you throw away after only a short time. It shows you are more discriminating, pushes companies to produce better products, is easier on the environment and gives you better quality goods that help to improve your life rather than clutter it up with junk.
Notice I said "can command a six figure salary". While most are not in that range, I personally know two post-docs that are making just above $100k/year. Send me an email and I'll direct you to those programs where they are at.
Do not misunderestimate my spelling or grammar skills. And do not doubt that there are WMDs in Iraq.
O.K., somebody please mod this as funny. I have mod points, but because I have already posted in this thread, I cannot mod it up. For those of you who don't get it, just Google "misunderestimate".
A computer science post doc has roughly as much education as a doctor.
Yes, very true. And, in fact, with a Ph.D. in Comp. Sci., you get to be called "doctor".
"Can command six figures" displays the shortage is nowhere near serious enough. "Can command seven figures" and you would have a flood of people willing to do 8-11 years of post college education.
What world do you live in? Do you understand that the average income for an M.D. is about $150k? Do the math. Do you understand that most of us "doctors" don't go around driving high end automobiles or living in mansions? If that's what you want, then go sell real estate or something where you can makes lots of money for very little work.
Hey A.C. troll, it sounds to me like you have not done any significant research into spelling or grammar.:-)
Seriously though, you have no idea of what you are talking about, but I'll let the market decide whether or not you are correct. Given that we have millions of dollars coming in from our research and have the prospect of many millions more, I'll continue doing what we are doing. In fact, if our metabolomics work takes off the way we want.... there will be significant impact into bioscience, medicine, medical diagnostics and drug development.
Do you have a link to an ad for a six figure post-doc position?
Enroll in just about any accredited doctoral program in comp sci. at a university, which by the way is not as onerous as one might think as tuition is often waved and you get a stipend on the order of 12-30k/year. After you finish your Ph.D., then you have your pick of post-docs just about anywhere in the country with a top comp sci. department.
You are not hearing what I am saying..... I am not speaking as a programmer, because I am not. I am speaking as a person who is doing the hiring or is involved in projects that needs programmers and I am telling you that we need people to work on new projects. If you are simply doing basic Java programming, then those positions are not as much in demand. However, if you are doing new things in Java such as image or data analysis or are creating new and useful programs in Java such as ImageJ from Wayne Rasband, then hellyeah.... you have a job where ever you want it and it will not be outsourced because being able to think critically and establish yourself in new markets to take advantage of those needs it is not a commodity skill that can easily be outsourced. It takes a bit more work, but then just about everything worth anything takes a bit more work, yeah?
I will also chime in here and say that there is a significant need for computer scientists. Just to give you some idea of the demand, computer science post-docs can command six figure salaries compared to salaries in the range of 30-35k for bioscience post-docs.
But here is the deal.... We are not looking for people to help administer our systems. That is relatively easy to do, particularly with operating systems like OS X. You have to be bright and willing to work on *new* problems particularly those dealing with data management and visualization. Many comp-sci students want to go create games and there is a market for that, but where the technology for games really comes from is basic science research dealing with real-world problems. And in fact, some games and game engines are now being applied to real world problems.
There are a couple of exciting projects I am working on in these fields, namely I have just been asked to sit on the board of a media group that will deal with some of these issues and real world application of games and other digital media. Alexander Seropian (of Bungie fame) is also on this board and it should be interesting to see where this goes. Additionally, our research in a new area of bioscience called metabolomics looks ready to take off and we are working with a number of comp-sci graduate students, post-docs and faculty to create tools to deal with the types of data we use to pick out signatures of cells much like the CIA and NASA use to determine signatures of "things" they are interested in. Also data management and communication is another field that is very much in demand and we are working with groups to help us create databases that can be mined and used interactively to collaboratively annotate and discuss data with multiple users.
Lemme tell you folks, if you are interested in computer science, go for it. There is certainly a market for talented programmers and looking four to ten years in the future (which is about as far as I can), the demand will be there.
'In that case, it was so severe that trying to recover was meaningless. They did not have an automated process to wipe and rebuild the systems, so it became a burden. They had to design a process real fast,'."
