When they start complaining about so-and-so at work is so difficult to work with, they don't want you to start asking questions and trying to figure out how they can work together better. They just want you to say, "they are just a bad person, I mean everybody else loves working with you."
That's a perfect example of the intellectual laziness I was refering to.
I honestly think you're missing the point. I am making a value judgment here. It may well be that scientists have discovered more women than men engage in bullshit, pointless discussions. I don't care. I am saying one is better than the other. Lucid, explicit, honest, problem-solving conversation is better than unfocused, implicit requests for validation, and furthermore is the mark of a mature intellect.
Garbage. It's lazy/mentally underdeveloped folk who talk just to hear themselves talk, to "clear the air" and have things "on the table" (as you put it). Intelligent people much prefer looking for concrete solutions.
Don't turn it into a gender issue. It's not. It has to do with maturity.
You're missing the point. The article refers precisely to those who do just fine under real life circumstances, but falter under testing circumstances for whatever psychological reasons. It calls into question the relevance of testing as an indicator to how one will perform in "real life". In your terms, the doctor who flunks the MCAT may in fact be brilliant when confronted with real patients, because the degree of scrutiny is not as extreme.
You do want to live in a world in which Linux is dominant, because that means you live in a world where OPEN STANDARDS are dominant. In that world you, or anyone else, are perfectly free to write your own OS, your own office suite, your own games, etc and have them play nice with everyone else. Linux dominance leads to freedom of information.
This is in stark contrast with the Microsoft monopoly we enjoy today, where people have to hack and reverse engineer all sorts of shite just to be able to interoperate with the rest of the world.
The correct way to think of Linux is as a placeholder for freedom of information. Although many people say they want Linux to take over the world I think their actual desire is for openness in computing. If all the games out there, for instance, ran on Linux I couldn't care less that it had only a 5% market share.
But you know as well as I do that if I am successful then inevitably some kid in his parents' basement will write his own Open Source version of the thing, for free.
Here's the problem I have with this statement. From a market standpoint, if your work can so readily be replicated by a kid in his parents' basement, by definition it doesn't have very much economic value.
I think people need to realize that software as a product, a general application useful to a large number of people, has a relatively low economic value. Writing software in your parents' basement is orders of magnitude easier than producing your own hardware DVD player, and the same goes for most other consumer products.
Expecting to make money off software products is simply unrealistic. While most people who pay for Windows now don't realize this, I think the F/OSS movement will change that.
Re:Lamest Slashdot article in a long time...
on
Is Math A Sport?
·
· Score: 1
Ha, you think the brain doesn't expend any energy when focusing on a tough question for several hours continuosly? I remember going to math competitions throughout school (with uniformly unimpressive results) and coming home absolutely EXHAUSTED.
It's the ubber tweakers who have nothing better to do than play with their computers who leave so many dark marks on the Linux community landscape.
I'm one of those tweakers that you mention. Yes, I get an incredible kick out of examining/tweaking the innards of Linux. BUT, I'm also accomodating towards my friends who just want to use it. To be fair, the former doesn't always exclude the latter.
I run Linux, Panther, and Windows. It's far easier to connect Linux and OSX to a Windows environment than the other way around.
Hell, sometimes I have trouble getting Windows computers to connect to other Windows computers. Windows boxen arbitrarily disappear from workgroups, etc.
If you don't mind 10-15 minutes worth of manual labor you can slap
one of these on and leave the fan unplugged. I've done it and it works just fine. Although mine isn't AIW and you may have trouble fitting the heatsink around the TV tuner.
Y'all bring up an interesting point in Microsoft using Firefox source code for the Longhorn version of IE. And yes, it would be pretty cool if Microsoft did that, PROVIDED they honor the GPL and release their source. I, for one, am doubtful.
I would have thought this a valid point had I not run into the same problem with Windows 2000 (I don't know how well XP handles this). Long story short I changed the monitor on a computer with win2k on it and the "new" monitor wasn't able to handle the resolution refresh rate combo. The screen was blank and the LED flashing.
Luckily I had VNC set up on that comp so I could change the resolution that way. Alternatively I think I could've pressed F8 during windows start up to bring it up in safe mode, I'm not sure.
The point is, not even Windows 2000 offers a simple way out of your problem. All in all I think ctrl-alt-f1 in linux or vnc/f8 in wi2k adds up to the same level of obscurity when it comes to the "masses" you apeak of.
Or you could install Gentoo, Debian, LFS, etc. Just a few of the distros out there that make a point of not cluttering your computer with stuff you don't need/want.
