"For a long time now, researchers and scientists have used computer simulations in the physical sciences: physics, chemistry, and engineering. But what about biology?"
Yes, scientists have used computer simulations heavily in biology too. Anything that can be mathematically modelled can make use of a computer. For years scientists have been using calculus and probability theory to model the way disease spreads, evolution, population growth etc.
This is a terrible attitude and is what is wrong with the moderation system through and through.
Just because it's a "tired old argument" to you does not make it invalid. It may be a very new argument to someone else. Troll and Flamebait should be reserved for those that are clearly not trying to add to the argument, but is rather trying to provoke a reaction and anger others. That's what those words mean.
If you think the argument presented isn't worth much to you, you should either leave it unmoderated, mod up a counter argument, or refute it yourself in a response. A lot of people don't have time to read all the comments that appear. My prefs are set at 4 so I only see 4's and 5's. What I would really like to see interesting arguments not just popular ones that conform to/. cliches.
Well I don't know the GP but I can tell you I've been very disappointed at the moderation of a number of my posts as -1 troll or -1 flamebait when they were neither, and the point of view present was valid. I very recently had a post hit +4 insightful before being moderated back down to 1 simply because people didn't like what I'd said. Have a look at the only "insightful" comment rated at 1 towards the bottom of my immediate history. This kind of abuse is quite rampant here and sticking your head in the sand doesn't change reality.
/.'s rating system is a popularity rating system that has very little to do with the quality of the comment. In fact as/. has grown I'd argue this system has become more damaging as it has allowed prejudice and popular folly a louder voice than genuinely interesting discussion. Meta moderation doesn't do that much to help fix this. People should be thinking "is this an interesting and valid thought?" rather than "do I agree with what this person is saying?" - unfortunately this doesn't happen. What do you expect though from an extremist system that allows you to mod troll/flamebait or insightful/interesting - even the language is extreme. +1 interesting is probably the best modifier. There should be a -1 disagree +1 agree.
Don't hold back. Tell us what you really think about Wikipedia.
IMHO the problem with wikipedia is that they included the prefix -pedia in their name. Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia. It's more a global store of knowledge - a wiki - and ideas of varying quality will creep in much more than a published encyclopedia. Claims that anarchistic editing makes for higher accuracy than a published book are just unrealistic - when you set up such expectations and they are dashed you get very vocal critics of wikipedia such as yourself. If you treat it like a published work of course you'll be disappointed. Even with a published work you should check and re-check any fact you read if it's at all important. With wikipedia this is even more true since anyone can contribute not just recognised experts. To call it a shit casserole though is going way too far. It's an excellent free resource if all you want is a general idea on a topic or if that information is for interest and not something you'll base work or important decisions on.
You said Gates would be fine if kept in check. I said you don't need a president that needs to be kept in check. How can you then claim not to understand what my post has to do with yours? Are you obtuse? What's so unclear about that? Don't blame me for your inability to comprehend.
As for how I "convey" my "snotty attitude" I'll do that however I choose. In any case only one of us is displaying a "snotty atittude".
Yep that's what your country needs right now: A president that needs to be kept in check. That'll improve your credibility in the worldwide community *roles eyes*. This is what gets modded up these days here?
My personal favourite MC Hawking lyrics are from the same song - F*ck the creationists:
"Fuck the damn creationists, those bunch of dumb-ass bitches, every time I think of them my trigger finger itches. They want to have their bullshit, taught in public class, Stephen J. Gould should put his foot right up their ass."...and...
"Fucking punk ass creationists trying to set scientific thought back 400 years. Fuck that! If them superstitious motherfuckers want to have that kind of party, I'm going to put my dick in the mashed potatoes."
I still have trouble stopping myself from laughing out loud when I read that.
>> The Monkeyists might like to know I presume you're trying to imply that people are thought to be descended from monkeys.
Now be fair. I'm sure he was talking about Monkey Magic fans. I bet he thinks that's real too. After all if you believe the earth was made in 6 days by a guy shouting let there be light etc., it's not a stretch to think that blowing between your fingers as you move them up and down will summon a pink cloud that will take you where you want it.
My children will be taught that copyright and intellectual property law is there only to further the progress of art and science, not for the purpose of furthering jobs or corporate profits
So you're going to teach them about the world the way it ought to be instead of what it is? Poor kids will suffer for it you know.
I suspect 1 in perhaps 100,000 or 1M people who work bloody hard AND do it with skill and intellect will make it big. That's why I compared it to a lottery.
In my analogy you had to work hard just to get your lottery ticket. I never EVER said it's just luck. I said you underestimate the component that is luck. I'm not wasting any more time responding to you after this message because all you're doing is saying the same thing over and over again and ignoring my point all together. If you honestly think "successful people make their own luck" then good luck to you. Irony intended, though the gesture is sincere.