Seriously though, NeXTstep certainly has a long history in certain TLA government agencies and OS X is beginning to make significant inroads there as well. In addition the timing is right for many businesses as the infrastructure costs to maintaining Windows are simply becoming too high.
And calling these recent instances is a joke. I was having to perform complete system wipes and reconstructions due to malware years ago which is why we have essentially completed a migration to OS X. We do have some windows systems still around, but they are hidden behind OS X machines and are run headless and without connection to the Internet. In fact, it's been interesting that those companies that deliver microscopes (electron, confocal and light) and such that are currently driven by Windows are asking their customers to simply not plug them into networks or the Internet, severely limiting their use. They of course have been suggesting sneakernet to move files and data around, but my solution is to network them all with a dedicated backbone behind a Mac mini that is now shipping with Gigabit Ethernet on board.
Nice try, but Apple and Linux have far more complex operating systems that don't slow to a crawl every time you click a mouse.
The other interesting thing to note here is the number of actual code writing engineers that are on each OS software team. For Microsoft, that number is in the many thousands (upwards of 10,000) working on Windows. For Apple, that number is in the low hundreds (around 220 last time I checked) working on OS X.
Interestingly, I've found Apple to be very willing to integrate backwards and forwards support in their OS. In the transition from 680X0 to PPC, Apple made sure to include some very clever programming that allowed a native and non-native apps to co-exist. In the transition to OS X from Classic, they included Classic as a virtual environment and in the transition from PPC to Intel, they are working very hard on Rosetta, another environment that preserves people's investment in their software.
In contrast, I've had a fairly difficult time getting older software on Windows to even run sometimes. We kept a Win95 box around for the longest time because of some very specific software we needed that would not run on anything else.
I am the Vice President for Research and Outcomes at Posit Science, which means that among other things, I worked with the team that designed the on-line test and collected the relevant normative data.
Now, this is what on occasion makes Slashdot great and is unfortunately all to rare. To have people answer questions who are the subjects or are involved in articles posted on Slashdot respond to and address issues and concerns raised in this forum is a wonderful thing. Thank you Henry.
In the interests of making an interesting on-line test, we called this brain speed because the threshold output is a reasonable measure of the minimum amount of time the brain requires to correctly identify and sequence two similar sounds. The task is relevant to the fundamental accuracy of the brain's ability to process auditory information and speech.
I'll accept that. However, I would like to see disclaimers that address the possibility that "abnormally slow" results may not represent cognitive slowing, but can be the result of other issues, such as cochlear pathologies and hearing loss.
However, it is the case that many elements of basic brain function, particularly including TOJ thresholds, change significantly over the the normal non-pathological course of aging.
Auditory evoked potentials were more of what I was addressing when I specifically mentioned nuclei. Cognitive processing is indeed another most relevant abstraction that I agree is what is at issue here.
We've collected quite a lot of data on this topic over the past year, which is consistent with a large literature on changes in temporal processing (e.g., backward masking, temporal integration) that occur with normal aging.
Can you direct me to any relevant publications of your data? Disclaimer: I realize that for many commercial endeavors, there may in fact be a delay in publishing scientific data. We are facing the same issue with some of our efforts as well. Unfortunately, criticism tends to fill the space in between commercialization and publication, but hey....we're scientists and it is our job to be critical, right?:-)
we have suggested (coming out this year in Progress in Brain Research) that normal age-related cognitive decline is contributed to by negative plastic processes in the CNS, and that appropriate designed training programs to reverse that negative plasticity are likely to improve perception, cognition, memory, and action.
I will look forward to this article.
It's nice to see at least a small group of neuroscientists here on slashdot...
You are absolutely right. The nice thing about Slashdot is that there actually *are* lots of scientists around here. Many of us are quiet and we go long periods without commenting or participating here, but we have jobs that have to pay the bills.... Seriously though, there are a number of folks here that have engaged in most stimulating conversations from a variety of disciplines including neuroscience, genetics, astrophysics, bioengineering etc...etc...etc... There is more noise these days, but on occasion, gems appear.
Thanks for your time is responding here on your effort here on Slashdot Henry,
Being a neuroscientist doesn't necessarily mean you have brains.
