That's truly great advice. I'm amazed how the first answer is actually one of the few to have spent the time to give a helpful response. Unlike so many of the others stuck on the tangential "Why would Forbes write an article about this" view.
And the answer, in case anyone is wondering, is executives care about sales, visibility, etc., but they don't care about SEO techniques and web administration. This article allows them to become privy to how SEO affects them on the web - in particular, how it negatively can affect them. More broadly, they become aware that SEO techniques are not something to be taken lightly. This article, along with being an interesting read, will prove as an eye-opener for it's target audience. It's very effective and thereby important.
Disclaimer: this isn't meant to argue against your question, just that you happened to mention how this can apply to the 30+ crowd and I figured I'd say how it already has. Social communities in the professional crowd thus far are awkward at best, usually because professionals simply don't want to waste their time on a networking tool based off of a teen socializing model.
You'd be amazed how many 30+ users are on myspace. Just cause you're 30, doesn't mean you can't be involved in the service industry, the music industry, maybe joined a rollerderby league, or simply enjoy shooting the shit with old friends. Not everyone whose 30 is married with kids in the 'burbs. From friends who are posting some smack after finishing bar shifts to bands who wanna let the ol' timers in town know they're playing a gig to keeping in touch with friends who moved away, it's an extremely useful - and oftentimes hilarious - way to connect with one another.
I myself am 30, a computer scientist and single living in the city. I used to do punk shows and run a distro in college. So I mainly use it for keeping in touch with old bands I used to work with coming through and, of course, giving my friends a hard time every once in a while. It certainly doesn't suck up my time, and usually have quite a bit of fun with it.
And certainly what no one I know who's 30+ has used it for is trying to find a date. I know they're out there, but they're hardly the ones who are establishing the "community". And yes, thus far using myspace may be more of a "city thing", but it works, it's fun, and it's incredibly useful - for all kinds of things (especially for finding new bands (but that's a whole other basis for argument)).
Let's look at this for a moment... for a country with the population of Greater Chicago, they've given us one of the top film-makers of the last half-century (Ingmar Bergmann) (not to mention the actors and actressses at the top of Hollywood in the 40s and 50s), they've supplied the US with a steady stream of critically-acclaimed music the last quarter-century (from abba to roxette to the hives), and about 1/4 of all non-MS software you use probably comes from Sweden.
Albeit that's a very superficial set, and personal tastes are not at hand here, they have plenty of output for a country of their size. And if you dig into the real cultural contributions - those more under the radar which cultural trends tend to follow - Sweden stands out among a select few places which conitinue to have significant impact on the rest of the world. Germany, Chicago, New York, Brazil, and Japan are others which come to mind.
Disclaimer: I was born there and am still a citizen, but my family moved away at a very young age and I currently live in the US.
First off, I have to say that I understand your point and I know where it comes from. I do think that commonplace bookkeeping, info-browsing, office work, etc., has reached a plateau. But that still misses the main value of what a computer is for.
Simply put, it is a means to an end - a tool - and nothing more. A car? Now that does provide transportation, but it also caters to human emotion with the thrill of driving, it's used in sanctioned racing - a sport in itself - and lastly, but not least, it's regulated by the government (speed limits, for one). The computer, on the other hand, does not provide any stimulation beyond the end result (3DMark test-result posting aside), be it the app, the visualization, the created content, or what have you - it's a means to an end.
Thus, viewing it for what it is, the infinite application of the computer should become apparent. The metaphor of comparing a car's technological development in the last century to a computer's just doesn't seem to be applicable. One is regulated, the other is not. One is human-control limited, the other is machine-technology limited. One caters to human-emotions, the other does not. One provides thrills, the other other only performance. They are two completely different animals.
It is difficult to not see the computer as a tool of infinite application, if one views it from the abstractness it deserves. The same way a comp sci degree needs application in order to survive, so too must a computer. And luckily, that's where computer scientists and hobbyists refuse to to give up - they seek application constantly. The computer still has a pretty bright future for the consumer and researcher alike. If you need examples, simply read some of the other posts again.
.. will be the day i give in to that music app for the rest of my life (well, let's say works as one would expect)
I currently have over 14,000 songs in my library, and I've used every version of winamp along with the last two years of iTunes and I've yet to find one with a decent Random Number Generator. I mean, if I ave 100 songs of Pixies and I choose library->random why are 3 of the first 13 songs Pixies?