I'm also sorry you don't see it. If you honestly believe that all it takes is hard work, persistence and brains to make it big you're setting yourself up for quite a fall.
Think about this. If you were born in a 3rd world country how much more effort would it take just to make it out of the gutter? Fortunately if you live in a place that allows you to read/. every day I'd say you're better off than 90% of the people on the planet (as am I). Hard work, persistence and brains in that environment should usually be enough to allow you to afford to stay reasonably comfortable, but there are no guarantees in life. You could be run over by a bus for a moments inattention, fall out of the sky in a plane or crash your car through no fault of your own, or you could have a heart attack, or come down with any one of a myriad of diseases. Likewise, you could found a company and fall into a niche the way the Google founders did. Same can be said of Bill Gates. Sure they worked hard but do you really think the difference between billion dollar floats and starving in the gutter is JUST hard work? For every Sergey and Bill there's a hoarde of hard working business men you've never heard of. Contrary to popular opinion its actually an advantage to you becoming super wealthy if you're happy to step on others by the way.
Actually it's not so far from being correct as you think. Think of everyone who works hard, and tries to do it smartly as the equivalent of someone who buys a ticket. They've done all they can do to "win", but only a handful will actually take the prizes.
No luck is just that: Luck. 3000 people will work hard, do it smartly and seize the opportunity. Some will do okay, others will fail, and one or two may just hit on that right combination and hit the jackpot. Luck isn't just about recognising opportunity.
I see so you're comparing running an IT project that gives people a different view of Google's data to say blowing the west coast of the US off the map and killing millions. Yes I think that's a perfectly sane sounding argument and I wish to subscribe to your worldview. By the way, I hope you do realise that Superman is a fictional character, right?
You can, you know, work hard and end up getting nowhere. (Love the sarcasm by the way./. seems to breed it).
Very few people have ever made a fortune, lost the fortune and made it again. It takes more than skill. You have to work hard AND be lucky (ie. be in the right place at the right time with the right idea).
If you honestly think all it takes is hard work and brains and luck has nothing to do with it you're either very young and naive or very twisted.
He got lucky. I know of people who make millions on lotto. That doesn't make them smart. Based on the chances they take they're still idiots. Just very lucky idiots. Proof that intelligence is no substitute for good luck.
Wow/. moderation is broken. When half the people like what you say (mod insightful), and the other don't like what you say and mod troll and flamebait you end up with a message that apparently has no more worth than an offhand comment that isn't controvertial.
To be blunt, that is a perfectly stupid statement.
To be blunt you have wonderful people skills, and know how to get your point across well without putting someone off side.
Google is simply being faithful to prior contractual agreements.
Well it's not clear to me that GAIA clearly violated Google's terms. If they weren't Google's terms, a cease and desist (which by the way is usually drafted by company lawyers) isn't so benign. All that work GAIA did goes down the tube because they didn't look into terms and conditions they may not have been privy with. Now you if you point to Google's terms and find something GAIA was violating, that's different as the onus is then on GAIA's team to check those before using the data.
The fact that a company might want to have a say in a product or IP they OWN and they took the time and money to create seems reasonable
I've long argued that this is entirely unreasonable and what's most broken about the legal system when it comes to IP law. It's not how the world works today but I believe that there should be control over the profits/fruits of the IP created but not of the IP itself. The entire IP system is meant to guarantee innovation isn't stiffled. Instead companies focus on guaranteeing their profits even if that means killing off innovation.
Of course they need to have let go enough that they're not trying to design the solutions themselves (unless we're talking about an architect not a manager). Knowing what is and isn't technically possible, and knowing if your team is feeding you BS or not is critical though. Ex-techies that have let go and taken on board their new role properly make the best managers! A good manager also knows how to isolate his team from some of the politics that techies don't like, while still meeting the needs of his or her own superiors. Those that don't know the technology promise the impossible and grill you when you can't deliver it.
By the way having a hands on manager isn't always a bad thing. My immediate manager at the moment can read code, and has a thorough knowledge of the existing system because she's been around it for some years. She's excellent at getting me and the rest of the team to focus on a solution that will satisfy the business. She also is capable of suggesting solutions and once we agree on what's being done she's hands off. One of the best managers I've ever had.
Slashdot Mirror
"For a long time now, researchers and scientists have used computer simulations in the physical sciences: physics, chemistry, and engineering. But what about biology?"
Yes, scientists have used computer simulations heavily in biology too. Anything that can be mathematically modelled can make use of a computer. For years scientists have been using calculus and probability theory to model the way disease spreads, evolution, population growth etc.