No, but it does mean that I study brains:-) More seriously, being a neuroscientist does mean that I have at least enough "brains" to get through a rigorous program and the tenacity to do it.
Now, don't get me wrong, you might be smart. But you might not be. I have met a shitload of dumb folk in acadaemia in all disciplines.
Me too, but as there are different kinds of smart, there are different kinds of dumb..... so, what is it that you are trying to say? Do you have *anything* constructive to add?
Just because you have a degree in something that most people know nothing about... means nothing.
Well, it means something to me and it means something to those who employ me and it means something to my colleagues with whom I collaborate. So, you will forgive me if I say that their opinion of my abilities matters more to me than yours. No offense intended of course.
True. It is harder however to make informed decisions without training/knowledge and that is what we rely upon our scientists to do for us, inform us as to their opinion based upon their knowledge and their training. I was simply functioning in that role for this community.
Controlled scientific studies show over a decacde-equivalent improvement in age-related decline.
You are absolutely correct. This has been the case in study after study for what...... 40 years or more?
What basis do you have to claim that these effects may be obtained more simply? What have you done, or what are you referring to, that has been studied in a carefully controlled manner?
As I said just above, these studies have been done for years and the literature is very, very rich. You and the author of this software are not incorrect here.
Slashdot Mirror
To all those companies that are being so helpful in "parking" domain names for me and then charging outrageous prices to "register" them........ FSCK YOU!!!. Seriously though, how many of you have tried to go out and register even the most obscure of domain names for your website only to have companies like Marchex or GoDaddy say "Sure, we'll get that domain for you for the low, low price of $5000.00" (or more). This is the concept of the middle man taken to criminal levels. Can someone enlighten me as to what benefit(s) they provide? What services do they provide? Is there anything good at all about these companies or are they simply parasitic ticks feeding off the belly of the Internet?
:-)
And what does it say about the market audience when domain names with misspelled words (like Mortage.com) can go for $242,000?
Oh, I forgot.... at least one domain level parking company provides Microsoft with advertising because they "parked" all of their unused domains on IIS servers....which......appear at some level to be able to handle those traffic loads.
Maybe you should come off of your high horse....Hmmm?
You are the one that said: "I am calling bullshit on you and your entire post.", right? So, essentially you were calling me out, yeah? Well, I am here and I am going to hold your feet to the fire on that.
I suppose you have no idea of the astonishing arrogance of both your original posting and your reply to my posting.
You are a troll, right? I mean come on now, you call bullshit on my entire post, tell me that I don't seem interested in what I do, imply that I am lying then you have the cojones to call me arrogant? Please! I am responding to you in the hopes that some civil discourse can occur here.
So, just what's your complaint here? I am telling you that we are hiring programmers, that we are actively involved in cutting edge research and cannot find enough of the talent we need. The money is there, the need is there, thus my encouragement for students to get into CS. We need programmers that can do image processing work, image registration, image mosaicing and image classification. Those skills are not a dime a dozen right now.
The trick I believe to staying competitive in any field is to stay on top of technology and make sure that your skills are kept in demand. Get lazy and you fall behind. This goes not just for CS, but for just about every other field I can think of.
The people that they are trying to get to go into computer science have as much chance of getting into a Ph.D program as the average sand lot baseball player has of getting into the majors.
Oh, come on now. It's waaaaaay easier to get into a CS grad program than it is to get into medical school for example. It's a numbers game and going into a doctoral program in CS is a paid trip. You get a tuition waver AND a stipend.
Most Ph.D grads in CS seem to feel pretty lucky to get a job paying $50K to teach at a community college.
Jeeez, I know a bunch of folks that have gone to work for Google, Adobe, Apple and a number of other companies with Ph.D.'s and they are making a fair bit more than that. I know a bunch of folks that have bachelors and masters degrees as well that are making significantly more than $50k as well. The one Ph.D. that went to Google was *heavily* recruited by them and got an amazingly sweet package including stock options that were set up before the IPO (yes, I was jealous).
I knew Henderson when he was a brand new professor at the UofU and I was a grad student desperately trying to finish a thesis.