For the last five years, that's been my biggest groipe about any music app. i mean, c'mon. I've given up a lng time ago...
It's both a science and an art. Read up on RNG before you implement the most generic shuffler you can. these don't cut it. i'd rather shuffle potatoes all night. choose a random open computer on the net and extract their desktop color and use that! do something original. shuffle has been dead for a long time and it's time to revive it! (even though shuffle is noew creating a new to "look at" music.)
I agree that thought (and society) do shape language, but that does not dismiss theories such as the Sapir-Whorff Theorem (google) from having no basis. Languages do stem from need, but over time they reflect the needs of society and may influence the progression of their society. So the mirroring effect does have an influence on ones pereception of society.
it's a very sticky situation and I've always been skeptical of any study researching this theory. your point about the control always being biased is wholely true and therefore I feel they can try and try all they want, but their proof will always be flawed.
"World Domination?????"
on
Linux vs. Windows
·
· Score: 0, Redundant
That is exactly why linux will get scoffed at by any John Q Public who has at least been to Best Buy. Linux will always have a marred reputation if you guys (the Slashdot geeks) are to be it's harbingers.
I personally could care less what kind of lame comments you come up with, but if you keep at it like this... hate to break it to you - but the elitist-nerd way of thought has never and never will break the cusp of mainstream.
and I don't mean for them to be used in refereed papers, just that they should set their sites far. not just as a community data exchange full of great, useful information but no credibility.
I have to agree that this could be the weakness in the foundation.
If Wikipedia does not change their current format and add a full references and citations section to each entry, this model might never gain academic acceptance. Without that, it's just a really quick way of getting data off the web, instead of being a viable and credible source.
Since they are still in a beta stage, Wikipedia should focus on addressing any and all possible issues, and not just stick with what they got cause they're already so far into development. As in this post, they should accept all of the feedback they can and address the necessarry issues instead of painting them over with an almost-superiority complex. I don't doubt the value of their work, but I think now is when you need to spot weaknesses and fix them so they don't haunt you down the line.
The goal I would like to see is for Wikipedia to be interchangeable with any other source for a refereed paper. And to get to that stage you need to follow certain protocol. I'd hate to see them never make it that far...
It seems every single little comment to this post has been modded to a 5, and you currently have a 4. Maybe it's because it's Monday morning, or maybe it shows the lack of appreciation of true wit and originality by the moderators, but that's easily the funniest thing I've read on slashdot in months.
And for that I thank you.
Here's some advice applicable to your question unlike the other 98% of unrelated opinions already posted:
OCW will get you started on the right foot, but I would recommend finding a suitable research field to apply those skills to.
Some of the best programmers I've worked with have been in a research lab at my alma mater's comp sci dept. And several of these grad students came from a non-computer science background such as physics, chemistry, genetics, etc. Once they found an immediate application for their programming skills, their skills progressed at an amazing rate. This does not mean that all science-based individuals are good programmers, but the purpose and foundation for learning (and learning properly) is already there.
So my advice? Use the internet to start researching some of the better computer science schools research groups and see if there is anything out there you like. Conjoining your medical background with a CS focus might lead to neuro/bio/medical -informatics, or maybe computational biology. You can also go into simulation, such as scientific visualization of specific area of medical research or even go into computer graphics. There are literally thousands of specific areas to look into.
Here's on example: Sticking with the foundation learned in OCW and applying proper programming techniques (such as learned in "Effective C++" by Scott Meyers) to fields such as computer graphics can be a great way to get immersed in the field - as long as you have an end application to apply your skills. So picking up a project like applying computer graphic visualization and simulation to a medical process or generating physical-based character animation can be extremely beneficial. You'll obviously have to learn computer graphics programming somewhere along the way, but that that'll just sharpen both your math skills and visual sense, along with having another great tool under your belt.
Go research some of the current projects going on at research labs at the top computer science schools. Here are some suggestions for you to check out:
And of course not all computer science research falls under the header of the computer science department. Research medical departments doing interdisciplinary research with both engineering and computer science.
