Studies in bibliometrics also seem to indicate this pattern - not the genius aspect but the fact that many high profile or high impact papers are collaborations. In general the number of single author papers has declined.
What a horrific visualization - first it's a pie chart and on top of that why put in a background to obscure the colors? Someone went overboard with their charting software
Don't put up what you don't want other people to see - I hear all about the new generation growing up with the Internet and Facebook being a part of their life.
But what about simple commonsense rules (either derived on their own or imbibed from parents)?
Would you make a fool of yourself in the street (OK, some people would)?
> So you cite the paper for every piece of software you use (ssh, Linux, gcc, etc.)?
Of course not - but it only applies to software that is so common that everybody will know about it, such as ssh or Linux.
Even for some cases, such as say nmap, I'd at least include a reference that lists the URL. I'm lucky that the journals I submit to, allow that.
You mention researchers running their experiments with certain softwares and not citing them since it doesn't change the results. In my mind that's a sloppy paper. Maybe, for an expert in the field reading the paper, those codes are well known. What about someone entering your field? If they try to reproduce the work, and don't use say Stork, will any differences in their results be due to bad data, bad methodology or the lack of use of Stork?
If your results depend on a piece of software, make sure that a reader knows exactly what was used and how to get it. That might mean a paper or a URL. In the absence of that the paper is just advertising and not a contribution.
So, if you were to get such a license and then somebody published a result without citing your software (as opposed to mentioning that they used the software), how would you (or your boss) enforce it?
Would your boss really sue another academic for not citing the software?
Of course, as an academic myself, not citing the paper for some software that I used, is sloppy anyway.
Aah, why bother with that hassle? Just let people kill of people randomly - it does the same job as raptors and we don't need to have the hassle of genetic enginering
This is very handy - especially since it's much easier to code up a Ubiquity command than a ful fledged Firefox plugin. And the fact that it's interactive differentiates it from Greasemonkey.
Sure, some of the high-profile startups might be the result of a wunderkind in a dorm or garage. But it's also true that by definition, these types of startups are going to get a lot of publicity.
It would make sense that someone with more experience under their belt might be a good candidate for a startup.
Also, I'm of the view that startups don't necessarily have to solve all the worlds problems (ala Google) or even solve sexy problems. There are enough niche areas, where experience and knowledge counts as much (if not more) than youth.
I can see that more data (especially more varied data) could be better than a tweaked algorithm. Especially in machine learning, I see many people publish papers on a new method that does 1% better than preexisting methods.
Now, I won't deny that algorithmic advances are important, but it seems to me that unless you have a better understanding of the underlying system (which might be a physical system or a social system) tweaking algorithms would only lead to marginal improvements.
Obviously, there will be a big jump when going from a simplistic method (say linear regression) to a more sophisticated method (say SVM's). But going from one type of SVM to another slightly tweaked version of the fundamental SVM algorithm is probably not as worthwhile as sitting down and trying to understand what is generating the observed data in the first place.
seems to resonate a lot with most people. Of course, this assumes that installation etc does not involve a command line. But given a MSI like installer, I think that free would be a big selling point, followed by be able to do what you usually do.
Interesting - but couldn't this be a correlation != causation issue? Also it seems to imply that violent or criminal behavior is due to organic brain damage. Is that a given?
Interesting developement. An analogous idea was used by Alastair Reynolds in Redemption Ark where one of the characters was genetically modified to have high neural processing speeds and required a 'heatsink' (made of bone and blood vessels) to dissipate the extra heat.
One reason: the alien queen in Aliens (and Aliens 2 3 4) exhibited this type of anatomy. Of course in the movie the inner set of jaws were for biting chewing and drooling...
What's with the scifi tag? This is real stuff, not fiction. And not entirely surprising sicne mitochondria in humans are (hypothesized?) ancient bacteria that have been incorporated into the human genome
They could have mentioned that somewhere at the beginning of the summary. I was reading the damn thing and my heart rate was increasing. And then I saw that it was all from an MD simulation:(
Yet if this were done in NYC or London, there would be a string of posts condemning such action?
Frankly, wherever something like this happens, it's something to be wary of. Given China's track record I don't think there doing it just for the fun of it.
As far as UIUC is concerned, they have some top notch people who are pushing computing to the limits with long time-scale molecular dynamics runs. And their not doing it to model a few atoms either. Klaus Schulten has been doing some very impressive work on simulating protein dynamics. Take a look at http://www.ks.uiuc.edu/Overview/KS/research.html.
So I have a feeling that the new machines are going to be humming right along
Interesting study. If the research can be generalied from context-specific fear, to general fear, it may the starting point for fear gas (described by Alastair Reynolds), which might be a useful non-lethal crowd control weapon
Slashdot Mirror
Studies in bibliometrics also seem to indicate this pattern - not the genius aspect but the fact that many high profile or high impact papers are collaborations. In general the number of single author papers has declined.
http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol12/issue2/walsh.html
What a horrific visualization - first it's a pie chart and on top of that why put in a background to obscure the colors? Someone went overboard with their charting software
that's what parents are for
Don't put up what you don't want other people to see - I hear all about the new generation growing up with the Internet and Facebook being a part of their life.