Want me to send greetings?
Should Companies Delay Products for More Features?
:-)
Companies should release products when they are *done*. This means that they define a set of parameters they want to meet and then complete them. Putting a product out in a date driven fashion is a sure fire way to release crap that you end up beta testing on your customers while trying to add in new features/technology results in version creep. Want to please your customers and get them to come back for your other products? Release a product when it is done and if you want to introduce new features, that is an incremental release.
*Disclaimer: This only works if you do not have a monopoly...
My karma is always excellent, and my posting philosophy is to never be swayed by the potential of bad karma. There are plenty of places to post outside of Slashdot, but holding yourself back results in the mediocre quality that gets you on average modded down.
Mod parent up! Big time... Seriously, yes, there are mod abuses that are a fact here on Slashdot. In fact, I just got modbombed by somebody who did not agree with me regardless of whether or not what I had to say contributed. However, if your contributions are worthy and help to inform the audience here, then your Karma in the long run will not suffer.
God put YOU here to test ME! ;-)
:-)
If you are one of my medical or graduate students, then perhaps that statement is more true that you think.
For the creationist folks, they'll continue to dispute this because their blind faith requires it.
While I am a scientist, I also believe in God, and that was partially my point in the original post, albeit glibly stated. The amazing thing about the creationists and the fundies is that there is no allowance for thought. Look, we have been given the gift of choice and the gift of intellect so that we can question and discover the wonder of the universe through science. Nothing out there says that God/Allah/Yahweh/Jehova etc...etc...etc... cannot work through science. Of course this is partially the deal that ID folks want to play up, but the problem with their perspective is that they *are* blinded by preconceived notions rather than allowing themselves the dangerous and subversive prospect of questioning and thinking for themselves.
For my part, I don't care what people decide to believe or not as long as they don't tell me what I have/should believe. More importantly, there are fundamental issues related to education and economic development and freedom that are dependent upon having a basic understanding of how things work scientifically and mathematically. To cripple education through the agenda that the ID folks are proposing is doing a disservice to us all.
God put all those fossils there just to test us..... :-)
I wrote a couple of articles about where I thought the PDA might be going back in 2002 and 2005. Specifically, I'd suppose (hope) that it might see a resurgence through the iPod phenomenon.
.Mac subscription/connectivity to enable syncing with your desktop/laptop and provide a cell phone service implemented like iChat, I suspect it could be highly profitable.
We really have not seen a whole lot of innovation in the PDA market aside from color screens and somewhat faster CPUs since Palm and then Microsoft entered the market. The first device that truly works as an assistant that is affordable will, like Palm did in the 90's take over the market again. Phone use will be required, but could easily function with a Bluetooth earpiece. It will have to have a big enough screen in portrait or landscape mode to surf the web (surfing the web on my Tungsten T3 sucks), will have to be able to plug into a projector and deliver Keynote (or Powerpoint) presentations, read and annotate pdf's, have an honest 4-5hr battery life (ideally more, but this will depend upon new battery technology or fuel cells), be rugged, have a decent way to enter information through a keyboard (real or virtual) and be reasonably affordable.
The Newton was the original UMPC and did many things very well (including handwriting recognition in the 110 and up), but were waaaay too expensive for their time. I had a 110 and a 120 that I used for years before they simply could not keep up, but that form factor is still ideal. Put a color screen in it, run OS X on a flash drive along with global band cell phone connectivity, 802.11 and Bluetooth and if you can sell it for $700-800 or so, you have the ideal PDA. That may be cutting the margins thin, but if Apple could sell it along with
I am calling bullshit on you and your entire post.
Hrmmm. Careful now.... it's a small world out there. It's probably good you don't post your real identity on Slashdot, because one would want to be careful about not appearing to be ignorant, especially if one were looking for a job.
Just scanned your blog and your profile on technorati and you do not seem to be a computer scientist.
Thanks for taking that time to explore. I hope there was something of interest for you.
You don't even seems to be very interested in the subject.
