I agree. I really have no problem paying to watch a film; I just don't want paying for it to be a painful, unreliable experience. The way these discussions go on Slashdot, you'd think there was an attempt to make free content illegal.
My point stands: the reviewers in this case are neither authoritative nor independent. Suggesting this passed review with flying colours, then, is drawing a rather long bow. And that's granting the imprimatur of journal peer review in the first place, which, having been on both sides of the fence, I don't.
Take that with a pinch of salt. His latest 'recursive fury' paper was reviewed (only) by two postgrads, both of whom he references several times in the paper.
Either way, you should find out the story Lewandowsky isn't telling (just google for it) and make your own mind up whether this guy is being honest or just telling you what you might want to hear.
You must know some astounding programmers. I've been doing this for thirty years, I've a PhD in the subject, and I still grab people to review my code (wherein they often find something to fix). Maybe your experience of code reviews has been adversarial? They shouldn't be like that at all.
I don't know why you were down-voted (well, other than this is Slashdot where egos are fragile things).
I completely agree: I want my code to be reviewed for two reasons. First, a second pair of eyes invariably catches a problem I've missed, even if it's not having adequately explained my code. Second, I want to show off how cool my code is and set a target to aim for:-)
(1) Code reviews. At first, just get 'em to grab a passer by to look at their code prior to check-in. If the PB cannot understand what they've done, they haven't finished the job. Later on you can upgrade to more stringent reviews, but the first thing is to get *some* reviews happening *at all*.
(2) Comments and (some) documentation. You need to lead by example. This stuff isn't optional.
(3) Unit testing. If your code base is a pig, you'll need to start somewhere and begin teasing out the "bits that think" (easier to UT) from the "bits that talk to things" (these are harder to UT and you can get away with integration testing here until you're in better shape). Unit testing is a skill anyone can learn. Sack 'em if they refuse to do it!
(4) Simplify your processes and your architecture where possible. Avoid trendy bandwagons. If the obvious thing works and is maintainable, then that is probably the best way to go.
(1) My point, which I assume was obvious to other people, regarding having a modern version of Android on my 'Fire was precisely that I have it to compare against Windows Phone 7.5 as a small-device OS. You do realise you can replace the OS on a 'Fire?
(2) This is my only account which I've held pretty much since Slashdot started.
(3) Are you aware that your posts are nothing more than ad hominem attacks? Do you accuse everyone who disagrees with you of "shilling"?
(4) If you spoke to people face to face the way you speak on Slashdot you'd get a few good slaps. Which would probably do you a world of good.
Well, I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I honestly don't think the overwrought expressions of WinPhone's inferiority common on this thread come from anyone who has seriously (or even actually) used the product. The press reviews are almost unanimously very positive and that matches my experience.
"Hater", "fanboy", "snivelling", "when you get to high school". You're right, these are the kinds of phrase that you expect in polite, open discussion and not frothing invective. I stand corrected.
Nokia sold 50% more lumias than the preceding quarter and a 100% more lumias than Symbian phones in the same quarter.
I've owned a Windows 7.5 phone (a Samsung) for over a year now and I'm delighted with it. I've owned an iPhone and I have Android 4 on my Kindle Fire and neither of them match up in terms of usability. I really don't understand the juvenile frothing at the mouth here whenever it is pointed out that MS has made a good product.
I have coined a rule after myself. I give you, Ralph's Rule: "There is no technology so poorly conceived, so inconsistent, so aesthetically offensive, or so woefully untouched by theory that it will not see widespread adoption in the Web community."
It's great to hear about METAGAME again. I shared an office with Barney Pell when he was writing up -- interesting guy straight out of the mad professor mould. I also shared an office with a chap (can only remember his first name, David) who took Barney's work further, but which sadly didn't lead to a publication. He had a huge collection of board games which we'd play, purely in the interests of research. That probably set my own research back half a year; good times!
I'm afraid you're wrong. A reviewer can criticise a paper for not providing or linking to raw data, but they can't demand it (see, e.g., Steve McIntyre's attempts to get the raw data when reviewing for the IPCC). In practice, peer review is incredibly weak -- all it really does is filter out the terrible stuff and help tweak what's left. I know, I spent twenty years in the business. There's this idea among the public that peer review conveys some kind of authority, but it really doesn't. Replication does that, but often you can't replicate because neither code nor raw data are made available to allow you to double check what was actually done prior to conducting your own experiment (a very famous climate researcher, for example, once responded to a request for data with this: "why should I give it to you, you only want to find something wrong with it" -- wow.)