I don't think I implied that relevant is equivalent to life-changing, as I don't consider that to be the case. My point was simply that progress is driven by a relatively small number of researchers while many sit on the sidelines doing a lot of hand wringing, playing the game as it were. "Publish or perish" goes the saying which I'm sure you're very familliar with if you're in an academic setting. Few can keep up with that break neck pace and still produce worthwhile papers. Many will simply use obtuse language to mask their inability to advance the status quo.
And you're certainly right, the ratio of productive to non-productive researchers may very well vary across different fields. I'm speaking from the point of view of experimental physics. The high ratio of non-productive people here I think is due to it being over-crowded and having a high entry threshold in terms of knowledge and ability.
My previous post was overly aggressive, true.
quoting the parent: Hopefully if you are in science, you are doing what you do for reasons other than financial gain. Ideally, one should be doing what they are doing in science to make a difference .
Since you are in science, presumably, you should also realize that most of the people practicing it are full of shit. Wrapping unoriginal ideas in obtuse language hoping to baffle enough people as dumb as they are into gaining status inside their little stagnant and mostly irrelevant community.
Really, the whole enterprise is driven by an exceedingly small number of VERY bright people who can not only produce new ideas but also sift through and tolerate the massive amounts of garbage that surround them.
The problem comes down to the fact that half-smart individuals are just as bad as total morons when it comes to impeding progress. You could even argue they're worse.
So please, let's not romanticize the scientific community.
AFAIK HardOCP's article is a great little example of investigative journalism that dares to go a little deeper under the surface. This is pretty atypical given your average pseudo-tech articles with which we're being bombarded these days. Can you say Tom's? I knew you could. They just won themselves a regular reader. (ok, maybe for this week)
Let's overlook the unnecessary appeal to emotions in your posting (comparing abortion to the holocaust?) and analyze your argument.
The first interesting thing is that you recognize that human beings in fetal form are not quite the same thing as developed human beings (the line between the two is admittedly blurry). Where you make your mistake is on drawing an equivalence between the two based on the fact that the fetus MIGHT develop into a human being. And here's the error: there are other things which could lead to the formation of a human being (with about the same probability) which you wouldn't even dream of outlawing (or comparing to slavery). If you see an ovulating woman walking down the street, is it a crime not to have sex with her? If you had sperm in one hand and an egg in the other should you be legally and morally OBLIGATED to try to fuse them?
There are many circumstances which could lead to the creation of a human being, which you wouldn't even dream of deeming morally or legally wrong. Aborting a fetus at an early stage, if you think about it carefully, is no different from them.
Well, not really. A $500 PC might be decent for surfing the web and such but a top of the line machine to drool over (dual Opterons) is, in fact, holding steady at $5000. And while you may get by with the cheap box YOU WANT the expensive one, come out of the closet and admit it.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a perfect example of the intellectual laziness I was refering to.
I honestly think you're missing the point. I am making a value judgment here. It may well be that scientists have discovered more women than men engage in bullshit, pointless discussions. I don't care. I am saying one is better than the other. Lucid, explicit, honest, problem-solving conversation is better than unfocused, implicit requests for validation, and furthermore is the mark of a mature intellect.
Garbage. It's lazy/mentally underdeveloped folk who talk just to hear themselves talk, to "clear the air" and have things "on the table" (as you put it). Intelligent people much prefer looking for concrete solutions.
Don't turn it into a gender issue. It's not. It has to do with maturity.
You're missing the point. The article refers precisely to those who do just fine under real life circumstances, but falter under testing circumstances for whatever psychological reasons. It calls into question the relevance of testing as an indicator to how one will perform in "real life".
In your terms, the doctor who flunks the MCAT may in fact be brilliant when confronted with real patients, because the degree of scrutiny is not as extreme.
You do want to live in a world in which Linux is dominant, because that means you live in a world where OPEN STANDARDS are dominant. In that world you, or anyone else, are perfectly free to write your own OS, your own office suite, your own games, etc and have them play nice with everyone else. Linux dominance leads to freedom of information.
This is in stark contrast with the Microsoft monopoly we enjoy today, where people have to hack and reverse engineer all sorts of shite just to be able to interoperate with the rest of the world.
The correct way to think of Linux is as a placeholder for freedom of information. Although many people say they want Linux to take over the world I think their actual desire is for openness in computing. If all the games out there, for instance, ran on Linux I couldn't care less that it had only a 5% market share.
I think people need to realize that software as a product, a general application useful to a large number of people, has a relatively low economic value. Writing software in your parents' basement is orders of magnitude easier than producing your own hardware DVD player, and the same goes for most other consumer products.
