Try using a tag team. Maybe if each programmer had a cheerleader coordinating his efforts, he could get his production up.
We don't need cheerleaders... we need fluffer girls!!!
Take a little BJ break in the morning and the afternoon to keep the edge off and keep you motivated. I'm betting sick days would fall off to near zero.:-P
Don't take the "findings" of a tv show made for people who can't spell "physics" let alone have even the barest comprehension of any of its precepts as if they're research findings from a genuine study...
The show is entertainment at best -- sometimes it's amusing to watch them fail miserably and have the fans write in with all of the mistakes they made. However, they're good for a couple of big explosions of unplanned prat-falls in each episode -- and, really, Kari makes it all worth while for me.;-)
For what it's worth, the British Army has standing rules about the marching of soldiers over bridges and has done since a parade a couple of hundred years ago when the bridge went bye bye. Might have been a crap bridge. Might not.
Oddly enough, that was the exact myth being referenced by both myself and the person I was responding to -- that same bridge which was known to have collapsed with marching soldiers and fostered an entire set of standing rules. They just couldn't design an experiment that actually made it happen.
You're right though, just because they can't replicate something doesn't mean for a minute that they've in any way debunked it. Look at the chicken cannon -- I think they revisited that 2-3 times before they actually got a result which was consistent with what was already known.
They assumed that the footfalls of the people crossing would effectively be random, but when people walk close to each other they start walking in time with each other, that was enough to start a small wobble in the bridge, which eventually everyone on the bridge started walking in time with increasing the effect even further.
*laugh* Once again, Myth Busters seems relevant to mention here.
Only, they couldn't actually reproduce it on their scale models.
NewsZip.com is registered in Delaware, and this is a state court from another state, attempting to impose a court order outside of its jurisdiction.
Increasingly (and scarily) jurisdiction is being extended through some pretty tenuous reasoning.
That whole Lori Drew case was a woman in Missouri being sued in Los Angeles -- because the servers are located there.
Sadly, the internet seems to have created cases where lawmakers still say "well, you're guilty here" -- which is kind of scary. Just think, there is a precedent in the US which allows you to be subject to the laws of a jurisdiction you don't live in and possibly have never visited.
One of these days, any international travel might risk you being apprehended by on the basis that something you posted online is illegal in that country and you have been found guilty in absentia!
As a research student you are "hired" by the university. End of discussion. Your tuition and stipend are paid to you from research grant money that is owned by the university/professor.
I guess it depends on if the university directly funds you or not, and where the profs funding comes from.
If the only source of money is from either your own or the professor's research grant (and if it's not the university paying for that), then the university is essentially an arms length agent here, no? Granted, in most cases anyone who is a researcher at the university is also on their payroll.
But, when I was in university as an undergrad many many years ago, my prof paid me directly out of his NSERC research budget to do work for him. In that case, everything I did for him belonged to him (which I was fine with since he was paying me good cash to do cool work). The university had no claim on any results funded by his own funding he had secured separately (and, indeed, he'd had before he taught at that school).
The only thing my university ever paid me for was being a TA. My coursework and stuff I did on my own time was my own.
Don't get too excited. It's twice the price of anything comparable in the States, and utter crap compared to actual rendang. It's only an improvement by comparison to a plain Whopper, which really isn't saying much.
Wow. I should think Singapore has lots of good street food, so why eat at BK in the first place?
Then again, I guess we are talking about North Americans who are traveling and want something like they eat at home.
the NSERC seems to be a government institution, so all research that they fund is by definition public research. naturally,
Let me clarify this a little for you:
NSERC in Canada is the "National Science and Engineering Research Council".
Basically, they fund professors and students to foster research work and the like and improve the overall state of the art. They do not claim ownership of the work you do under that funding -- I myself worked in university for a prof who had an NSERC grant. I was paid out of his budget, and while he might have had some measure of accountability to them, they didn't really dictate terms to him or demand that they get the research work as their own.
The university does NOT own the work that professors and students do under an NSERC grant. A professor who published papers or creates software (etc) under this program is the owner, NSERC is the funding agency. The University is just the place where the work was done -- it's my understanding that unless the professor signed something that says the university owns it all (and, no prof would) that they have no claim to it. The professor is motivated to research and publish for his own ends and if he moves on, carries his research work with him.
In short, based on my experience with NSERC, the university has no claim if he is being funded under NSERC and working with a professor who retains rights to his own works.
Unless things have changed (and, granted, university was a long time ago) there is nothing in an NSERC funding that stipulates that the research is the property of the funding agency.
