I agree. Only nerds are entitled to call nerds nerds. Next time he has his computer devirused he might find a few key files corrupted.
More seriously, I sent in a letter to a local newspaper a few years ago criticizing them for constantly referring to software developers as nerds, like it was some terribly witty and original joke. I asked them if it was also their practise to refer to lawyers as shysters.
The letter never got printed. On the other hand, their use of the term "nerd" seemed to stop after that.
It would be interesting to analyze the retail price
of gasoline versus the spot market price for gasoline or oil.
Does the retail price react quicker to increases or decreases in wholesale prices?
Someone must have done this. Wouldn't be difficult, since the information
is easy to come by. Such a study might support or dispell the constant paranoia over gasoline prices.
It certainly accelerates the process (at the expense of the retailers), but it
can't prevent it entirely. Economies are massive things with huge momentum - pricing can't turn on a dime, much less a loonie.
It takes months - even years - for price changes to move through the system. The goods that retailers are selling you now may have been bought by them a year ago. Many Canadian manufacturers have long-term contracts - priced in loonies - for basic feedstock.
Food and electronic goods from the U.S. should, of course, reduce in price quicker, but it can still take many months.
Universities are pumping out PhD's at a prodigious rate. As a manager of R&D, I've interviewed and hired more than my share. Virtually all say they want to do research.
Here's my problem. Only a fraction (I'm guessing 1 out of 5) are actually capable of doing good research. The rest are competent employees for developing other people's research into useful products, but aren't terribly original thinkers, nor show a lot of initiative, nor show the rigour and clarity of thought one wants to see in a researcher.
Frankly, when I "unleash" employees on open-ended problems without much guidance, the majority soon begin to flounder.
There is nothing wrong with getting advanced degrees, but many then feel they are obliged to do original research when in fact they really aren't up to it. This may be one reason why the quality of papers isn't where it should be.
But if doctors won't take a stand against quackery, who will? Why should the general public believe in evidence-based medicine when the practitioners themselves appear uncommitted?
I think doctors as a whole owe society a little more than just showing up for work. They need to be leaders.
Gullibility is not wisdom. To quote, "one should be open minded, but not so open minded that one's brains fall out."
We have something called the scientific method. It helps us differentiate what might be true from what is rubbish. For medicine it involves double-blind tests, peer review, proper stastistical analysis (defined before, not after, the experiment begins), and a host of other techniques. Homeopathy does not hold up when subjected such scientific investigation.
Conventional medicine is not perfect, nor is the pursuit of the truth, but by being so open minded that even obvious nonsense is not criticized we risk losing everything.
I am amazed at how tolerant doctors are of alternative medicines. Years ago I had a letter published in the local newspaper where I protested their gullible coverage of an obviously bogus medical claim. I was surprized that my letter was the only one that appeared. This was in a big city - where were the letters from the medical doctors?
Why do so few doctors speak out? Where is their courage? Where is their integrity?
Some day we may have a public who is completely unable to differentiate between true medical doctors practising evidence-based medicine, and a vast array of charlatans and witch doctors, and the doctors will wonder what happened.
Your tepid and spineless response to alternative medicine is what happened.
Exploration geophysics has published hundreds of papers on this topic, both for finite difference and Kirchhoff (ray tracing) methods. They refer to running the wave equation backwards in time as "migration". It corrects for the fact that seismic waves are recorded
at the surface, and not at the geological reflectors. The velocity typically varies continuously, as you would expect within the earth.
I was surprized at how little negative reaction my post generated. It suggests that in slashdot, at least, atheism is either common or strongly tolerated.
The Catholic Church was also, at one time, a "ruthless criminal organization." Or at least that's how I would describe an organization that used to torture and kill those who refused to join it.
I suspect most religions appeared pretty ludicrous early on. Only with the patina of age did they gain respectability.
If the tale of Jonah isn't literally true, what else in the Bible isn't true?
Perhaps someone could go through with a yellow highlighter and mark off those parts I should believe, and those parts I can dismiss as mythology. Given that the world's largest religion is based on it, I think knowing which bits are true would be rather important.