But what about simple commonsense rules (either derived on their own or imbibed from parents)?
Would you make a fool of yourself in the street (OK, some people would)?
> So you cite the paper for every piece of software you use (ssh, Linux, gcc, etc.)?
Of course not - but it only applies to software that is so common that everybody will know about it, such as ssh or Linux.
Even for some cases, such as say nmap, I'd at least include a reference that lists the URL. I'm lucky that the journals I submit to, allow that.
You mention researchers running their experiments with certain softwares and not citing them since it doesn't change the results. In my mind that's a sloppy paper. Maybe, for an expert in the field reading the paper, those codes are well known. What about someone entering your field? If they try to reproduce the work, and don't use say Stork, will any differences in their results be due to bad data, bad methodology or the lack of use of Stork?
If your results depend on a piece of software, make sure that a reader knows exactly what was used and how to get it. That might mean a paper or a URL. In the absence of that the paper is just advertising and not a contribution.
So, if you were to get such a license and then somebody published a result without citing your software (as opposed to mentioning that they used the software), how would you (or your boss) enforce it?
Would your boss really sue another academic for not citing the software?
Of course, as an academic myself, not citing the paper for some software that I used, is sloppy anyway.
> My proposal is to clone rapters
Aah, why bother with that hassle? Just let people kill of people randomly - it does the same job as raptors and we don't need to have the hassle of genetic enginering
This is very handy - especially since it's much easier to code up a Ubiquity command than a ful fledged Firefox plugin. And the fact that it's interactive differentiates it from Greasemonkey.
I thought the goal of the registry was to exclude marketers from getting this info? So who gve the glowing reviews?
Sure, some of the high-profile startups might be the result of a wunderkind in a dorm or garage. But it's also true that by definition, these types of startups are going to get a lot of publicity.
It would make sense that someone with more experience under their belt might be a good candidate for a startup.
Also, I'm of the view that startups don't necessarily have to solve all the worlds problems (ala Google) or even solve sexy problems. There are enough niche areas, where experience and knowledge counts as much (if not more) than youth.
I can see that more data (especially more varied data) could be better than a tweaked algorithm. Especially in machine learning, I see many people publish papers on a new method that does 1% better than preexisting methods.
Now, I won't deny that algorithmic advances are important, but it seems to me that unless you have a better understanding of the underlying system (which might be a physical system or a social system) tweaking algorithms would only lead to marginal improvements.
Obviously, there will be a big jump when going from a simplistic method (say linear regression) to a more sophisticated method (say SVM's). But going from one type of SVM to another slightly tweaked version of the fundamental SVM algorithm is probably not as worthwhile as sitting down and trying to understand what is generating the observed data in the first place.
As is the tradition, I haven't RTFA and I don't think IO means input/output in this context ...
seems to resonate a lot with most people. Of course, this assumes that installation etc does not involve a command line. But given a MSI like installer, I think that free would be a big selling point, followed by be able to do what you usually do.
How long will it be before they "lose" the gene data? Or maybe "share" the data?
Also given that the CEO is Sergey Brins wife, I wonder whether Google will get involved at one point?
The fact that he's a surfer dude deserves some mention as well - not everyday you see hard core mathematical physics coming from the beach!
Interesting - but couldn't this be a correlation != causation issue? Also it seems to imply that violent or criminal behavior is due to organic brain damage. Is that a given?
Of course I haven't read the paper
Interesting developement. An analogous idea was used by Alastair Reynolds in Redemption Ark where one of the characters was genetically modified to have high neural processing speeds and required a 'heatsink' (made of bone and blood vessels) to dissipate the extra heat.
One reason: the alien queen in Aliens (and Aliens 2 3 4) exhibited this type of anatomy. Of course in the movie the inner set of jaws were for biting chewing and drooling ...
What's with the scifi tag? This is real stuff, not fiction. And not entirely surprising sicne mitochondria in humans are (hypothesized?) ancient bacteria that have been incorporated into the human genome
How many tickets answered per day? Completed per day? /dev/random is probably the most elegant though
They could have mentioned that somewhere at the beginning of the summary. I was reading the damn thing and my heart rate was increasing. And then I saw that it was all from an MD simulation :(
Not really - but you have all these soundbites in the US about human rights and quality of life etc. It's a little jarring to hear the hypocrisy.
Yet if this were done in NYC or London, there would be a string of posts condemning such action?
Frankly, wherever something like this happens, it's something to be wary of. Given China's track record I don't think there doing it just for the fun of it.
As far as UIUC is concerned, they have some top notch people who are pushing computing to the limits with long time-scale molecular dynamics runs. And their not doing it to model a few atoms either. Klaus Schulten has been doing some very impressive work on simulating protein dynamics. Take a look at http://www.ks.uiuc.edu/Overview/KS/research.html.
So I have a feeling that the new machines are going to be humming right along
Interesting study. If the research can be generalied from context-specific fear, to general fear, it may the starting point for fear gas (described by Alastair Reynolds), which might be a useful non-lethal crowd control weapon