Google's research is rather limited in that they primarily (solely?) deal with information theory,
While hopefully not coming across as being pedantic because I'm sure you meant to say Computer Science or something, I should say that Google Labs is most likely not doing any research in Information Theory. I seriously doubt they looking for mathematical limits on compression, encryption, or error control coding in communication systems. Their work is probably just industrial research into software run on distributed computing platforms, and of course research into linguistics and search algorithms with obvious implications on their core product. I would not be surprised if the only theoretical work they are doing is limited to the field of distributed computing, machine learning, and computer algorithms. Maybe someone can back (or refute) my claim with a search on Google Scholar for publications by Google employees?
Writing it twice in this manner is still _far_ quicker than writing it in C or C++ the first time. Ignore the slashdotters who think MATLAB is bad because it's proprietary - I can assure you that they've never used it in a production environment, and don't understand that time == money.
I have to agree with this statement. Of course, it all depends on the kind of math you are doing. In general, MATLAB is better for prototyping new math-intensive algorithms (e.g. matrix math) and it might make sense to have a high-level prototype for your application/logic written in MATLAB first. Once the idea has been properly simulated, then you can go and design everything in an performance optimized language like C/C++.
That's why their works live on when those of thousands of Aristotles fade into obcsurity.
You, sir, are either a troll or otherwise exceedingly brain deficient. Aristotle and Plato are two of the major founding fathers of Western thought. You are probably the kind of ignoramus who insults Islamic thinking, Islamic countries and other non-Western cultures, but every time you do so you have only Socrates, Plato and Aristotle to thank for that fact that you live a different life. Of course, this is not something you would know reading computer manuals and hacking your Xbox all day, right? So go back to your small world and don't talk about things you don't understand.
There are priests who have done science too (maybe even scientists who became priests:)
Take for example, Lemaitre who is credited with proposing the none too unsignificant Big Bang theory. He was a Belgian Roman Catholic priest. He convinced Hubble and Einstein of the expanding universe model using Hubble's experimental work and Einstein's theories.
Jokingly, I would say the Pope advised Hawking not to study the origin of the universe because the Vatican wanted to beat him to publishing the first paper:)
And pardon the apostrophes for 'blog' and 'podcast' -- it's just that I hate both terms and resist allowing them into my personal dictionary. Now get off my lawn.
Personally, I love the terms. I think it's a sign that the outrageous cyberpunk literature of the early 1980's wasn't so outrageous after all. I mean if you think about it, the Internet, particularly the Web, really is allowing people to talk to more people than they could without this technology. Words like 'blog', 'podcast' just go to show that seemingly inaccessible tools (try explaining to someone in the 50's how one can go about broadcasting to the entire world from one's living room) have really become available to the 'layman'.
There are quite a few people out there - not just representatives of the telecommunications industry - under the impression that "Government Intervention Is Bad", hence we should all oppose network neutrality legislation.
Whoever these people are, they clearly don't understand one of the main tenets of the civilized world they exist in. Their world is only civilized because the government intervenes. Otherwise, there would be havoc. In other words, just by living in society and accepting its laws, everyone but criminals implicitly accepts that government intervention is not bad if taken as a whole (with all its internal checks and balances).
If you consider that San Francisco consists of millions of people... is 18 really a lot? I mean sure, stolen property it stolen property, but the figures sound rather minute.
Spoken like a true American. I think if anything this level of apathy about crime in the States is more than half the problem.
The real question in determining whether an addiction exists is not how much time the person spends on the activity, but rather what happens to the person when they cannot for whatever reason do that activity (say by unexpected circumstance).
Also, I'm pretty sure there isn't much pressure to succeed in Poor Random East African Village. In America (and Japan), success is more readily available, and thus the pressure to achieve it is higher because you look incompetent if you don't succeed.
Hence, the reason why, if for no other good reason (charity), all Westerners should at least step foot once in a Third World country before even trying to argue that "life here sucks!"
I guess with RIM being Canadian and all, you could say that NTP really did "look under the RIM to WIN!" (don't try to understand this if you aren't Canadian:)
Wikipedia needs moderation. Perhaps Slashdot-like moderation. I am all for having a freely edited encyclopedia; I am even all for contributions being shown immediately without editorial oversight, but it's just downright ridiculous that their Anonymous Cowards have just as much power as their excelent-karma'ed, long-time contributors/editors.