????? WTF? OK, lemme lay it out for you. While I am a scientist, I am not a computer scientist by training nor do I suggest that I am. I am a neuroscientist who previous to completing my doctorate had some experience in the computer field working informally/consulting for companies like Apple, Adobe, Aspyr and Westlake Interactive. Our work, if you were remotely careful in your exploration and assessment would realize relies heavily on computational work. As such, we are collaborating with computer scientists at the U of U and UCSB to craft software tools to increase our throughput.
And I have not seen anything like what you describe.
Mmmmm, perhaps that is because we are looking for the best and the brightest students that do image analysis? I don't know what your background is or which classes you may have taken, but our collaborations with CS here rely on Drs. Henderson, Tasdizen and Whitaker to find students that are appropriate for these topics. Our collaborations with UCSB follow the same protocol and it must be working well, because I am quite impressed with the work out of the U of U and UCSB.
I realize that the Slashdot format lends itself to the kinds of posts that you just made, but I implore you to get off your high horse, think more and type less....
Even though I drag the big camera around most of the time,
LOL, yes indeed. Me too.
I still now and then find myself in situations where I didn't have it, or taking it out would have taken too long and drawn too much attention, or I just wanted to send a picture of something to my SO, and going via DSLR, computer and email was at least two steps too many and half a day too slow.
I carry around a small digital camera (Elph, but I'm looking at one of those super thin Sonys) with me for those times too as the quality out of the cell phones just does not yet cut it.
Many DoD installations do not let you take camera phones onsite.
Jeez, it's not just camera phones. Some installations practically make you strip down and leave *all* "devices" at the security gate. Laptops, PDAs, USBkeys, cell phones, even wrist watches are required to be removed. It's amazing how much electronic stuff we routinely haul around with us and it's not until you have to start paying attention to it that it strikes you how dependent we have become on it. You think "How in the hell am I going to do anything for the next few hours without all this stuff?" Taking notes, keeping in touch, etc...etc...etc...
But yeah, I hear you. I would be nice to have companies focus on delivering specifically targeted tools like a cell phone that was optimized around the user experience of talking.
Look, the number of pixels is simply not as important as the optical properties of the system. I've seen better pictures come out of a four megapixel (MP) camera with better lenses than those that come out of a seven MP camera with poorer quality optics. So, if your lenses allow clean transmission of light without chromatic aberration and little to no change to the fidelity of the image, then you will have better images than just simply bumping up the MP count through commodity CCDs.
This of course is what the phone manufacturers are doing, buying commodity CCDs because that is what is being made. It is cheaper for them to spend an extra dollar or two on a higher MP count CCD rather than putting the development dollars on improving the user experience, interface or infrastructure.
This of course is because people respond to higher MP counts in the same way they like "bling". "Ooooh shiny things!" Come-on people! Put some effort into purchasing quality products that demand a bit more work and are functional for longer periods of time instead of purchasing things that you throw away after only a short time. It shows you are more discriminating, pushes companies to produce better products, is easier on the environment and gives you better quality goods that help to improve your life rather than clutter it up with junk.
Notice I said "can command a six figure salary". While most are not in that range, I personally know two post-docs that are making just above $100k/year. Send me an email and I'll direct you to those programs where they are at.
Do not misunderestimate my spelling or grammar skills. And do not doubt that there are WMDs in Iraq.
O.K., somebody please mod this as funny. I have mod points, but because I have already posted in this thread, I cannot mod it up. For those of you who don't get it, just Google "misunderestimate".
A computer science post doc has roughly as much education as a doctor.
Yes, very true. And, in fact, with a Ph.D. in Comp. Sci., you get to be called "doctor".
"Can command six figures" displays the shortage is nowhere near serious enough. "Can command seven figures" and you would have a flood of people willing to do 8-11 years of post college education.
What world do you live in? Do you understand that the average income for an M.D. is about $150k? Do the math. Do you understand that most of us "doctors" don't go around driving high end automobiles or living in mansions? If that's what you want, then go sell real estate or something where you can makes lots of money for very little work.
Hey A.C. troll, it sounds to me like you have not done any significant research into spelling or grammar. :-)
Seriously though, you have no idea of what you are talking about, but I'll let the market decide whether or not you are correct. Given that we have millions of dollars coming in from our research and have the prospect of many millions more, I'll continue doing what we are doing. In fact, if our metabolomics work takes off the way we want.... there will be significant impact into bioscience, medicine, medical diagnostics and drug development.