Almost all research labs have papers of their work (even their most recent) avaialble in PDF format. Download some of the earlier papers to get a feel for the research focus and try to find something that interests you. Try to implement the same techniques and algorithms using your skills. This will bea great way for you to realize what you still need to learn and get a great foundation in a new area of research.
But always keep in mind that proper programming is of utmost importance. So while your trying to leanr a new area of research by applying your skills, also focus on the studying from the better programming books out there that teach you how to become a better programmer. Go on amazon for suggestions. Start with looking up my previous suggestion and go from there.
Good luck, and sorry about all of the hundreds of wasted postings coming from IT people bitching about their lack of applicable skills.
I took a class called "Resources From Space" at University of Wisconsin, Madison, in 1998. It was taught by, among others, Harrison "Jack" Schmitt, who was the only scientist and last man on the moon (Apollo 17 - he was a geologist). He's now a fusion researcher and teaches this class along with other professors from geology, economics, physics, and nuclear engineers from the fusion technology institute at UW.
The final impression left with me from that class was that, back in 1998, if we were to start up an initiative to mine the moon we would have to raise $215 billion and not see any return until the year 2015 (our focus was on He3, but I think this'll apply to most any moon mining operation). That's essentially a 20 year investment with huge risk, so finding either public or private funding to help launch the operation was the biggest obstacle. Technology was also obviouisly an issue, but the mantra "You can always count on technology to catch up to you" was definitely enforced since most of the profs were fusion researchers.
Also, back then there was little competition in the public eye. My professors were aware that China was ahead of us in the push since they had government funding, but the competition existed only within a few small, scientific circles. No public awareness at all. We were looking at long-term energy-crisis solution, and this was a feasible answer. Our hopes may have been lofty, yet the projections realistic, at the time given the current sentiment. Currently there may be more eagerness by potential investors to get involved, but I'm unaware of a project of these proportions of both scale and risk that's been executed in the present day.
BTW, the web site for the class (last offered fall -2001) is a very thorough and exciting read (esp. the Apollo 17 space mission from the second day). It's also a great resource for questions regarding everything involved in mining the moon.
In 1998, I took a class at the University of Wisconsin called "Resources from Space", cross-listed in Nuclear Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, Physics, and Geology departments with professors from each, along with one from economics. One of the professors was Harrison "Jack" Schmidt, who was the last man on the moon (see note at end), the only scientist ever on the moon (he was a geologist at the time), and currently does fusion research at the Fusion Technology Institute at UW. The class began broadly with the big bang, then Mars, Earth and moon formations, then onto the rocket equation and space flight. But five or six weeks into it, our focus was clear. The criteria for a viable space program beyond the space station was this: It had to be technologically feasible now (or during the duration of the program). It had to generate profits (hopefully in the short-term, but more likely in the long-term). Investors had to be far-sighted (which meant most backing would come from the private sector). Finding a program which fits this criteria is difficult, to say the least. The only feasible solution our credible teaching staff focused on was this: The mining of Helium 3 in the lunar regolith (10-40+ ft. layer of debris settled on the entire surface of the moon from crater dust) for He3-He3 fusion here on Earth (which is efficient (up to +70%) and has no radioactive waste (see here)).
Basically, the given the conditions on the moon, Helium 3 gas has settled as shallow as 15 feet into the regolith making it easily available for mining. So one needs only to get there, establish a mining operation, then bring some He3 back, and set up a fusion facility to convert it. Easy. The main obstacle: In 1998, if the funding $215 billion was available, there would be no profits (or maybe it was returns, even) until the year 2015. That is long time. Plus, the adapting regulations to space (specifically, the moon) would make investors even less interested. But China has their government behind it, and that's how come they're actually taking steps to do this.
Here's some statistics (or "propoganda", if you prefer):
-Mining 40 tonnes of He3 would provide the entire U.S. electricity consumption in 2000.
-There is 10 times more energy available in Helium-3 on the moon than in all the economically recoverable coal, oil, and antuarl gases on earth.
That's it for me. Read more about it at the links provided. Good night.
NOTE: Gene Cernan, the other recon astronaut on Apollo 17, would never admit this, claiming he was the last one on the moon. This is due to him and all the other Apollo astronauts being former military pilots and would never admit to a SCIENTIST being the last man on the moon!
