FTFA: "Despite their new problems with the monkeys, it is a criminal offence to harm or kill any of them, so the besieged villagers must figure out a way to outwit the monkeys instead."
RTFA: "Despite their new problems with the monkeys, it is a criminal offence to harm or kill any of them, so the besieged villagers must figure out a way to outwit the monkeys instead."
If one is trying to point out a specific flaw in someone else's work, then yes, I agree that reproducing their data might be necessary and legal. But that's not what forand was saying. He was saying that the "only" way to simply "discuss" someone else's work is to reproduce their results. That's a very broad statement to make, and in the vast majority of cases it's simply not true. I've read countless Related Work sections of research papers (and written some of my own) where the authors provide a thorough comparison of prior work without the need to re-publish someone else's data.
The only way to discuss the results of someone else's work in a reasonable way is to show those results.
Well, I work in the scientific field, too, and in most cases this is just not true. One must cite evidence, sure, but there's no requirement to reproduce it. As long as the citation is valid (i.e., accessible) and was published in a peer-reviewed manner, then that's sufficient.
For example, you can say, "Our results show a 35% improvement compared to prior work [Hodgman2005]." You don't have to show a graph that the Hodgman2005 article already contains. That would be redundant.
Okay, I suppose having the graph right there for comparison would help the reader, but that's just a convenience and certainly isn't necessary for showing evidence. In other words, scientific research does not require reproduction of others' results, only citation.
"Off the top of my head, apple.com will sell you a 2GHz 17" iMac for $1199. The closest notebook they sell is the 15" MacBook Pro for $1999."
I couldn't let this one go. How do you define "closest"? The iMac is a consumer desktop while the MacBook Pro is a professional notebook. They don't seem "close" to me.
If you want a comparison, what about the 2 GHz MacBook, priced at $1299? That's only a $100 difference, so I think the original poster's comment that "a laptop is not far over the prices of a comparable PC" is accurate.
How does this compare to getting paid for your research?
I think we aren't being strict enough with the definition of "stipend", and that's causing some confusion, so let me try to explain the whole picture.
The situation in the U.S. is similar to what you describe for Nordic countries. Typically, graduate students work part-time for the university, either as a teaching assistant or research assistant. These assistantships provide full tuition reimbursement as well as a stipend (a small salary) for living expenses. In exchange, the student must perform specific teaching or research duties. The rest of the time, they're free to conduct their own research and advance toward the degree.
Anyway since this is government stipend the money will come from the tax payers pocket, no matter what.
These assistantship stipends do not come directly from the government. They're provided mostly by the fundraising activities of professors, who try to win research grants, and in the case of teaching assistantships, they're provided by the department. Note that department money comes mostly from student tuition, and research grants can come from any source (such as private companies), so it's certainly not true that graduate student stipends in the U.S. always trickle down from taxpayers.
On the other hand, the "stipend" I was referring to in my previous post is 100% government-funded, but it isn't actually a stipend; it's a fellowship. It's "free money" that pays for tuition and living expenses, but unlike assistantship stipends, there's no requirement for specific research or teaching duties. The student is free to do his own research full-time. (So in that sense, this is a "magical stipend" that rhakka was asking about.) However, this is just one particular fellowship that happens to come from a federal agency. Other fellowships come from private institutions not funded by the taxpayer.
The question is that why the funding is based on an application that is evaluated somewhere with very obscure mechanisms, why not give the stipend to everyone?
Government funds are limited, so the particular fellowship I linked to can't be given to everyone, only the top students.
Can anyone explain what pablumfication means? The only hit is the very same report. I thought maybe it was pablumification, but that only gets two more hits.
When you look at stocks or funds you look at the profit to you, and often do not see or ignore the negative things that you may be contributing to.
There's an entire class of funds that solves this problem. It's called SRI: socially responsible investing. Funds in this category avoid companies involved in military weapons, gambling, tobacco, etc., and they invest more heavily in companies with good track records in dealing with the environment, fair treatment of employees, and so on. Because these funds are focused more on morals than on profit, they typically don't have returns as high as other funds, but that's a small price to pay for being a socially responsible investor.
If you're interested, start by checking out Domini and Pax World; they're two of the largest and oldest SRI funds.
What do you mean "crippleware"? Before the MacHeist started, I tried several of the programs in the bundle, and none of them is crippleware. They are time-limited (e.g., expire after 30 days), but not crippled. They include all the same features of the registered version.
Yes, he did actually follow his own advice, and his statement was true...this morning. I also tried it and got the same results he did. Then I tried again in the evening and got the same results you did. So something VERY strange is going on with MSN.
Slashdot Mirror
FTFA: "Despite their new problems with the monkeys, it is a criminal offence to harm or kill any of them, so the besieged villagers must figure out a way to outwit the monkeys instead."
RTFA: "Despite their new problems with the monkeys, it is a criminal offence to harm or kill any of them, so the besieged villagers must figure out a way to outwit the monkeys instead."
Unfortunately I haven't run across any good C++ formatters.
What's wrong with Artistic Style?
just for making Congress look bad by openly flaunting the law
You mean flouting, not flaunting.
Here's another one: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mressl/webshell/
I want an SSH client, for example, and that just can't be done in AJAX.
Are you sure about that?
Super Bowl "Hello" iPhone commercial
The "Hello" iPhone commercial didn't air during the Super Bowl. You're thinking of the Academy Awards.