Do you have a link to an ad for a six figure post-doc position?
Enroll in just about any accredited doctoral program in comp sci. at a university, which by the way is not as onerous as one might think as tuition is often waved and you get a stipend on the order of 12-30k/year. After you finish your Ph.D., then you have your pick of post-docs just about anywhere in the country with a top comp sci. department.
You are not hearing what I am saying..... I am not speaking as a programmer, because I am not. I am speaking as a person who is doing the hiring or is involved in projects that needs programmers and I am telling you that we need people to work on new projects. If you are simply doing basic Java programming, then those positions are not as much in demand. However, if you are doing new things in Java such as image or data analysis or are creating new and useful programs in Java such as ImageJ from Wayne Rasband, then hellyeah.... you have a job where ever you want it and it will not be outsourced because being able to think critically and establish yourself in new markets to take advantage of those needs it is not a commodity skill that can easily be outsourced. It takes a bit more work, but then just about everything worth anything takes a bit more work, yeah?
I will also chime in here and say that there is a significant need for computer scientists. Just to give you some idea of the demand, computer science post-docs can command six figure salaries compared to salaries in the range of 30-35k for bioscience post-docs.
But here is the deal.... We are not looking for people to help administer our systems. That is relatively easy to do, particularly with operating systems like OS X. You have to be bright and willing to work on *new* problems particularly those dealing with data management and visualization. Many comp-sci students want to go create games and there is a market for that, but where the technology for games really comes from is basic science research dealing with real-world problems. And in fact, some games and game engines are now being applied to real world problems.
There are a couple of exciting projects I am working on in these fields, namely I have just been asked to sit on the board of a media group that will deal with some of these issues and real world application of games and other digital media. Alexander Seropian (of Bungie fame) is also on this board and it should be interesting to see where this goes. Additionally, our research in a new area of bioscience called metabolomics looks ready to take off and we are working with a number of comp-sci graduate students, post-docs and faculty to create tools to deal with the types of data we use to pick out signatures of cells much like the CIA and NASA use to determine signatures of "things" they are interested in. Also data management and communication is another field that is very much in demand and we are working with groups to help us create databases that can be mined and used interactively to collaboratively annotate and discuss data with multiple users.
Lemme tell you folks, if you are interested in computer science, go for it. There is certainly a market for talented programmers and looking four to ten years in the future (which is about as far as I can), the demand will be there.
'In that case, it was so severe that trying to recover was meaningless. They did not have an automated process to wipe and rebuild the systems, so it became a burden. They had to design a process real fast,'."
:-)
Ummmmm, how about switching?
Seriously though, NeXTstep certainly has a long history in certain TLA government agencies and OS X is beginning to make significant inroads there as well. In addition the timing is right for many businesses as the infrastructure costs to maintaining Windows are simply becoming too high.
And calling these recent instances is a joke. I was having to perform complete system wipes and reconstructions due to malware years ago which is why we have essentially completed a migration to OS X. We do have some windows systems still around, but they are hidden behind OS X machines and are run headless and without connection to the Internet. In fact, it's been interesting that those companies that deliver microscopes (electron, confocal and light) and such that are currently driven by Windows are asking their customers to simply not plug them into networks or the Internet, severely limiting their use. They of course have been suggesting sneakernet to move files and data around, but my solution is to network them all with a dedicated backbone behind a Mac mini that is now shipping with Gigabit Ethernet on board.
Nice try, but Apple and Linux have far more complex operating systems that don't slow to a crawl every time you click a mouse.
The other interesting thing to note here is the number of actual code writing engineers that are on each OS software team. For Microsoft, that number is in the many thousands (upwards of 10,000) working on Windows. For Apple, that number is in the low hundreds (around 220 last time I checked) working on OS X.
Interestingly, I've found Apple to be very willing to integrate backwards and forwards support in their OS. In the transition from 680X0 to PPC, Apple made sure to include some very clever programming that allowed a native and non-native apps to co-exist. In the transition to OS X from Classic, they included Classic as a virtual environment and in the transition from PPC to Intel, they are working very hard on Rosetta, another environment that preserves people's investment in their software.