My point being that if the Bible is the infallible word of God then there is no room to pick and choose. If the tale of Jonah is a myth then the gospels are suspect as well.
I have no such problem with The Iliad because no one is basing a religion on it. It's just a rip-roaring action adventure and the truth of it matters little.
Most examples of the former were created with the best of intentions.
I accept your point about scientology, but how do you know that
traditional religions were created with the best of intentions?
How do you know that Christ or Mohammad were not con men of
the first caliber, the Hubbards of their age?
And at any rate, what does it matter? If one accepts that knowing the truth
is a good thing, belief in an absurd mythology is bad no matter where it came from.
That's the thing isn't it? Scientology is bizarre and ridiculous, and yet how can one criticize it without casting doubt on all religions? How can one say that stories about volcanoes, space ships, and H bombs are silly, but being swallowed by a fish and then regurgitated after 3 days is not?
Scientology serves as the "Reductio ad absurdum" for all religion. This may explain why so many feel so uncomfortable about it.
Researchers have usually spent many years in university, and that's how they often relate to the world - the mere generation of good ideas is sufficient and praise worthy.
And the very next sentence I say...
In a business setting it doesn't work that way.
What nonsense about getting access to customers. I've done it many times. It usually involves working with marketing, who often are delighted to have closer ties with researchers. So long as what you are doing is reasonable, few managers are going to object.
Most researchers have considerable freedom in how they do their job - it comes with being a researcher - but many of them fail to excercise it. Blaming management for everything is just tiresome.
When it comes to talking to fellow employees, no "normal channel of communcations" is usually necessary. When it comes to the customer, of course you go through the normal channels of communication. So what? A researcher talking to the final end users is not going to create a rent in space-time.
...you think writing a thesis only involves thinking up an idea and not doing anything to implement tells me how deep your experience really is in research and development.
Never said it and don't believe it. In fact, I say the opposite. Haven't a clue where you misread that.
And I have over 25 years experience in commercial R&D, thanks. Let's debate the topic, and keep the personal attacks down to a dull roar.
Slashdot Mirror
Good point. Only so much you can do with styrofoam and a can of spray paint.
I've used lots of software that was arrogant and clueless. Hell, I've written software that was arrogant and clueless.
I agree. Only nerds are entitled to call nerds nerds. Next time he has his computer devirused he might find a few key files corrupted.
More seriously, I sent in a letter to a local newspaper a few years ago criticizing them for constantly referring to software developers as nerds, like it was some terribly witty and original joke. I asked them if it was also their practise to refer to lawyers as shysters.
The letter never got printed. On the other hand, their use of the term "nerd" seemed to stop after that.
It would be interesting to analyze the retail price of gasoline versus the spot market price for gasoline or oil. Does the retail price react quicker to increases or decreases in wholesale prices?
Someone must have done this. Wouldn't be difficult, since the information is easy to come by. Such a study might support or dispell the constant paranoia over gasoline prices.
It certainly accelerates the process (at the expense of the retailers), but it can't prevent it entirely. Economies are massive things with huge momentum - pricing can't turn on a dime, much less a loonie.
I thinks Americans would oppose it. They wouldn't take to seeing the Queen on their currency, never mind a beaver on their nickels.
It takes months - even years - for price changes to move through the system. The goods that retailers are selling you now may have been bought by them a year ago. Many Canadian manufacturers have long-term contracts - priced in loonies - for basic feedstock.
Food and electronic goods from the U.S. should, of course, reduce in price quicker, but it can still take many months.
Universities are pumping out PhD's at a prodigious rate. As a manager of R&D, I've interviewed and hired more than my share. Virtually all say they want to do research.
Here's my problem. Only a fraction (I'm guessing 1 out of 5) are actually capable of doing good research. The rest are competent employees for developing other people's research into useful products, but aren't terribly original thinkers, nor show a lot of initiative, nor show the rigour and clarity of thought one wants to see in a researcher.
Frankly, when I "unleash" employees on open-ended problems without much guidance, the majority soon begin to flounder.