Expecting to make money off software products is simply unrealistic. While most people who pay for Windows now don't realize this, I think the F/OSS movement will change that.
Ha, you think the brain doesn't expend any energy when focusing on a tough question for several hours continuosly? I remember going to math competitions throughout school (with uniformly unimpressive results) and coming home absolutely EXHAUSTED.
What's scary is that that's actually plausible.
Hell, sometimes I have trouble getting Windows computers to connect to other Windows computers. Windows boxen arbitrarily disappear from workgroups, etc.
If you don't mind 10-15 minutes worth of manual labor you can slap one of these on and leave the fan unplugged. I've done it and it works just fine. Although mine isn't AIW and you may have trouble fitting the heatsink around the TV tuner.
Y'all bring up an interesting point in Microsoft using Firefox source code for the Longhorn version of IE. And yes, it would be pretty cool if Microsoft did that, PROVIDED they honor the GPL and release their source.
I, for one, am doubtful.
I would have thought this a valid point had I not run into the same problem with Windows 2000 (I don't know how well XP handles this). Long story short I changed the monitor on a computer with win2k on it and the "new" monitor wasn't able to handle the resolution refresh rate combo. The screen was blank and the LED flashing.
Luckily I had VNC set up on that comp so I could change the resolution that way. Alternatively I think I could've pressed F8 during windows start up to bring it up in safe mode, I'm not sure. The point is, not even Windows 2000 offers a simple way out of your problem. All in all I think ctrl-alt-f1 in linux or vnc/f8 in wi2k adds up to the same level of obscurity when it comes to the "masses" you apeak of.
Or you could install Gentoo, Debian, LFS, etc. Just a few of the distros out there that make a point of not cluttering your computer with stuff you don't need/want.
I don't think I implied that relevant is equivalent to life-changing, as I don't consider that to be the case. My point was simply that progress is driven by a relatively small number of researchers while many sit on the sidelines doing a lot of hand wringing, playing the game as it were. "Publish or perish" goes the saying which I'm sure you're very familliar with if you're in an academic setting. Few can keep up with that break neck pace and still produce worthwhile papers. Many will simply use obtuse language to mask their inability to advance the status quo. And you're certainly right, the ratio of productive to non-productive researchers may very well vary across different fields. I'm speaking from the point of view of experimental physics. The high ratio of non-productive people here I think is due to it being over-crowded and having a high entry threshold in terms of knowledge and ability. My previous post was overly aggressive, true.
quoting the parent: Hopefully if you are in science, you are doing what you do for reasons other than financial gain. Ideally, one should be doing what they are doing in science to make a difference . Since you are in science, presumably, you should also realize that most of the people practicing it are full of shit. Wrapping unoriginal ideas in obtuse language hoping to baffle enough people as dumb as they are into gaining status inside their little stagnant and mostly irrelevant community. Really, the whole enterprise is driven by an exceedingly small number of VERY bright people who can not only produce new ideas but also sift through and tolerate the massive amounts of garbage that surround them. The problem comes down to the fact that half-smart individuals are just as bad as total morons when it comes to impeding progress. You could even argue they're worse. So please, let's not romanticize the scientific community.
AFAIK HardOCP's article is a great little example of investigative journalism that dares to go a little deeper under the surface. This is pretty atypical given your average pseudo-tech articles with which we're being bombarded these days. Can you say Tom's? I knew you could. They just won themselves a regular reader. (ok, maybe for this week)
Make that "best viewed with any STANDARDS COMPLIANT browser".
Let's overlook the unnecessary appeal to emotions in your posting (comparing abortion to the holocaust?) and analyze your argument. The first interesting thing is that you recognize that human beings in fetal form are not quite the same thing as developed human beings (the line between the two is admittedly blurry). Where you make your mistake is on drawing an equivalence between the two based on the fact that the fetus MIGHT develop into a human being. And here's the error: there are other things which could lead to the formation of a human being (with about the same probability) which you wouldn't even dream of outlawing (or comparing to slavery). If you see an ovulating woman walking down the street, is it a crime not to have sex with her? If you had sperm in one hand and an egg in the other should you be legally and morally OBLIGATED to try to fuse them? There are many circumstances which could lead to the creation of a human being, which you wouldn't even dream of deeming morally or legally wrong. Aborting a fetus at an early stage, if you think about it carefully, is no different from them.
Well, not really. A $500 PC might be decent for surfing the web and such but a top of the line machine to drool over (dual Opterons) is, in fact, holding steady at $5000. And while you may get by with the cheap box YOU WANT the expensive one, come out of the closet and admit it.