I think that's a terrible idea. Slashdot moderation is great for Slashdot where majority/popular vote says who counts and who doesn't. I've seen way too many cases where radical ideas or against-the-norm thinking (like anything seemingly religious or anti-technology) gets marked flamebait or overrated. That's fine for something like Slashdot where no ones comes here to learn anything... just read and discuss the news with a beer in hand. When it comes to something both Wiki and encyclopedic like Wiki-pedia, strict moderation of comments is ridiculous because it sacrifices the Wiki- aspect for the -pedia. In the end, we'll end up with a glorified Britannica with all the same issues of Britannica with a helluva lot more complaining.
Time for a little more metaphysical etymology. . .
"Gates" - Not quite the same as a door; doors can be opened and closed by regular individuals. A gate implies a door which is watched and controlled by somebody else, one which is designed to limit and control the flow of that which enters and exits. Bill exerts control over the flow of information.
"Jobs" - Tasks which need doing. Steve follows the work toward his peculiar vision, and then does it, no matter how ludicrous it may appear.
Where can the rest of us get the crack you've been smoking?
Remember, Jobs was huge before he was torn down as being a has-been, before being built up again to who he is now. His legend will fade... We like to tear down our heroes.
Oh boo hoo hoo... To be blunt, most of our business "heroes" don't give a shit about the common man (i.e. most of us on Slashdot) saying their legend has faded when they still have several billions in their bank account. That goes to show that Jobs really had his head on straight after his first go with Apple in the 80's and 90's.
Jobs is just fortunate to be in one of the few niches where the generalization fails.
You make it sound like it is just a fluke that Jobs is doing what he's doing right now. Everything that Jobs has done seem to point to the idea that Job knows very well what he is good at and, unlike other businessmen less smart or smarter than him, focuses his attention at only things he wants to be focused on. Witness the way upon returning to the company, he ditched some of Apple's product lines and there way no indication he was doing this based on anything but the fact that he felt those products were distracting the company away from what it does best.
I completely disagree with the sentiment that Google is 'being evil' by agreeing to censor search results in accordance with Chinese law. Google's job is not to legislate or protest political issues. Their job is to provide search results to those who need them.
Yeah, that's right. "Do no evil" has gotta be the Google motto for US-only customers. I'll let you decide what their motto is for China. It goes to show how what's good and true can slowly become not so anymore, and what should be worldwide corporate values are not so worldwide when it comes to the bottom line.
Also, I say consider this - and this is for all you guys out there who said Google is and will not be like all the others - a company wants to be popular. In the States, it happens to be it's popular to "Do no evil" to the customer, and it's taken hundreds of years of capitalist business to for this to become to big fad for corporate America who's watching Google single-handedly controlling the Internet search industry. But in China, it's not yet a popular idea for businesses to do no harm to their customers, so Google is not bothering with what could be costly "fad" over there.
ID and Creationist theories began because people were curious. I don't know how its failure proves that God doesn't exist. And by the way, if you think people doesn't need to know all this (complexity) and they should be taught junk to make their life simple, it is YOU who think they are stupid
Actually, I don't think they are stupid any more than I don't think you are stupid for not knowing anything outside of the realm of what you have experienced, seen or have been taught. The other reason I don't think they are stupid is because you can only be reasonably expected to learn what they can in their short life span. This is also the same reason why we shouldn't be so quick to put so much faith in the completeness of knowledge that has only been accumulated in the past couple of millenia which happens to only be a brief second in a day in the life of the universe.
But I don't blame you for not understanding this, because research into how the mind works is actually quite limited. But, the idea that human beings are supposed to be 100% logical and infallible and will one day understand everything thus completing the mission that atheistic scientists would have you believe... actually has no basis in science at all.
I believe this realm of science is referred to as "psychology". Not even close? Hrm that might be going to far. While I agree that it isn't always 100% right, I would say that it is right more often than not!