There is nothing wrong with getting advanced degrees, but many then feel they are obliged to do original research when in fact they really aren't up to it. This may be one reason why the quality of papers isn't where it should be.
Perhaps other reasons:
But if doctors won't take a stand against quackery, who will? Why should the general public believe in evidence-based medicine when the practitioners themselves appear uncommitted?
I think doctors as a whole owe society a little more than just showing up for work. They need to be leaders.
Gullibility is not wisdom. To quote, "one should be open minded, but not so open minded that one's brains fall out."
We have something called the scientific method. It helps us differentiate what might be true from what is rubbish. For medicine it involves double-blind tests, peer review, proper stastistical analysis (defined before, not after, the experiment begins), and a host of other techniques. Homeopathy does not hold up when subjected such scientific investigation.
Conventional medicine is not perfect, nor is the pursuit of the truth, but by being so open minded that even obvious nonsense is not criticized we risk losing everything.
I am amazed at how tolerant doctors are of alternative medicines. Years ago I had a letter published in the local newspaper where I protested their gullible coverage of an obviously bogus medical claim. I was surprized that my letter was the only one that appeared. This was in a big city - where were the letters from the medical doctors?
Why do so few doctors speak out? Where is their courage? Where is their integrity?
Some day we may have a public who is completely unable to differentiate between true medical doctors practising evidence-based medicine, and a vast array of charlatans and witch doctors, and the doctors will wonder what happened.
Your tepid and spineless response to alternative medicine is what happened.
Exploration geophysics has published hundreds of papers on this topic, both for finite difference and Kirchhoff (ray tracing) methods. They refer to running the wave equation backwards in time as "migration". It corrects for the fact that seismic waves are recorded at the surface, and not at the geological reflectors. The velocity typically varies continuously, as you would expect within the earth.
Search for "wave equation" or "finite difference" here at the search site of the Society of Exploration Geophysics.
I was surprized at how little negative reaction my post generated. It suggests that in slashdot, at least, atheism is either common or strongly tolerated.
The Catholic Church was also, at one time, a "ruthless criminal organization." Or at least that's how I would describe an organization that used to torture and kill those who refused to join it.
I suspect most religions appeared pretty ludicrous early on. Only with the patina of age did they gain respectability.
If the tale of Jonah isn't literally true, what else in the Bible isn't true? Perhaps someone could go through with a yellow highlighter and mark off those parts I should believe, and those parts I can dismiss as mythology. Given that the world's largest religion is based on it, I think knowing which bits are true would be rather important.
My point being that if the Bible is the infallible word of God then there is no room to pick and choose. If the tale of Jonah is a myth then the gospels are suspect as well.
I have no such problem with The Iliad because no one is basing a religion on it. It's just a rip-roaring action adventure and the truth of it matters little.
And at any rate, what does it matter? If one accepts that knowing the truth is a good thing, belief in an absurd mythology is bad no matter where it came from.
I'm going to hell for these postings, aren't I?
That's the thing isn't it? Scientology is bizarre and ridiculous, and yet how can one criticize it without casting doubt on all religions? How can one say that stories about volcanoes, space ships, and H bombs are silly, but being swallowed by a fish and then regurgitated after 3 days is not?
Scientology serves as the "Reductio ad absurdum" for all religion. This may explain why so many feel so uncomfortable about it.
Taking credit has nothing to do with it. Learning how the business works has everything to do with it.
You've assumed that because I said researchers must take more responsibility, that others can shirk theirs. I never said that.
What nonsense about getting access to customers. I've done it many times. It usually involves working with marketing, who often are delighted to have closer ties with researchers. So long as what you are doing is reasonable, few managers are going to object.
Most researchers have considerable freedom in how they do their job - it comes with being a researcher - but many of them fail to excercise it. Blaming management for everything is just tiresome.
Never said it and don't believe it. In fact, I say the opposite. Haven't a clue where you misread that.
And I have over 25 years experience in commercial R&D, thanks. Let's debate the topic, and keep the personal attacks down to a dull roar.