This is a terrible attitude and is what is wrong with the moderation system through and through.
/. cliches.
Just because it's a "tired old argument" to you does not make it invalid. It may be a very new argument to someone else. Troll and Flamebait should be reserved for those that are clearly not trying to add to the argument, but is rather trying to provoke a reaction and anger others. That's what those words mean.
If you think the argument presented isn't worth much to you, you should either leave it unmoderated, mod up a counter argument, or refute it yourself in a response. A lot of people don't have time to read all the comments that appear. My prefs are set at 4 so I only see 4's and 5's. What I would really like to see interesting arguments not just popular ones that conform to
Well I don't know the GP but I can tell you I've been very disappointed at the moderation of a number of my posts as -1 troll or -1 flamebait when they were neither, and the point of view present was valid. I very recently had a post hit +4 insightful before being moderated back down to 1 simply because people didn't like what I'd said. Have a look at the only "insightful" comment rated at 1 towards the bottom of my immediate history. This kind of abuse is quite rampant here and sticking your head in the sand doesn't change reality.
/.'s rating system is a popularity rating system that has very little to do with the quality of the comment. In fact as /. has grown I'd argue this system has become more damaging as it has allowed prejudice and popular folly a louder voice than genuinely interesting discussion. Meta moderation doesn't do that much to help fix this. People should be thinking "is this an interesting and valid thought?" rather than "do I agree with what this person is saying?" - unfortunately this doesn't happen. What do you expect though from an extremist system that allows you to mod troll/flamebait or insightful/interesting - even the language is extreme. +1 interesting is probably the best modifier. There should be a -1 disagree +1 agree.
7) Oh shit I can't buy a PC that'll run XP anymore. They're all built for Vista. :(
Yes, suffix. I do know the difference. My silly mistake...the kind I make at 6 in the morning when I've been to bed at 1am and had to get up at 4:30.
Don't hold back. Tell us what you really think about Wikipedia.
IMHO the problem with wikipedia is that they included the prefix -pedia in their name. Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia. It's more a global store of knowledge - a wiki - and ideas of varying quality will creep in much more than a published encyclopedia. Claims that anarchistic editing makes for higher accuracy than a published book are just unrealistic - when you set up such expectations and they are dashed you get very vocal critics of wikipedia such as yourself. If you treat it like a published work of course you'll be disappointed. Even with a published work you should check and re-check any fact you read if it's at all important. With wikipedia this is even more true since anyone can contribute not just recognised experts. To call it a shit casserole though is going way too far. It's an excellent free resource if all you want is a general idea on a topic or if that information is for interest and not something you'll base work or important decisions on.
You said Gates would be fine if kept in check. I said you don't need a president that needs to be kept in check. How can you then claim not to understand what my post has to do with yours? Are you obtuse? What's so unclear about that? Don't blame me for your inability to comprehend.
As for how I "convey" my "snotty attitude" I'll do that however I choose. In any case only one of us is displaying a "snotty atittude".
That's the second time I've read that broken watch comment today. You don't live in Sydney do you?
Yep that's what your country needs right now: A president that needs to be kept in check. That'll improve your credibility in the worldwide community *roles eyes*. This is what gets modded up these days here?
My personal favourite MC Hawking lyrics are from the same song - F*ck the creationists:
...and...
"Fuck the damn creationists, those bunch of dumb-ass bitches,
every time I think of them my trigger finger itches.
They want to have their bullshit, taught in public class,
Stephen J. Gould should put his foot right up their ass."
"Fucking punk ass creationists trying to set scientific thought back 400 years.
Fuck that!
If them superstitious motherfuckers want to have that kind of party,
I'm going to put my dick in the mashed potatoes."
I still have trouble stopping myself from laughing out loud when I read that.
Blasphemer! How dare you speak the name of the great one without including the suffix -Rex. You are evil and must be purged from this place!
>> The Monkeyists might like to know
I presume you're trying to imply that people are thought to be descended from monkeys.
Now be fair. I'm sure he was talking about Monkey Magic fans. I bet he thinks that's real too. After all if you believe the earth was made in 6 days by a guy shouting let there be light etc., it's not a stretch to think that blowing between your fingers as you move them up and down will summon a pink cloud that will take you where you want it.
My children will be taught that copyright and intellectual property law is there only to further the progress of art and science, not for the purpose of furthering jobs or corporate profits
So you're going to teach them about the world the way it ought to be instead of what it is? Poor kids will suffer for it you know.
I suspect 1 in perhaps 100,000 or 1M people who work bloody hard AND do it with skill and intellect will make it big. That's why I compared it to a lottery.