Correction:
In other news... China sells 40 million of it's OWN copy.
Correction:
In other news... China sells 40 million of its OWN copy.
If one is trying to point out a specific flaw in someone else's work, then yes, I agree that reproducing their data might be necessary and legal. But that's not what forand was saying. He was saying that the "only" way to simply "discuss" someone else's work is to reproduce their results. That's a very broad statement to make, and in the vast majority of cases it's simply not true. I've read countless Related Work sections of research papers (and written some of my own) where the authors provide a thorough comparison of prior work without the need to re-publish someone else's data.
The only way to discuss the results of someone else's work in a reasonable way is to show those results.
Well, I work in the scientific field, too, and in most cases this is just not true. One must cite evidence, sure, but there's no requirement to reproduce it. As long as the citation is valid (i.e., accessible) and was published in a peer-reviewed manner, then that's sufficient.
For example, you can say, "Our results show a 35% improvement compared to prior work [Hodgman2005]." You don't have to show a graph that the Hodgman2005 article already contains. That would be redundant.
Okay, I suppose having the graph right there for comparison would help the reader, but that's just a convenience and certainly isn't necessary for showing evidence. In other words, scientific research does not require reproduction of others' results, only citation.
"Off the top of my head, apple.com will sell you a 2GHz 17" iMac for $1199. The closest notebook they sell is the 15" MacBook Pro for $1999."
I couldn't let this one go. How do you define "closest"? The iMac is a consumer desktop while the MacBook Pro is a professional notebook. They don't seem "close" to me.
If you want a comparison, what about the 2 GHz MacBook, priced at $1299? That's only a $100 difference, so I think the original poster's comment that "a laptop is not far over the prices of a comparable PC" is accurate.
#21 on their list should have been the block-proof DHTML pop-up ad on the second page of their article.
How does this compare to getting paid for your research?
I think we aren't being strict enough with the definition of "stipend", and that's causing some confusion, so let me try to explain the whole picture.
The situation in the U.S. is similar to what you describe for Nordic countries. Typically, graduate students work part-time for the university, either as a teaching assistant or research assistant. These assistantships provide full tuition reimbursement as well as a stipend (a small salary) for living expenses. In exchange, the student must perform specific teaching or research duties. The rest of the time, they're free to conduct their own research and advance toward the degree.
Anyway since this is government stipend the money will come from the tax payers pocket, no matter what.
These assistantship stipends do not come directly from the government. They're provided mostly by the fundraising activities of professors, who try to win research grants, and in the case of teaching assistantships, they're provided by the department. Note that department money comes mostly from student tuition, and research grants can come from any source (such as private companies), so it's certainly not true that graduate student stipends in the U.S. always trickle down from taxpayers.
On the other hand, the "stipend" I was referring to in my previous post is 100% government-funded, but it isn't actually a stipend; it's a fellowship. It's "free money" that pays for tuition and living expenses, but unlike assistantship stipends, there's no requirement for specific research or teaching duties. The student is free to do his own research full-time. (So in that sense, this is a "magical stipend" that rhakka was asking about.) However, this is just one particular fellowship that happens to come from a federal agency. Other fellowships come from private institutions not funded by the taxpayer.
The question is that why the funding is based on an application that is evaluated somewhere with very obscure mechanisms, why not give the stipend to everyone?
Government funds are limited, so the particular fellowship I linked to can't be given to everyone, only the top students.
Where do these magical american stipends come from, I wonder?
From America's government, among other places. Example: http://www.scholars.uci.edu/prestigiousweb.asp?pid =9
That's simply not true.
You mean, "That's patently false."
Can anyone explain what pablumfication means? The only hit is the very same report. I thought maybe it was pablumification, but that only gets two more hits.
Gnome has a foothold due to the licensing issues over Qt.
What licensing issues? I thought Qt was available in a GPL license. Are you saying that Qt should be LGPLed, as is the case with GTK+?
Ballmer's Law: "As a Slashdot discussion grows longer, the probability of a joke involving chairs approaches one."
algorythm: the funky beat to which Al Gore dances
on OS X I like Preview
Preview is good. PDFView is better.
As a scientist...... 1cm^3 of pure water doesn't weight 1g at sea level for no reason...
Are you saying that 1cm^3 of water would only "weigh" 0.9g at the top of a mountain? I don't think you're really a scientist.
When you look at stocks or funds you look at the profit to you, and often do not see or ignore the negative things that you may be contributing to.
There's an entire class of funds that solves this problem. It's called SRI: socially responsible investing. Funds in this category avoid companies involved in military weapons, gambling, tobacco, etc., and they invest more heavily in companies with good track records in dealing with the environment, fair treatment of employees, and so on. Because these funds are focused more on morals than on profit, they typically don't have returns as high as other funds, but that's a small price to pay for being a socially responsible investor.
If you're interested, start by checking out Domini and Pax World; they're two of the largest and oldest SRI funds.
What do you mean "crippleware"? Before the MacHeist started, I tried several of the programs in the bundle, and none of them is crippleware. They are time-limited (e.g., expire after 30 days), but not crippled. They include all the same features of the registered version.
Uh, Javac is not written in C++. It's written in Java. Download the source code and see for yourself. It's in the com.sun.tools.javac package.
Yes, he did actually follow his own advice, and his statement was true...this morning. I also tried it and got the same results he did. Then I tried again in the evening and got the same results you did. So something VERY strange is going on with MSN.