They're saying that no one orders lobster at McDonald's -- not because people don't like lobster, but because it's not on the menu.
Apropos to nothing, but that's a false statement.
It's not on the menu everywhere, but there exists a McLobster in some places. McDonald's does some regional tailoring of menus. I'm sure they have some stuff world wide you wouldn't even recognize.
After all, arithmetic with complex numbers is really simple (despite the unfortunate naming), and in many cases simpler than arithmetic with real numbers. So nature has chosen the simpler option to be reality.
Well, ignoring the whole "nature choosing" thing... that reality unfolded in such a way as to be self consistent with the mathematics we'd discover a couple of billion years later is pretty impressive.
It's not like after the big bang they held a conference to lay down the rules and then everyone said "OK, that math is simpler, so everybody spin this way". It says that the math seems to have evolved to the point that it describes things that are intrinsic to the systems it models, and likely that the math has simply always been there as the underlying mechanism for how stuff works -- or at the very least, everything followed those rules because there was no other way to do it.
Not to sound like Charlie Epps here, but that's pretty damned cool.:-P
There's no more 'existence' in a negative square root, than to a positive one. You have to define what 'existence' means, and only then we can decide if there's some relation between anti-particles and negative square roots.
There was an equation, which had a term with a square root. As a result of the way math works, if you have a positive square root, you also have a negative one (that's the level of existence I was referring to). That negative square root in the equation told us there should be anti-particles. The simple fact that the equation had to account for the case of the negative square root led us to look for these things, and, they were there is kinda of impressive when you think about it. The universe didn't have to oblige us and put a particle in there, but, nonetheless, it's there.
It's a false dicothomy to talk about math and 'physics' as separate things.
But, I'm not -- not even a little. I'm saying that our math was built up around our understanding of the physics (as well as some purely mathematical endeavors), but that the math can actually predict the physics, and that the physics seems to always follow the rules that the math adheres to is quite startling. It should model all the known phenomenon, but predicting the new ones is more than you'd think.
That was the gist of it when I linked to this -- that the math is much more intimately linked with the physics than you'd expect.
Meaning, some really big brains in math and physics have been awed by the fact that the math isn't independent of the physics. And reality doesn't ever seem to violate the math.
As the gist of the sig of someone around here says (sorry, I can't remember who), "Please read 1984 before talking about 1984.";)
I have, numerous times in fact.
1984 doesn't need to exactly match the specifics to have been prophetic about directions societies could move in. Nobody ever said it was an exact play book for how things would play out, but the overall themes he explored in it are still very relevant. Thematically, getting everyone to accept constant state surveillance as natural and for the greater good is still very much true. Hell, cyberpunk borrows from this canon, as does the acts of the characters to subvert it.
As to a restrictive society eventually deciding to manage the vices of its people in order to keep them in line, well, give it time.:-P
But it really isn't startling at all. It's the only way it can be. Physics cannot violate mathematics
You can't say this and also have previously said "We use mathematics to quantify physics, but there is no "connection" between the two.
Well, you can, but only one can be true.
It's true that the our understanding of physics is tied to the math, but for the math to accurately imply the existence of new phenomena which haven't previously been conceived of speaks more to the fact that the "real" physics obeys the same rules of math that have been observed.
That seems to indicate a more coherent coupling between what we've learned about math, and what we're in the middle of learning about how things actually work.
How can it be that mathematics, being after all product of human thought which is independent of experience, is so admirably appropriate to the objects of reality? -- Albert Einstein
We use mathematics to quantify physics, but there is no "connection" between the two, except in the sense that we can count *anything* and say there's a connection.
No, really, they're serious.
The rules of math (which weren't so much invented as identified) seem oddly linked to the underlying physics. TFA mentions the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics -- it's not so much that we can count the physics with the math, it's that the math predicts things which should be true, and are subsequently proven to be. The existence of things like a negative square root in an equation have predicted the existence of things like anti-particles, and those particles have been found experimentally.
It's precisely the fact that the math isn't independent of the physics that is at issue here That's a very startling proposition because it goes well beyond simply counting what is, it means the same rules which define the math in the first place underly the physical mechanisms.
uTorrent has a feature called local peer discovery that does that exactly. It was even able to discover other people at my university sharing the files.