From your reply, I can tell that you read and understood my point. Some of the other posters were quick to label my post as one by a religious fanatic. Actually, I didn't say this out right in the post but I am scientist/engineer by trade and have studied many years in the field, and have attained a certain level of success. I think you will find that you are quite mistaken in saying that psychology is more right than not. Actually, modern psychology has become a societal "fix" for the problem of people who cannot make their lives work on their own. Unfortunately, very few studies have been done on the success of psychology in resolving these problems, but the recent trend toward medication as a quick fix is one of the flaws of applying incomplete science to human beings - it's almost as if we are using each other as guinea pigs and the results are not good. Without wanting to cause a flame war, I would suggest that there are other ways that these problems can be dealt with. The arrogance of the scientific/psychological community, who might be looked up as putting too much faith in their own incomplete knowledge, may be blinding themselves to the obvious and dangerous flaws in doing so.
Sorry, I chose you as the victim for this, it's nothing personal I promise!
So, you feel that your greater "wisdom" gives you the right to label a majority of the rest of the world as idiots because they believe in ID or creationism. Note, how I use the word believe here because that's exactly all it is. I find the problem with scientists, mathematicians, engineers, etc. these days is that we seem to believe that everyone in this world "needs" to use the rather incomplete tools of absolute rationality and logic when facing life's deeper questions. I'm sorry but these tools are greatly at a loss for explaining much of what is required to explaining how people behave, how they think and how they should live. Science does not have the answers for any of these and unfortunately is not even close.
Also, the problem with people like you is that you think that everyone in the world needs to know that evolution makes more sense from a scientific perspective than ID/creationism. That's where you are wrong. How many people do you think really understand the idea of special relativity. Don't you think it'd be equally important for people to realize that the clocks they use to make daily life possible aren't really perfect for synchronization and time isn't really what we intuitively believe it is? Hell NO, why? because it won't make a damned difference to them and to life on this planet? are these people idiots?? No! They are you're average person... who can reasonably be go through life without knowledge of these things and should not be labelled idiots. The real fools are the ones who can't see this.
I've heard people say, "Well, spelling and grammar shouldn't matter. It's the idea that's important." To them, I say, "f you can't grasp the basics of language, why should I pay attention?"
Take care when you communicate in writing. Use punctuation, capitalization, and real words. Acronyms should be reserved for organizations and industry terms.
Perhaps I shouldn't be arguing against you, but I think I want to raise a valid point. I think you're going to find that many people agree with you, but few people will heed your advice. I think the simple reason, the one that seems to evade those who tirelessly criticize others who do not use proper spelling and grammar in everything they write online is that the Internet was not designed to be a library or a newspaper. It was just designed as a way of communicating ideas between people. There is no bar to membership (you can be young or old, rich or poor) so anyone and everyone is allowed to participate. Now, to be blunt, I think a great many of us would much rather hear the opinions of a street-smart 10-year-old kid who can't spell but has some in depth knowledge of a subject than an overbearing, pedantic 45-year-old English teacher who claims what he says is valuable because he can tell his 'nose' from his 'knows'. That's why people like you and I have to take it easy when we criticize people online, perhaps turning away the decent bunch of "semi-literates" who might learn not by being criticized, but enjoying the ease of reading something that's written well.
The second one really is a key one - you want Slashdot to be a pub, etc... etc... The community wants a source of quality news.
Try next door at ZDnet or News.Com. If Taco wants it to be a pub, it is a pub. Please don't get the idea that Slashdot is trying to serve some greater purpose for humanity a la Wikipedia. Slashdot is like a pub that's open 24 hours a day with an eclectic group of patrons. It's incredibly useful as it is, but demands that everyone who shows up takes what they hear with a grain of salt. All the better if you show up to share a few laughs with your buddies.
Actually, in my opinion, Wikipedia quest to be the source for factual information will always be at odds with its design (i.e. it will never succeed at being anything but a big bulletin board (mind you, a very useful bulletin board) to get some quick info on a topic (info that is by no means guaranteed credible). That's why, with Taco's leadership, Slashdot appears to not suffer from the identity crisis plaguing the Wales' Wiki projects.
A lot of people seem to have misunderstood completely what's going on here. BellSouth realizes that the end-users (through ISP's) are paying for the use of their network. However, they are realizing they also have a potential market at the supplier side, by charging companies to get better "pipes" installed so the experience is better on the end-user side. Another way to look at this is as a network "subsidy" charged to the content supplier so that a site like CNN.com is more responsive than say BBC.com. This might first come off as illegal, but it's not really when you think about the cable TV channels are supported by both subscribers and advertisers (probably more money generated through advertisers). No one seems to have a legal problem with being flooded with advertisements during Desperate Housewives (arguably wrecking the end-user experience), but all of a sudden people are complaining that charging content suppliers is wrong (for improving the end-user experience).
to all those people insulting him for supporting charities with donations larger than anyone else can on Earth today.