In contrast, I've had a fairly difficult time getting older software on Windows to even run sometimes. We kept a Win95 box around for the longest time because of some very specific software we needed that would not run on anything else.
I am the Vice President for Research and Outcomes at Posit Science, which means that among other things, I worked with the team that designed the on-line test and collected the relevant normative data.
:-)
Now, this is what on occasion makes Slashdot great and is unfortunately all to rare. To have people answer questions who are the subjects or are involved in articles posted on Slashdot respond to and address issues and concerns raised in this forum is a wonderful thing. Thank you Henry.
In the interests of making an interesting on-line test, we called this brain speed because the threshold output is a reasonable measure of the minimum amount of time the brain requires to correctly identify and sequence two similar sounds. The task is relevant to the fundamental accuracy of the brain's ability to process auditory information and speech.
I'll accept that. However, I would like to see disclaimers that address the possibility that "abnormally slow" results may not represent cognitive slowing, but can be the result of other issues, such as cochlear pathologies and hearing loss.
However, it is the case that many elements of basic brain function, particularly including TOJ thresholds, change significantly over the the normal non-pathological course of aging.
Auditory evoked potentials were more of what I was addressing when I specifically mentioned nuclei. Cognitive processing is indeed another most relevant abstraction that I agree is what is at issue here.
We've collected quite a lot of data on this topic over the past year, which is consistent with a large literature on changes in temporal processing (e.g., backward masking, temporal integration) that occur with normal aging.
Can you direct me to any relevant publications of your data? Disclaimer: I realize that for many commercial endeavors, there may in fact be a delay in publishing scientific data. We are facing the same issue with some of our efforts as well. Unfortunately, criticism tends to fill the space in between commercialization and publication, but hey....we're scientists and it is our job to be critical, right?
we have suggested (coming out this year in Progress in Brain Research) that normal age-related cognitive decline is contributed to by negative plastic processes in the CNS, and that appropriate designed training programs to reverse that negative plasticity are likely to improve perception, cognition, memory, and action.
I will look forward to this article.
It's nice to see at least a small group of neuroscientists here on slashdot...
You are absolutely right. The nice thing about Slashdot is that there actually *are* lots of scientists around here. Many of us are quiet and we go long periods without commenting or participating here, but we have jobs that have to pay the bills.... Seriously though, there are a number of folks here that have engaged in most stimulating conversations from a variety of disciplines including neuroscience, genetics, astrophysics, bioengineering etc...etc...etc... There is more noise these days, but on occasion, gems appear.
Thanks for your time is responding here on your effort here on Slashdot Henry,
Bryan
Being a neuroscientist doesn't necessarily mean you have brains.
:-) More seriously, being a neuroscientist does mean that I have at least enough "brains" to get through a rigorous program and the tenacity to do it.
No, but it does mean that I study brains
Now, don't get me wrong, you might be smart. But you might not be. I have met a shitload of dumb folk in acadaemia in all disciplines.
Me too, but as there are different kinds of smart, there are different kinds of dumb..... so, what is it that you are trying to say? Do you have *anything* constructive to add?
Just because you have a degree in something that most people know nothing about... means nothing.
Well, it means something to me and it means something to those who employ me and it means something to my colleagues with whom I collaborate. So, you will forgive me if I say that their opinion of my abilities matters more to me than yours. No offense intended of course.
It is quite easy to pose the pundit.
True. It is harder however to make informed decisions without training/knowledge and that is what we rely upon our scientists to do for us, inform us as to their opinion based upon their knowledge and their training. I was simply functioning in that role for this community.
Controlled scientific studies show over a decacde-equivalent improvement in age-related decline.
You are absolutely correct. This has been the case in study after study for what...... 40 years or more?
What basis do you have to claim that these effects may be obtained more simply? What have you done, or what are you referring to, that has been studied in a carefully controlled manner?
As I said just above, these studies have been done for years and the literature is very, very rich. You and the author of this software are not incorrect here.