Don't tell the RIAA -- they'll get a law passed insisting the universities implement this so they can keep their funding if they turn over the list.:-P
The Linux kernel is enormous and monolithic, which is why it is vulnerable to that sort of activity. But a smaller, microkernel design like Minix is easier to inspect
Oh, the irony of this is hilarious. Linux is now more cumbersome to work with than the operating system which caused Linus to write the Linux kernel in the first place. I'm sure Tanenbaum will be proud that he's come full circle.:-P
Besides, all of the stuff one layer up from the microkernel would still need to be checked for security, so I don't really think it buys you anything. The operating system is more than just the kernel.
Outlawing firewalls? Obviously implausible. Mandating firewalls that will pass certain traffic, or even modify their configurations, in response to orders cryptographically signed by some authority? Terrible idea; but not really any harder than SSH keypair logins.
Translation, a government mandated backdoor to all forms of security that they promise will only be accessible by them.
The reality would be that we'd set computer security back by a decade or more, and we'd leave a hole big enough to drive a truck through.
You know, it's awfully hard to not be yet again reminded of Orwell here. Constant surveillance and no privacy from the government so they can monitor everything you do.
But, of course, if your machine is behind a firewall, they'll just outlaw having firewall because it impedes their ability to investigate you for crimes. At which point if you need to be insecure enough to ensure that law enforcement can get in and do this, your machine will be hosed within the hour as the actual bad people break through as well.
This will either fall apart as un-doable, or spark some absurd laws to enforce it.
Call me jaded, old, and behind the times... But what ever happened to a web browser just being a web browser instead of a development platform with three heads breathing fire, half a dozen plugins, six months of combatability testing, and a kitchen sink?
Because, it became the interface that everyone did everything in, and you could (try to) write code which ran on the client without specifically installing stuff. In theory, it became the utility knife that people kept plugging into. (In practice, I agree with you that it's a big mess.)
Sadly, I see the same thing in Outlook. There seems to be a peculiar push to integrate everything into Outlook so that people can do all of their tasks from within that one application -- because it's familiar and everyone already has it open. Users seem to be increasingly demanding that any new applications they get rolled out to them be embedded in Outlook so they don't have to go through retraining. (At least, that's what Marketing tells me.:-P)
Somewhere along the line, people expected that everything would move into the single application they use for everything, instead of the previous "run this program to do this work".
I find it interesting that science based Phd students are able to be this creative
Oh, I don't know.
The graduate students I've known over the years have had a large representation of musicians, athletes, and generally some pretty interesting and wacky people.
By the time you've toughed it out to be working on a PhD you probably have several outside interests you're involved in and are generally a pretty motivated, hard working sort of person.
Stereotypes aside, at that level if you didn't have some grounding in things outside of your field of study, you'd be a stressed out person with very little to keep you sane.
I'd be more surprised to hear there wasn't as much creativity at this level. It's not all Monty Python and labwork.:-P
I wonder if they can change his voice synthesizer to pronounce "out" and "about" as "oot" and aboot," and of course add in a few random eh's for good measure.
I realize you're joking, but you do realize you're talking about regional pronunciation, right?
I mean, we don't judge the US based on how people from Maine or Wisconsin speak -- Maine and New England, for instance, seem to have an aversion to enunciating the letter R, "Bah Hahbah" is how Bar Harbour sounds to anyone from not in Maine.
I've noticed different ways of speaking from the vast majority of regions in the states.
Besides, "about" is rarely "aboot", but more like "a-boat" for most people.
Slashdot Mirror
We don't need cheerleaders ... we need fluffer girls!!!
Take a little BJ break in the morning and the afternoon to keep the edge off and keep you motivated. I'm betting sick days would fall off to near zero. :-P
Cheers
The show is entertainment at best -- sometimes it's amusing to watch them fail miserably and have the fans write in with all of the mistakes they made. However, they're good for a couple of big explosions of unplanned prat-falls in each episode -- and, really, Kari makes it all worth while for me. ;-)
Oddly enough, that was the exact myth being referenced by both myself and the person I was responding to -- that same bridge which was known to have collapsed with marching soldiers and fostered an entire set of standing rules. They just couldn't design an experiment that actually made it happen.
You're right though, just because they can't replicate something doesn't mean for a minute that they've in any way debunked it. Look at the chicken cannon -- I think they revisited that 2-3 times before they actually got a result which was consistent with what was already known.
Cheers
Ummmm ... because it's fiction and not engineering? ;-)
Cheers
*laugh* Once again, Myth Busters seems relevant to mention here.
Only, they couldn't actually reproduce it on their scale models.
Cheers
Why fix the problem when you can stifle the criticism?