Slashdot Mirror
That's truly great advice. I'm amazed how the first answer is actually one of the few to have spent the time to give a helpful response. Unlike so many of the others stuck on the tangential "Why would Forbes write an article about this" view.
And the answer, in case anyone is wondering, is executives care about sales, visibility, etc., but they don't care about SEO techniques and web administration. This article allows them to become privy to how SEO affects them on the web - in particular, how it negatively can affect them. More broadly, they become aware that SEO techniques are not something to be taken lightly. This article, along with being an interesting read, will prove as an eye-opener for it's target audience. It's very effective and thereby important.
Disclaimer: this isn't meant to argue against your question, just that you happened to mention how this can apply to the 30+ crowd and I figured I'd say how it already has. Social communities in the professional crowd thus far are awkward at best, usually because professionals simply don't want to waste their time on a networking tool based off of a teen socializing model.
You'd be amazed how many 30+ users are on myspace. Just cause you're 30, doesn't mean you can't be involved in the service industry, the music industry, maybe joined a rollerderby league, or simply enjoy shooting the shit with old friends. Not everyone whose 30 is married with kids in the 'burbs. From friends who are posting some smack after finishing bar shifts to bands who wanna let the ol' timers in town know they're playing a gig to keeping in touch with friends who moved away, it's an extremely useful - and oftentimes hilarious - way to connect with one another.
I myself am 30, a computer scientist and single living in the city. I used to do punk shows and run a distro in college. So I mainly use it for keeping in touch with old bands I used to work with coming through and, of course, giving my friends a hard time every once in a while. It certainly doesn't suck up my time, and usually have quite a bit of fun with it.
And certainly what no one I know who's 30+ has used it for is trying to find a date. I know they're out there, but they're hardly the ones who are establishing the "community". And yes, thus far using myspace may be more of a "city thing", but it works, it's fun, and it's incredibly useful - for all kinds of things (especially for finding new bands (but that's a whole other basis for argument)).
Let's look at this for a moment... for a country with the population of Greater Chicago, they've given us one of the top film-makers of the last half-century (Ingmar Bergmann) (not to mention the actors and actressses at the top of Hollywood in the 40s and 50s), they've supplied the US with a steady stream of critically-acclaimed music the last quarter-century (from abba to roxette to the hives), and about 1/4 of all non-MS software you use probably comes from Sweden.
Albeit that's a very superficial set, and personal tastes are not at hand here, they have plenty of output for a country of their size. And if you dig into the real cultural contributions - those more under the radar which cultural trends tend to follow - Sweden stands out among a select few places which conitinue to have significant impact on the rest of the world. Germany, Chicago, New York, Brazil, and Japan are others which come to mind.
Disclaimer: I was born there and am still a citizen, but my family moved away at a very young age and I currently live in the US.
First off, I have to say that I understand your point and I know where it comes from. I do think that commonplace bookkeeping, info-browsing, office work, etc., has reached a plateau. But that still misses the main value of what a computer is for.
Simply put, it is a means to an end - a tool - and nothing more. A car? Now that does provide transportation, but it also caters to human emotion with the thrill of driving, it's used in sanctioned racing - a sport in itself - and lastly, but not least, it's regulated by the government (speed limits, for one). The computer, on the other hand, does not provide any stimulation beyond the end result (3DMark test-result posting aside), be it the app, the visualization, the created content, or what have you - it's a means to an end.
Thus, viewing it for what it is, the infinite application of the computer should become apparent. The metaphor of comparing a car's technological development in the last century to a computer's just doesn't seem to be applicable. One is regulated, the other is not. One is human-control limited, the other is machine-technology limited. One caters to human-emotions, the other does not. One provides thrills, the other other only performance. They are two completely different animals.
It is difficult to not see the computer as a tool of infinite application, if one views it from the abstractness it deserves. The same way a comp sci degree needs application in order to survive, so too must a computer. And luckily, that's where computer scientists and hobbyists refuse to to give up - they seek application constantly. The computer still has a pretty bright future for the consumer and researcher alike. If you need examples, simply read some of the other posts again.
30 albums??? more like 300
.5% is "very likely"/"large portion"???? where does that come from?
the sad fact is is that most PRNG are not implemented well. that's it.