Bingo! Like any well taught subject, mathematics should be fascinating fun. I can't find the link, but some maths professor turned high-school teacher wrote a scathing article about contemporary maths education saying it would be hard to come up with a better way to ensure students have any latent interest in the subject thoroughly expunged. His point, like yours, was that maths should be taught the way music is taught: there's something beautiful here that isn't easy to be good at. Nobody teaches music as though it's likely to be useful.
I have the same complaint about school computing courses. By all means teach kids how to use Office or whatnot, but do it in a different class! Basic computer science stuff is interesting *and* useful (e.g., sorting, propositional logic, counting systems, regular expressions, basic graph theory results, etc.). I digress.
Haven't tried it myself, but I don't understand the mentality of people who down-vote comments like yours. Slashdot is (become?) a rather insecure, juvenile echo chamber where opinions that differ from the party line must be criticised in the rudest possible fashion, then hidden from view.
The cost is irrelevant: if anyone is to build on your results, they should first look for confirmation.
Why? - Publications suffer a huge selection bias -- it is nearly impossible to get a negative result published (even if it refutes prior publications!). - Most statistical work (a) uses an absurdly generous 95% confidence interval and (b) hasn't even been vetted by a competent statistician.
Requiring data and code to be published would go a long way towards improving the situation, since there's no point in reproducing an experiment if you can show the original method or data was flawed. But good luck getting the world of climate science to adopt that practice:-)
Really, you will only complete a PhD if you are genuinely, personally driven to do so. It's as much a mental endurance test as anything else. The main hurdles you need to overcome are (a) you will have to find something genuinely original to do, probably with minimal support -- this is quite the opposite of all other educational experiences -- (b) work out how to solve your Big Problem (by definition, the answer can't already be out there waiting for you), and (c) by the time you are ready to write up, assuming you've stuck it out to the point where you have something to write about, you then have to convince yourself that what is, by now, blindingly obvious to you will be seen as miraculous by everyone else (my tongue is only slightly in cheek here).
Having obtained your PhD, you will have done a fair whack of damage to your earning prospects! Industry will be suspicious of you, while universities are tough places to build careers, regardless of your career stage.
The upsides of a PhD are that you get to immerse yourself more freely and more deeply in your subject than anyone ever gets a sniff at in industry and that you should get some serious, Olympic level, brain training. That is very, very rewarding in its own right.
In a nutshell, if you must do a PhD, do it as a labour of love.
On the other hand, you could go for a Masters. Here you will find much more handholding (this is a Good Thing) and get to explore CS in much more depth than is usually possible in a first degree. Even better, a Masters is good for your career, whatever you choose to do, and many universities will give you the option of converting to the PhD course if everything is going well.
- Comment your code religiously (i.e., what a given piece of code is intended to achieve, why you chose to do it that way, links to relevant materials, etc. as appropriate). - Take unit testing and regression testing seriously. Make it part of each work item. - Keep your designs simple. This takes careful up-front thinking. Avoid design patterns unless you absolutely have to use them (they mostly add complexity to little benefit in my experience). - Try not to jump on bandwagons. Be skeptical of everything in the industry. - It's a team game: write for each other, leave your ego at home. - Have a team pub lunch at least once a week.
I was in the advanced maths stream all the way through school.
There was a brief moment when we were maybe 13 or 14 where calculators were useful (any maybe a little longer in physics lessons). Other than that, every problem we studied we solved using algebra and surds.
That was then. The last time I was really struck by the effect of calculators in the classroom was when I was interviewing school leavers applying to study computer science the UK's premier scientific university. They all had maths A-levels at grade A. Quite a lot of them could not do simple things like sketch y = x^2 or do simple things like add or subtract fractions.
Slashdot Mirror
Ha ha, you're a hoot! You are joking, aren't you? The only other explanation that comes to mind is you're a bit thick.
At first I thought your post was hysterical bollocks, but then I saw that you'd signed it "drinkypoo" and that instantly transformed its credibility.
I agree. I really have no problem paying to watch a film; I just don't want paying for it to be a painful, unreliable experience. The way these discussions go on Slashdot, you'd think there was an attempt to make free content illegal.