When you get to be as rich as he is, perhaps you see the world from a different perspective than you do sitting in front of your tv with a bag of popcorn and a beer.
If the local news outlet prints personal information, you have every right to stop speaking to them also. No one is taking that right away from you.
But that is the problem with what Google did in this case. Google is a corporation. Put another way, it is an organization that takes the form of a citizen of society. It should NOT be acting on behalf of any single person within the organization. In fact, as a publicly-traded company, Google has the responsibility to act on behalf of all its shareholders in the interests of the company and not in the interests of Eric Schmidt.
Pure and simple, this was an ill-advised move for Google that is and will continue to come back to haunt them.
Slashdot Mirror
Google's research is rather limited in that they primarily (solely?) deal with information theory,
While hopefully not coming across as being pedantic because I'm sure you meant to say Computer Science or something, I should say that Google Labs is most likely not doing any research in Information Theory. I seriously doubt they looking for mathematical limits on compression, encryption, or error control coding in communication systems. Their work is probably just industrial research into software run on distributed computing platforms, and of course research into linguistics and search algorithms with obvious implications on their core product. I would not be surprised if the only theoretical work they are doing is limited to the field of distributed computing, machine learning, and computer algorithms. Maybe someone can back (or refute) my claim with a search on Google Scholar for publications by Google employees?
Writing it twice in this manner is still _far_ quicker than writing it in C or C++ the first time. Ignore the slashdotters who think MATLAB is bad because it's proprietary - I can assure you that they've never used it in a production environment, and don't understand that time == money.
I have to agree with this statement. Of course, it all depends on the kind of math you are doing. In general, MATLAB is better for prototyping new math-intensive algorithms (e.g. matrix math) and it might make sense to have a high-level prototype for your application/logic written in MATLAB first. Once the idea has been properly simulated, then you can go and design everything in an performance optimized language like C/C++.
You, sir, are either a troll or otherwise exceedingly brain deficient. Aristotle and Plato are two of the major founding fathers of Western thought. You are probably the kind of ignoramus who insults Islamic thinking, Islamic countries and other non-Western cultures, but every time you do so you have only Socrates, Plato and Aristotle to thank for that fact that you live a different life. Of course, this is not something you would know reading computer manuals and hacking your Xbox all day, right? So go back to your small world and don't talk about things you don't understand.
There are priests who have done science too (maybe even scientists who became priests :)
:)
Take for example, Lemaitre who is credited with proposing the none too unsignificant Big Bang theory. He was a Belgian Roman Catholic priest. He convinced Hubble and Einstein of the expanding universe model using Hubble's experimental work and Einstein's theories.
Jokingly, I would say the Pope advised Hawking not to study the origin of the universe because the Vatican wanted to beat him to publishing the first paper
And pardon the apostrophes for 'blog' and 'podcast' -- it's just that I hate both terms and resist allowing them into my personal dictionary. Now get off my lawn.
Personally, I love the terms. I think it's a sign that the outrageous cyberpunk literature of the early 1980's wasn't so outrageous after all. I mean if you think about it, the Internet, particularly the Web, really is allowing people to talk to more people than they could without this technology. Words like 'blog', 'podcast' just go to show that seemingly inaccessible tools (try explaining to someone in the 50's how one can go about broadcasting to the entire world from one's living room) have really become available to the 'layman'.
There are quite a few people out there - not just representatives of the telecommunications industry - under the impression that "Government Intervention Is Bad", hence we should all oppose network neutrality legislation.
Whoever these people are, they clearly don't understand one of the main tenets of the civilized world they exist in. Their world is only civilized because the government intervenes. Otherwise, there would be havoc. In other words, just by living in society and accepting its laws, everyone but criminals implicitly accepts that government intervention is not bad if taken as a whole (with all its internal checks and balances).
If you consider that San Francisco consists of millions of people... is 18 really a lot? I mean sure, stolen property it stolen property, but the figures sound rather minute.