Cheers
Increasingly (and scarily) jurisdiction is being extended through some pretty tenuous reasoning.
That whole Lori Drew case was a woman in Missouri being sued in Los Angeles -- because the servers are located there.
Sadly, the internet seems to have created cases where lawmakers still say "well, you're guilty here" -- which is kind of scary. Just think, there is a precedent in the US which allows you to be subject to the laws of a jurisdiction you don't live in and possibly have never visited.
One of these days, any international travel might risk you being apprehended by on the basis that something you posted online is illegal in that country and you have been found guilty in absentia!
Cheers
I guess it depends on if the university directly funds you or not, and where the profs funding comes from.
If the only source of money is from either your own or the professor's research grant (and if it's not the university paying for that), then the university is essentially an arms length agent here, no? Granted, in most cases anyone who is a researcher at the university is also on their payroll.
But, when I was in university as an undergrad many many years ago, my prof paid me directly out of his NSERC research budget to do work for him. In that case, everything I did for him belonged to him (which I was fine with since he was paying me good cash to do cool work). The university had no claim on any results funded by his own funding he had secured separately (and, indeed, he'd had before he taught at that school).
The only thing my university ever paid me for was being a TA. My coursework and stuff I did on my own time was my own.
Cheers
Wow. I should think Singapore has lots of good street food, so why eat at BK in the first place?
Then again, I guess we are talking about North Americans who are traveling and want something like they eat at home.
Cheers
Let me clarify this a little for you:
NSERC in Canada is the "National Science and Engineering Research Council".
Basically, they fund professors and students to foster research work and the like and improve the overall state of the art. They do not claim ownership of the work you do under that funding -- I myself worked in university for a prof who had an NSERC grant. I was paid out of his budget, and while he might have had some measure of accountability to them, they didn't really dictate terms to him or demand that they get the research work as their own.
The university does NOT own the work that professors and students do under an NSERC grant. A professor who published papers or creates software (etc) under this program is the owner, NSERC is the funding agency. The University is just the place where the work was done -- it's my understanding that unless the professor signed something that says the university owns it all (and, no prof would) that they have no claim to it. The professor is motivated to research and publish for his own ends and if he moves on, carries his research work with him.
In short, based on my experience with NSERC, the university has no claim if he is being funded under NSERC and working with a professor who retains rights to his own works.
Unless things have changed (and, granted, university was a long time ago) there is nothing in an NSERC funding that stipulates that the research is the property of the funding agency.
Cheers
That sounds so much more interesting than what they sell here. ;-)
Cheers
Apropos to nothing, but that's a false statement.
It's not on the menu everywhere, but there exists a McLobster in some places. McDonald's does some regional tailoring of menus. I'm sure they have some stuff world wide you wouldn't even recognize.
Shoulda stuck with a car analogy. ;-)
Cheers
Well, ignoring the whole "nature choosing" thing ... that reality unfolded in such a way as to be self consistent with the mathematics we'd discover a couple of billion years later is pretty impressive.
It's not like after the big bang they held a conference to lay down the rules and then everyone said "OK, that math is simpler, so everybody spin this way". It says that the math seems to have evolved to the point that it describes things that are intrinsic to the systems it models, and likely that the math has simply always been there as the underlying mechanism for how stuff works -- or at the very least, everything followed those rules because there was no other way to do it.
Not to sound like Charlie Epps here, but that's pretty damned cool. :-P
And, no, I'm not a mathematician.
Cheers
There was an equation, which had a term with a square root. As a result of the way math works, if you have a positive square root, you also have a negative one (that's the level of existence I was referring to). That negative square root in the equation told us there should be anti-particles. The simple fact that the equation had to account for the case of the negative square root led us to look for these things, and, they were there is kinda of impressive when you think about it. The universe didn't have to oblige us and put a particle in there, but, nonetheless, it's there.
But, I'm not -- not even a little. I'm saying that our math was built up around our understanding of the physics (as well as some purely mathematical endeavors), but that the math can actually predict the physics, and that the physics seems to always follow the rules that the math adheres to is quite startling. It should model all the known phenomenon, but predicting the new ones is more than you'd think.
That was the gist of it when I linked to this -- that the math is much more intimately linked with the physics than you'd expect.
Meaning, some really big brains in math and physics have been awed by the fact that the math isn't independent of the physics. And reality doesn't ever seem to violate the math.
Cheers
I have, numerous times in fact.