I find your lucid argument compelling and wish to know more.
My point stands: the reviewers in this case are neither authoritative nor independent. Suggesting this passed review with flying colours, then, is drawing a rather long bow. And that's granting the imprimatur of journal peer review in the first place, which, having been on both sides of the fence, I don't.
Take that with a pinch of salt. His latest 'recursive fury' paper was reviewed (only) by two postgrads, both of whom he references several times in the paper.
Either way, you should find out the story Lewandowsky isn't telling (just google for it) and make your own mind up whether this guy is being honest or just telling you what you might want to hear.
You must know some astounding programmers. I've been doing this for thirty years, I've a PhD in the subject, and I still grab people to review my code (wherein they often find something to fix). Maybe your experience of code reviews has been adversarial? They shouldn't be like that at all.
I don't know why you were down-voted (well, other than this is Slashdot where egos are fragile things).
I completely agree: I want my code to be reviewed for two reasons. First, a second pair of eyes invariably catches a problem I've missed, even if it's not having adequately explained my code. Second, I want to show off how cool my code is and set a target to aim for :-)
(1) Code reviews. At first, just get 'em to grab a passer by to look at their code prior to check-in. If the PB cannot understand what they've done, they haven't finished the job. Later on you can upgrade to more stringent reviews, but the first thing is to get *some* reviews happening *at all*.
(2) Comments and (some) documentation. You need to lead by example. This stuff isn't optional.
(3) Unit testing. If your code base is a pig, you'll need to start somewhere and begin teasing out the "bits that think" (easier to UT) from the "bits that talk to things" (these are harder to UT and you can get away with integration testing here until you're in better shape). Unit testing is a skill anyone can learn. Sack 'em if they refuse to do it!
(4) Simplify your processes and your architecture where possible. Avoid trendy bandwagons. If the obvious thing works and is maintainable, then that is probably the best way to go.
Allow me to illuminate you.
(1) My point, which I assume was obvious to other people, regarding having a modern version of Android on my 'Fire was precisely that I have it to compare against Windows Phone 7.5 as a small-device OS. You do realise you can replace the OS on a 'Fire?
(2) This is my only account which I've held pretty much since Slashdot started.
(3) Are you aware that your posts are nothing more than ad hominem attacks? Do you accuse everyone who disagrees with you of "shilling"?
(4) If you spoke to people face to face the way you speak on Slashdot you'd get a few good slaps. Which would probably do you a world of good.
All the best.
Well, I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I honestly don't think the overwrought expressions of WinPhone's inferiority common on this thread come from anyone who has seriously (or even actually) used the product. The press reviews are almost unanimously very positive and that matches my experience.
Android 4. It's Jelly Bean. You may have heard of it? Now, pray tell, what makes you think I'm "shilling"?
"Hater", "fanboy", "snivelling", "when you get to high school". You're right, these are the kinds of phrase that you expect in polite, open discussion and not frothing invective. I stand corrected.
Sure, I installed Jelly Bean on the 'Fire. If that's beyond you, perhaps you're reading the wrong site.
Now, what makes me a shill for saying I enjoy using my Windows Phone?
I think I missed the anomaly you saw.
Nokia sold 50% more lumias than the preceding quarter and a 100% more lumias than Symbian phones in the same quarter.
I've owned a Windows 7.5 phone (a Samsung) for over a year now and I'm delighted with it. I've owned an iPhone and I have Android 4 on my Kindle Fire and neither of them match up in terms of usability. I really don't understand the juvenile frothing at the mouth here whenever it is pointed out that MS has made a good product.
Be my guest :-)
I have coined a rule after myself. I give you, Ralph's Rule: "There is no technology so poorly conceived, so inconsistent, so aesthetically offensive, or so woefully untouched by theory that it will not see widespread adoption in the Web community."
It's great to hear about METAGAME again. I shared an office with Barney Pell when he was writing up -- interesting guy straight out of the mad professor mould. I also shared an office with a chap (can only remember his first name, David) who took Barney's work further, but which sadly didn't lead to a publication. He had a huge collection of board games which we'd play, purely in the interests of research. That probably set my own research back half a year; good times!