.. will be the day i give in to that music app for the rest of my life (well, let's say works as one would expect) I currently have over 14,000 songs in my library, and I've used every version of winamp along with the last two years of iTunes and I've yet to find one with a decent Random Number Generator. I mean, if I ave 100 songs of Pixies and I choose library->random why are 3 of the first 13 songs Pixies? For the last five years, that's been my biggest groipe about any music app. i mean, c'mon. I've given up a lng time ago... It's both a science and an art. Read up on RNG before you implement the most generic shuffler you can. these don't cut it. i'd rather shuffle potatoes all night. choose a random open computer on the net and extract their desktop color and use that! do something original. shuffle has been dead for a long time and it's time to revive it! (even though shuffle is noew creating a new to "look at" music.)
I agree that thought (and society) do shape language, but that does not dismiss theories such as the Sapir-Whorff Theorem (google) from having no basis. Languages do stem from need, but over time they reflect the needs of society and may influence the progression of their society. So the mirroring effect does have an influence on ones pereception of society.
it's a very sticky situation and I've always been skeptical of any study researching this theory. your point about the control always being biased is wholely true and therefore I feel they can try and try all they want, but their proof will always be flawed.
That is exactly why linux will get scoffed at by any John Q Public who has at least been to Best Buy. Linux will always have a marred reputation if you guys (the Slashdot geeks) are to be it's harbingers.
I personally could care less what kind of lame comments you come up with, but if you keep at it like this... hate to break it to you - but the elitist-nerd way of thought has never and never will break the cusp of mainstream.
good luck with your plans...
and I don't mean for them to be used in refereed papers, just that they should set their sites far. not just as a community data exchange full of great, useful information but no credibility.
I have to agree that this could be the weakness in the foundation.
If Wikipedia does not change their current format and add a full references and citations section to each entry, this model might never gain academic acceptance. Without that, it's just a really quick way of getting data off the web, instead of being a viable and credible source.
Since they are still in a beta stage, Wikipedia should focus on addressing any and all possible issues, and not just stick with what they got cause they're already so far into development. As in this post, they should accept all of the feedback they can and address the necessarry issues instead of painting them over with an almost-superiority complex. I don't doubt the value of their work, but I think now is when you need to spot weaknesses and fix them so they don't haunt you down the line.
The goal I would like to see is for Wikipedia to be interchangeable with any other source for a refereed paper. And to get to that stage you need to follow certain protocol. I'd hate to see them never make it that far...
It seems every single little comment to this post has been modded to a 5, and you currently have a 4. Maybe it's because it's Monday morning, or maybe it shows the lack of appreciation of true wit and originality by the moderators, but that's easily the funniest thing I've read on slashdot in months. And for that I thank you.
Here's some advice applicable to your question unlike the other 98% of unrelated opinions already posted:
OCW will get you started on the right foot, but I would recommend finding a suitable research field to apply those skills to.
Some of the best programmers I've worked with have been in a research lab at my alma mater's comp sci dept. And several of these grad students came from a non-computer science background such as physics, chemistry, genetics, etc. Once they found an immediate application for their programming skills, their skills progressed at an amazing rate. This does not mean that all science-based individuals are good programmers, but the purpose and foundation for learning (and learning properly) is already there.
So my advice? Use the internet to start researching some of the better computer science schools research groups and see if there is anything out there you like. Conjoining your medical background with a CS focus might lead to neuro/bio/medical -informatics, or maybe computational biology. You can also go into simulation, such as scientific visualization of specific area of medical research or even go into computer graphics. There are literally thousands of specific areas to look into.
Here's on example: Sticking with the foundation learned in OCW and applying proper programming techniques (such as learned in "Effective C++" by Scott Meyers) to fields such as computer graphics can be a great way to get immersed in the field - as long as you have an end application to apply your skills. So picking up a project like applying computer graphic visualization and simulation to a medical process or generating physical-based character animation can be extremely beneficial. You'll obviously have to learn computer graphics programming somewhere along the way, but that that'll just sharpen both your math skills and visual sense, along with having another great tool under your belt.
Go research some of the current projects going on at research labs at the top computer science schools. Here are some suggestions for you to check out:
browncarnegie mellon
berkeley
wisconsin
north carolina
stanford
And of course not all computer science research falls under the header of the computer science department. Research medical departments doing interdisciplinary research with both engineering and computer science.