1984 doesn't need to exactly match the specifics to have been prophetic about directions societies could move in. Nobody ever said it was an exact play book for how things would play out, but the overall themes he explored in it are still very relevant. Thematically, getting everyone to accept constant state surveillance as natural and for the greater good is still very much true. Hell, cyberpunk borrows from this canon, as does the acts of the characters to subvert it.
As to a restrictive society eventually deciding to manage the vices of its people in order to keep them in line, well, give it time. :-P
Cheers
You can't say this and also have previously said "We use mathematics to quantify physics, but there is no "connection" between the two.
Well, you can, but only one can be true.
It's true that the our understanding of physics is tied to the math, but for the math to accurately imply the existence of new phenomena which haven't previously been conceived of speaks more to the fact that the "real" physics obeys the same rules of math that have been observed.
That seems to indicate a more coherent coupling between what we've learned about math, and what we're in the middle of learning about how things actually work.
Cheers
No, really, they're serious.
The rules of math (which weren't so much invented as identified) seem oddly linked to the underlying physics. TFA mentions the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics -- it's not so much that we can count the physics with the math, it's that the math predicts things which should be true, and are subsequently proven to be. The existence of things like a negative square root in an equation have predicted the existence of things like anti-particles, and those particles have been found experimentally.
It's precisely the fact that the math isn't independent of the physics that is at issue here That's a very startling proposition because it goes well beyond simply counting what is, it means the same rules which define the math in the first place underly the physical mechanisms.
Cheers
Ah, but now you've changed it again. ;-)
Cheers
Don't tell the RIAA -- they'll get a law passed insisting the universities implement this so they can keep their funding if they turn over the list. :-P
Cheers
Oh, the irony of this is hilarious. Linux is now more cumbersome to work with than the operating system which caused Linus to write the Linux kernel in the first place. I'm sure Tanenbaum will be proud that he's come full circle. :-P
Besides, all of the stuff one layer up from the microkernel would still need to be checked for security, so I don't really think it buys you anything. The operating system is more than just the kernel.
Cheers
Translation, a government mandated backdoor to all forms of security that they promise will only be accessible by them.
The reality would be that we'd set computer security back by a decade or more, and we'd leave a hole big enough to drive a truck through.
This just can't be made to work.
Cheers
You know, it's awfully hard to not be yet again reminded of Orwell here. Constant surveillance and no privacy from the government so they can monitor everything you do.
But, of course, if your machine is behind a firewall, they'll just outlaw having firewall because it impedes their ability to investigate you for crimes. At which point if you need to be insecure enough to ensure that law enforcement can get in and do this, your machine will be hosed within the hour as the actual bad people break through as well.
This will either fall apart as un-doable, or spark some absurd laws to enforce it.
Cheers
I'd like to see that, because I'm betting you couldn't and still have a hand you could make any further use of.
Cheers
Because, it became the interface that everyone did everything in, and you could (try to) write code which ran on the client without specifically installing stuff. In theory, it became the utility knife that people kept plugging into. (In practice, I agree with you that it's a big mess.)
Sadly, I see the same thing in Outlook. There seems to be a peculiar push to integrate everything into Outlook so that people can do all of their tasks from within that one application -- because it's familiar and everyone already has it open. Users seem to be increasingly demanding that any new applications they get rolled out to them be embedded in Outlook so they don't have to go through retraining. (At least, that's what Marketing tells me. :-P)
Somewhere along the line, people expected that everything would move into the single application they use for everything, instead of the previous "run this program to do this work".
Cheers
PS -- you're old, jaded, and behind the times. ;-)
Oh, I don't know.
The graduate students I've known over the years have had a large representation of musicians, athletes, and generally some pretty interesting and wacky people.
By the time you've toughed it out to be working on a PhD you probably have several outside interests you're involved in and are generally a pretty motivated, hard working sort of person.
Stereotypes aside, at that level if you didn't have some grounding in things outside of your field of study, you'd be a stressed out person with very little to keep you sane.
I'd be more surprised to hear there wasn't as much creativity at this level. It's not all Monty Python and labwork. :-P
Cheers
I realize you're joking, but you do realize you're talking about regional pronunciation, right?
I mean, we don't judge the US based on how people from Maine or Wisconsin speak -- Maine and New England, for instance, seem to have an aversion to enunciating the letter R, "Bah Hahbah" is how Bar Harbour sounds to anyone from not in Maine.
I've noticed different ways of speaking from the vast majority of regions in the states.
Besides, "about" is rarely "aboot", but more like "a-boat" for most people.
Cheers