Spoken like a true American. I think if anything this level of apathy about crime in the States is more than half the problem.
The real question in determining whether an addiction exists is not how much time the person spends on the activity, but rather what happens to the person when they cannot for whatever reason do that activity (say by unexpected circumstance).
Also, I'm pretty sure there isn't much pressure to succeed in Poor Random East African Village. In America (and Japan), success is more readily available, and thus the pressure to achieve it is higher because you look incompetent if you don't succeed.
Hence, the reason why, if for no other good reason (charity), all Westerners should at least step foot once in a Third World country before even trying to argue that "life here sucks!"
I guess with RIM being Canadian and all, you could say that NTP really did "look under the RIM to WIN!" (don't try to understand this if you aren't Canadian :)
I think that's a terrible idea. Slashdot moderation is great for Slashdot where majority/popular vote says who counts and who doesn't. I've seen way too many cases where radical ideas or against-the-norm thinking (like anything seemingly religious or anti-technology) gets marked flamebait or overrated. That's fine for something like Slashdot where no ones comes here to learn anything... just read and discuss the news with a beer in hand. When it comes to something both Wiki and encyclopedic like Wiki-pedia, strict moderation of comments is ridiculous because it sacrifices the Wiki- aspect for the -pedia. In the end, we'll end up with a glorified Britannica with all the same issues of Britannica with a helluva lot more complaining.
Where can the rest of us get the crack you've been smoking?
Oh boo hoo hoo... To be blunt, most of our business "heroes" don't give a shit about the common man (i.e. most of us on Slashdot) saying their legend has faded when they still have several billions in their bank account. That goes to show that Jobs really had his head on straight after his first go with Apple in the 80's and 90's.
You make it sound like it is just a fluke that Jobs is doing what he's doing right now. Everything that Jobs has done seem to point to the idea that Job knows very well what he is good at and, unlike other businessmen less smart or smarter than him, focuses his attention at only things he wants to be focused on. Witness the way upon returning to the company, he ditched some of Apple's product lines and there way no indication he was doing this based on anything but the fact that he felt those products were distracting the company away from what it does best.
Yeah, that's right. "Do no evil" has gotta be the Google motto for US-only customers. I'll let you decide what their motto is for China. It goes to show how what's good and true can slowly become not so anymore, and what should be worldwide corporate values are not so worldwide when it comes to the bottom line. Also, I say consider this - and this is for all you guys out there who said Google is and will not be like all the others - a company wants to be popular. In the States, it happens to be it's popular to "Do no evil" to the customer, and it's taken hundreds of years of capitalist business to for this to become to big fad for corporate America who's watching Google single-handedly controlling the Internet search industry. But in China, it's not yet a popular idea for businesses to do no harm to their customers, so Google is not bothering with what could be costly "fad" over there.
Actually, I don't think they are stupid any more than I don't think you are stupid for not knowing anything outside of the realm of what you have experienced, seen or have been taught. The other reason I don't think they are stupid is because you can only be reasonably expected to learn what they can in their short life span. This is also the same reason why we shouldn't be so quick to put so much faith in the completeness of knowledge that has only been accumulated in the past couple of millenia which happens to only be a brief second in a day in the life of the universe. But I don't blame you for not understanding this, because research into how the mind works is actually quite limited. But, the idea that human beings are supposed to be 100% logical and infallible and will one day understand everything thus completing the mission that atheistic scientists would have you believe... actually has no basis in science at all.
From your reply, I can tell that you read and understood my point. Some of the other posters were quick to label my post as one by a religious fanatic. Actually, I didn't say this out right in the post but I am scientist/engineer by trade and have studied many years in the field, and have attained a certain level of success. I think you will find that you are quite mistaken in saying that psychology is more right than not. Actually, modern psychology has become a societal "fix" for the problem of people who cannot make their lives work on their own. Unfortunately, very few studies have been done on the success of psychology in resolving these problems, but the recent trend toward medication as a quick fix is one of the flaws of applying incomplete science to human beings - it's almost as if we are using each other as guinea pigs and the results are not good. Without wanting to cause a flame war, I would suggest that there are other ways that these problems can be dealt with. The arrogance of the scientific/psychological community, who might be looked up as putting too much faith in their own incomplete knowledge, may be blinding themselves to the obvious and dangerous flaws in doing so.