In my analogy you had to work hard just to get your lottery ticket. I never EVER said it's just luck. I said you underestimate the component that is luck. I'm not wasting any more time responding to you after this message because all you're doing is saying the same thing over and over again and ignoring my point all together. If you honestly think "successful people make their own luck" then good luck to you. Irony intended, though the gesture is sincere.
I'm also sorry you don't see it. If you honestly believe that all it takes is hard work, persistence and brains to make it big you're setting yourself up for quite a fall.
/. every day I'd say you're better off than 90% of the people on the planet (as am I). Hard work, persistence and brains in that environment should usually be enough to allow you to afford to stay reasonably comfortable, but there are no guarantees in life. You could be run over by a bus for a moments inattention, fall out of the sky in a plane or crash your car through no fault of your own, or you could have a heart attack, or come down with any one of a myriad of diseases. Likewise, you could found a company and fall into a niche the way the Google founders did. Same can be said of Bill Gates. Sure they worked hard but do you really think the difference between billion dollar floats and starving in the gutter is JUST hard work? For every Sergey and Bill there's a hoarde of hard working business men you've never heard of. Contrary to popular opinion its actually an advantage to you becoming super wealthy if you're happy to step on others by the way.
Think about this. If you were born in a 3rd world country how much more effort would it take just to make it out of the gutter? Fortunately if you live in a place that allows you to read
Actually it's not so far from being correct as you think. Think of everyone who works hard, and tries to do it smartly as the equivalent of someone who buys a ticket. They've done all they can do to "win", but only a handful will actually take the prizes.
No luck is just that: Luck. 3000 people will work hard, do it smartly and seize the opportunity. Some will do okay, others will fail, and one or two may just hit on that right combination and hit the jackpot. Luck isn't just about recognising opportunity.
I see so you're comparing running an IT project that gives people a different view of Google's data to say blowing the west coast of the US off the map and killing millions. Yes I think that's a perfectly sane sounding argument and I wish to subscribe to your worldview. By the way, I hope you do realise that Superman is a fictional character, right?
You can, you know, work hard and end up getting nowhere. (Love the sarcasm by the way. /. seems to breed it).
Very few people have ever made a fortune, lost the fortune and made it again. It takes more than skill. You have to work hard AND be lucky (ie. be in the right place at the right time with the right idea).
If you honestly think all it takes is hard work and brains and luck has nothing to do with it you're either very young and naive or very twisted.
He got lucky. I know of people who make millions on lotto. That doesn't make them smart. Based on the chances they take they're still idiots. Just very lucky idiots. Proof that intelligence is no substitute for good luck.
Wow /. moderation is broken. When half the people like what you say (mod insightful), and the other don't like what you say and mod troll and flamebait you end up with a message that apparently has no more worth than an offhand comment that isn't controvertial.
How is killing off someone's pet project that they've put a lot of effort into not evil???
To be blunt, that is a perfectly stupid statement.
To be blunt you have wonderful people skills, and know how to get your point across well without putting someone off side.
Google is simply being faithful to prior contractual agreements.
Well it's not clear to me that GAIA clearly violated Google's terms. If they weren't Google's terms, a cease and desist (which by the way is usually drafted by company lawyers) isn't so benign. All that work GAIA did goes down the tube because they didn't look into terms and conditions they may not have been privy with. Now you if you point to Google's terms and find something GAIA was violating, that's different as the onus is then on GAIA's team to check those before using the data.
The fact that a company might want to have a say in a product or IP they OWN and they took the time and money to create seems reasonable
I've long argued that this is entirely unreasonable and what's most broken about the legal system when it comes to IP law. It's not how the world works today but I believe that there should be control over the profits/fruits of the IP created but not of the IP itself. The entire IP system is meant to guarantee innovation isn't stiffled. Instead companies focus on guaranteeing their profits even if that means killing off innovation.
Of course they need to have let go enough that they're not trying to design the solutions themselves (unless we're talking about an architect not a manager). Knowing what is and isn't technically possible, and knowing if your team is feeding you BS or not is critical though. Ex-techies that have let go and taken on board their new role properly make the best managers! A good manager also knows how to isolate his team from some of the politics that techies don't like, while still meeting the needs of his or her own superiors. Those that don't know the technology promise the impossible and grill you when you can't deliver it.
By the way having a hands on manager isn't always a bad thing. My immediate manager at the moment can read code, and has a thorough knowledge of the existing system because she's been around it for some years. She's excellent at getting me and the rest of the team to focus on a solution that will satisfy the business. She also is capable of suggesting solutions and once we agree on what's being done she's hands off. One of the best managers I've ever had.