Almost all research labs have papers of their work (even their most recent) avaialble in PDF format. Download some of the earlier papers to get a feel for the research focus and try to find something that interests you. Try to implement the same techniques and algorithms using your skills. This will bea great way for you to realize what you still need to learn and get a great foundation in a new area of research.
But always keep in mind that proper programming is of utmost importance. So while your trying to leanr a new area of research by applying your skills, also focus on the studying from the better programming books out there that teach you how to become a better programmer. Go on amazon for suggestions. Start with looking up my previous suggestion and go from there.
Good luck, and sorry about all of the hundreds of wasted postings coming from IT people bitching about their lack of applicable skills.
Martin
I took a class called "Resources From Space" at University of Wisconsin, Madison, in 1998. It was taught by, among others, Harrison "Jack" Schmitt, who was the only scientist and last man on the moon (Apollo 17 - he was a geologist). He's now a fusion researcher and teaches this class along with other professors from geology, economics, physics, and nuclear engineers from the fusion technology institute at UW.
The final impression left with me from that class was that, back in 1998, if we were to start up an initiative to mine the moon we would have to raise $215 billion and not see any return until the year 2015 (our focus was on He3, but I think this'll apply to most any moon mining operation). That's essentially a 20 year investment with huge risk, so finding either public or private funding to help launch the operation was the biggest obstacle. Technology was also obviouisly an issue, but the mantra "You can always count on technology to catch up to you" was definitely enforced since most of the profs were fusion researchers.
Also, back then there was little competition in the public eye. My professors were aware that China was ahead of us in the push since they had government funding, but the competition existed only within a few small, scientific circles. No public awareness at all. We were looking at long-term energy-crisis solution, and this was a feasible answer. Our hopes may have been lofty, yet the projections realistic, at the time given the current sentiment. Currently there may be more eagerness by potential investors to get involved, but I'm unaware of a project of these proportions of both scale and risk that's been executed in the present day.
BTW, the web site for the class (last offered fall -2001) is a very thorough and exciting read (esp. the Apollo 17 space mission from the second day). It's also a great resource for questions regarding everything involved in mining the moon.
In 1998, I took a class at the University of Wisconsin called "Resources from Space", cross-listed in Nuclear Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, Physics, and Geology departments with professors from each, along with one from economics. One of the professors was Harrison "Jack" Schmidt, who was the last man on the moon (see note at end), the only scientist ever on the moon (he was a geologist at the time), and currently does fusion research at the Fusion Technology Institute at UW. The class began broadly with the big bang, then Mars, Earth and moon formations, then onto the rocket equation and space flight. But five or six weeks into it, our focus was clear. The criteria for a viable space program beyond the space station was this: It had to be technologically feasible now (or during the duration of the program). It had to generate profits (hopefully in the short-term, but more likely in the long-term). Investors had to be far-sighted (which meant most backing would come from the private sector). Finding a program which fits this criteria is difficult, to say the least. The only feasible solution our credible teaching staff focused on was this: The mining of Helium 3 in the lunar regolith (10-40+ ft. layer of debris settled on the entire surface of the moon from crater dust) for He3-He3 fusion here on Earth (which is efficient (up to +70%) and has no radioactive waste (see here)).
Basically, the given the conditions on the moon, Helium 3 gas has settled as shallow as 15 feet into the regolith making it easily available for mining. So one needs only to get there, establish a mining operation, then bring some He3 back, and set up a fusion facility to convert it. Easy. The main obstacle: In 1998, if the funding $215 billion was available, there would be no profits (or maybe it was returns, even) until the year 2015. That is long time. Plus, the adapting regulations to space (specifically, the moon) would make investors even less interested. But China has their government behind it, and that's how come they're actually taking steps to do this. Here's some statistics (or "propoganda", if you prefer):
-Mining 40 tonnes of He3 would provide the entire U.S. electricity consumption in 2000.
-There is 10 times more energy available in Helium-3 on the moon than in all the economically recoverable coal, oil, and antuarl gases on earth.
That's it for me. Read more about it at the links provided. Good night.
NOTE: Gene Cernan, the other recon astronaut on Apollo 17, would never admit this, claiming he was the last one on the moon. This is due to him and all the other Apollo astronauts being former military pilots and would never admit to a SCIENTIST being the last man on the moon!