I'm afraid you're wrong. A reviewer can criticise a paper for not providing or linking to raw data, but they can't demand it (see, e.g., Steve McIntyre's attempts to get the raw data when reviewing for the IPCC). In practice, peer review is incredibly weak -- all it really does is filter out the terrible stuff and help tweak what's left. I know, I spent twenty years in the business. There's this idea among the public that peer review conveys some kind of authority, but it really doesn't. Replication does that, but often you can't replicate because neither code nor raw data are made available to allow you to double check what was actually done prior to conducting your own experiment (a very famous climate researcher, for example, once responded to a request for data with this: "why should I give it to you, you only want to find something wrong with it" -- wow.)
Bingo! Like any well taught subject, mathematics should be fascinating fun. I can't find the link, but some maths professor turned high-school teacher wrote a scathing article about contemporary maths education saying it would be hard to come up with a better way to ensure students have any latent interest in the subject thoroughly expunged. His point, like yours, was that maths should be taught the way music is taught: there's something beautiful here that isn't easy to be good at. Nobody teaches music as though it's likely to be useful.
I have the same complaint about school computing courses. By all means teach kids how to use Office or whatnot, but do it in a different class! Basic computer science stuff is interesting *and* useful (e.g., sorting, propositional logic, counting systems, regular expressions, basic graph theory results, etc.). I digress.
Haven't tried it myself, but I don't understand the mentality of people who down-vote comments like yours. Slashdot is (become?) a rather insecure, juvenile echo chamber where opinions that differ from the party line must be criticised in the rudest possible fashion, then hidden from view.
The cost is irrelevant: if anyone is to build on your results, they should first look for confirmation.
Why?
- Publications suffer a huge selection bias -- it is nearly impossible to get a negative result published (even if it refutes prior publications!).
- Most statistical work (a) uses an absurdly generous 95% confidence interval and (b) hasn't even been vetted by a competent statistician.
Requiring data and code to be published would go a long way towards improving the situation, since there's no point in reproducing an experiment if you can show the original method or data was flawed. But good luck getting the world of climate science to adopt that practice :-)
Short version: go for the Masters, first.
Long version....
Really, you will only complete a PhD if you are genuinely, personally driven to do so. It's as much a mental endurance test as anything else. The main hurdles you need to overcome are (a) you will have to find something genuinely original to do, probably with minimal support -- this is quite the opposite of all other educational experiences -- (b) work out how to solve your Big Problem (by definition, the answer can't already be out there waiting for you), and (c) by the time you are ready to write up, assuming you've stuck it out to the point where you have something to write about, you then have to convince yourself that what is, by now, blindingly obvious to you will be seen as miraculous by everyone else (my tongue is only slightly in cheek here).
Having obtained your PhD, you will have done a fair whack of damage to your earning prospects! Industry will be suspicious of you, while universities are tough places to build careers, regardless of your career stage.
The upsides of a PhD are that you get to immerse yourself more freely and more deeply in your subject than anyone ever gets a sniff at in industry and that you should get some serious, Olympic level, brain training. That is very, very rewarding in its own right.
In a nutshell, if you must do a PhD, do it as a labour of love.
On the other hand, you could go for a Masters. Here you will find much more handholding (this is a Good Thing) and get to explore CS in much more depth than is usually possible in a first degree. Even better, a Masters is good for your career, whatever you choose to do, and many universities will give you the option of converting to the PhD course if everything is going well.
- Comment your code religiously (i.e., what a given piece of code is intended to achieve, why you chose to do it that way, links to relevant materials, etc. as appropriate).
- Take unit testing and regression testing seriously. Make it part of each work item.
- Keep your designs simple. This takes careful up-front thinking. Avoid design patterns unless you absolutely have to use them (they mostly add complexity to little benefit in my experience).
- Try not to jump on bandwagons. Be skeptical of everything in the industry.
- It's a team game: write for each other, leave your ego at home.
- Have a team pub lunch at least once a week.
I was in the advanced maths stream all the way through school.
There was a brief moment when we were maybe 13 or 14 where calculators were useful (any maybe a little longer in physics lessons). Other than that, every problem we studied we solved using algebra and surds.
That was then. The last time I was really struck by the effect of calculators in the classroom was when I was interviewing school leavers applying to study computer science the UK's premier scientific university. They all had maths A-levels at grade A. Quite a lot of them could not do simple things like sketch y = x^2 or do simple things like add or subtract fractions.