Sorry, I chose you as the victim for this, it's nothing personal I promise!
So, you feel that your greater "wisdom" gives you the right to label a majority of the rest of the world as idiots because they believe in ID or creationism. Note, how I use the word believe here because that's exactly all it is. I find the problem with scientists, mathematicians, engineers, etc. these days is that we seem to believe that everyone in this world "needs" to use the rather incomplete tools of absolute rationality and logic when facing life's deeper questions. I'm sorry but these tools are greatly at a loss for explaining much of what is required to explaining how people behave, how they think and how they should live. Science does not have the answers for any of these and unfortunately is not even close.
Also, the problem with people like you is that you think that everyone in the world needs to know that evolution makes more sense from a scientific perspective than ID/creationism. That's where you are wrong. How many people do you think really understand the idea of special relativity. Don't you think it'd be equally important for people to realize that the clocks they use to make daily life possible aren't really perfect for synchronization and time isn't really what we intuitively believe it is? Hell NO, why? because it won't make a damned difference to them and to life on this planet? are these people idiots?? No! They are you're average person... who can reasonably be go through life without knowledge of these things and should not be labelled idiots. The real fools are the ones who can't see this.
Take care when you communicate in writing. Use punctuation, capitalization, and real words. Acronyms should be reserved for organizations and industry terms.
Perhaps I shouldn't be arguing against you, but I think I want to raise a valid point. I think you're going to find that many people agree with you, but few people will heed your advice. I think the simple reason, the one that seems to evade those who tirelessly criticize others who do not use proper spelling and grammar in everything they write online is that the Internet was not designed to be a library or a newspaper. It was just designed as a way of communicating ideas between people. There is no bar to membership (you can be young or old, rich or poor) so anyone and everyone is allowed to participate. Now, to be blunt, I think a great many of us would much rather hear the opinions of a street-smart 10-year-old kid who can't spell but has some in depth knowledge of a subject than an overbearing, pedantic 45-year-old English teacher who claims what he says is valuable because he can tell his 'nose' from his 'knows'. That's why people like you and I have to take it easy when we criticize people online, perhaps turning away the decent bunch of "semi-literates" who might learn not by being criticized, but enjoying the ease of reading something that's written well.
Try next door at ZDnet or News.Com. If Taco wants it to be a pub, it is a pub. Please don't get the idea that Slashdot is trying to serve some greater purpose for humanity a la Wikipedia. Slashdot is like a pub that's open 24 hours a day with an eclectic group of patrons. It's incredibly useful as it is, but demands that everyone who shows up takes what they hear with a grain of salt. All the better if you show up to share a few laughs with your buddies.
Actually, in my opinion, Wikipedia quest to be the source for factual information will always be at odds with its design (i.e. it will never succeed at being anything but a big bulletin board (mind you, a very useful bulletin board) to get some quick info on a topic (info that is by no means guaranteed credible). That's why, with Taco's leadership, Slashdot appears to not suffer from the identity crisis plaguing the Wales' Wiki projects.
A lot of people seem to have misunderstood completely what's going on here. BellSouth realizes that the end-users (through ISP's) are paying for the use of their network. However, they are realizing they also have a potential market at the supplier side, by charging companies to get better "pipes" installed so the experience is better on the end-user side. Another way to look at this is as a network "subsidy" charged to the content supplier so that a site like CNN.com is more responsive than say BBC.com. This might first come off as illegal, but it's not really when you think about the cable TV channels are supported by both subscribers and advertisers (probably more money generated through advertisers). No one seems to have a legal problem with being flooded with advertisements during Desperate Housewives (arguably wrecking the end-user experience), but all of a sudden people are complaining that charging content suppliers is wrong (for improving the end-user experience).
to all those people insulting him for supporting charities with donations larger than anyone else can on Earth today.
When you get to be as rich as he is, perhaps you see the world from a different perspective than you do sitting in front of your tv with a bag of popcorn and a beer.
I think he should be OK with this step seeing as he's just learned to make decisions without thinking. *ducks*
Pure and simple, this was an ill-advised move for Google that is and will continue to come back to haunt them.
Andrew Wiles in 1995. Very interesting, dramatic story.